Following the October 25, 2026 electoral defeat of Aleksandar Vučić’s ruling coalition, Serbia offers significant lessons for citizens confronting competitive authoritarianism. In an interview with the ECPS, Associate Professor Jelena Lončar of the University of Belgrade examines how student-led protests evolved into nationwide democratic mobilization through nonviolent resistance, cross-class solidarity, decentralized organization, and grassroots election monitoring. She argues that positive messaging, sustained civic engagement, and direct contact with citizens helped overcome authoritarian strategies of protest containment. Yet she cautions that Serbia’s experience cannot simply be replicated elsewhere, given differences in repression and institutional conditions. Ultimately, democratic consolidation requires independent institutions, political pluralism, and continued public scrutiny beyond electoral victory.
Interview by Selcuk Gultasli
Serbia has entered a potentially transformative political moment. What began as student-led protests following the November 2024 Novi Sad railway-station tragedy evolved into a nationwide movement against corruption, institutional capture, and authoritarian governance, culminating in the October 25, 2026 electoral defeat of Aleksandar Vučić’s autocratic ruling coalition. Yet translating electoral victory into democratic consolidation remains a formidable challenge.
In an in-depth interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Associate Professor Jelena Lončar of the Faculty of Political Science at the University of Belgrade examines how sustained civic mobilization, nonviolent resistance, and grassroots electoral oversight challenged entrenched authoritarian power—and what citizens confronting similar regimes elsewhere might learn from Serbia’s experience. As she emphasizes, “Citizens in other competitive authoritarian regimes could learn a great deal from the student movement.” The most transferable lessons, she argues, include “positive messaging, clear demands, sustained activity across the country, mobilization across social groups, and a commitment to nonviolence.”
For Assoc. Prof. Lončar, Serbia’s experience underscores the democratic potential of political participation beyond established parties and electoral institutions. Neighborhood assemblies, nationwide marches, student blockades, and citizen-led election monitoring helped transform political disillusionment into collective agency. As she observes, “The student movement succeeded in waking citizens up and encouraging them to take responsibility for their communities.”Crucially, these practices challenged not only the ruling coalition but also the political passivity on which authoritarian resilience often depends.
Drawing on her scholarship on competitive authoritarianism, political representation, and the performative dimensions of power, Assoc. Prof. Lončar highlights the significance of solidarity networks and sustained mobilization. “This combination of sustained mobilization and extensive election monitoring helped turn public dissatisfaction into an electoral challenge,” she explains. Yet she cautions against treating Serbia as a universally transferable model: more closed autocracies present different institutional constraints, opportunities for electoral competition, and levels of repression.
The interview also explores the unfinished challenges of democratic transition, including institutional capture, minority representation, gender equality, nationalism, and Serbia’s geopolitical orientation. Assoc. Prof. Lončar warns that replacing incumbents cannot automatically dismantle clientelistic networks or guarantee institutional accountability. As she stresses, “Continued public scrutiny will therefore be essential.”
Serbia’s experience raises a broader comparative question: Can movements that successfully mobilize against authoritarianism translate their moral authority into durable democratic institutions without reproducing the concentration of power they opposed? Assoc. Prof. Lončar’s analysis suggests that the decisive test lies not simply in electoral victory but in institutional pluralism, sustained civic engagement, and the peaceful transfer of power.
