Image source: Wikimedia commons
During a recent visit to Belgrade, including participation in an EFDS network meeting on democratic developments in the Western Balkans, the contrast between formal political analysis and the lived reality on the ground was impossible to ignore. Inside a hotel conference room, participants discussed Serbia’s ongoing democratic backsliding in abstract terms. Outside, however, the city itself revealed how deeply this decline is shaping everyday life.
That reality became especially clear through a simple conversation with a taxi driver, but it was soon reinforced by events that followed: deeply contested local elections marked by intimidation and irregularities, and growing pressure on journalists, opposition politicians, and civil society actors who continue to defend democratic norms. Together, these experiences underscored why solidarity cannot be expressed from a distance. In Serbia today, democratic values are not only debated, they are actively contested, and support must be present where they are under the most direct threat.
A City That Speaks Plainly
While the erosion of Serbia’s democracy was discussed, citizens across Belgrade were navigating the consequences in their everyday lives. The taxi driver’s perspective was emblematic of this. As he drove past the Serbian Parliament, he offered an impromptu ‘anti-democracy tour’ of the city.
He pointed to the grounds in front of the National Assembly, a space that in recent months has been home to a pro-government encampment dubbed ‘Ćaciland’. The location has become a focal point of confrontation: a place where citizens have frequently gathered to demonstrate for transparency, accountability, and a functioning democracy. He also showed us the building off which the sound cannon was launched to disperse protesters.
“People want democracy,” the driver explained. “They want transparency. They want officials who are qualified”. His words reflected a sentiment heard across the city: a mixture of frustration with those in power and determination among citizens who feel their democratic rights are being curtailed.
He explained how Vučić’s government has been able to stay in power because of those who chose to stay neutral, but now he knows that everyone will go out to vote. The way he spoke about the future of Serbia was filled with hope and trust in his fellow Serbs to choose democratic values.
His comments underscored a deeper truth and were sobering. Discussions about democratic decay can easily become abstract. But for Serbian citizens, this is not theory, it is lived experience.
Elections that reveal the depth of the crisis
A few days later, local elections were held in several municipalities, and they demonstrated exactly why this solidarity is urgently needed. Reports gathered by civil society organisations, independent observers, and citizens described an electoral environment shaped by intimidation, procedural irregularities, and behaviours that severely undermined the credibility of the process.
In Mionica, Sečanj, and Negotin, multiple observation missions documented incidents that pointed to deep structural concerns. In some municipalities, the situation deteriorated to such an extent that entire observer teams withdrew for safety reasons, something that has rarely occurred since Serbia’s democratic transition in 2000.
In Mionica, observers and citizens reported the presence of groups of men dressed in near-uniform black clothing, moving in coordinated clusters around polling stations. Their behaviour, verbal harassment, pressure on movement, and attempts to obstruct observers, created an atmosphere in which voters felt unsafe exercising their democratic rights. Many accounts noted that police officers stood by silently, refraining from intervening even when intimidation occurred visibly in front of them.
Sečanj showed a different but equally serious pattern. Concerns arose not only about behaviour on election day but also about the legality of the procedures that led to the elections being called. Irregularities in official documentation, including retroactive dating and unclear administrative decisions, raised questions about whether the local process complied with basic legal standards.
Meanwhile in Negotin, activists and journalists reported physical attacks, the theft of phones and cameras, and attempts to obstruct the recording of events. Reports also described vehicles without licence plates transporting voters to polling stations, as well as suspicions of parallel voter lists being used outside official structures.
Taken together, these incidents reflect a wider environment in which intimidation, manipulation, and weakened institutional safeguards have become normalised features of elections. Civil society organisations concluded that under such conditions, the results could not credibly reflect the free will of the citizens.
Escalating Pressure on Democratic Actors
These electoral events unfolded within a broader context of growing political tension. In recent weeks, several opposition MPs, including members of the Green-Left Front (ZLF), that has faced sustained harassment, received explicit threats, including death threats. Female MPs reported gender-based intimidation, while clashes near the Parliament building demonstrated how physical coercion has seeped into spaces that should be protected as democratic arenas.
Independent media have also faced intensifying pressure. Journalists from several outlets reported threats, incidents of physical harassment, and coordinated online attacks. Some were blocked from covering official events without explanation. The rising number of threats documented against independent newsrooms contributes to an information climate in which critical reporting becomes increasingly dangerous.
Institutional actors meanwhile have raised alarms about increasing political influence. Statements from the organised crime prosecutor’s office warned of pressure on prosecutorial decision-making, while irregular administrative practices in some municipalities indicated a weakening of transparency and rule of law safeguards. Together, these developments highlight the fragility of Serbia’s institutional architecture at a time when democratic resilience is most needed.
This institutional weakening also carries significant implications for Serbia’s EU accession process. Progress in areas such as judicial independence, rule of law, and electoral integrity remains essential to the accession framework. When these areas experience regression, the credibility of the process is threatened unless it is accompanied by clear expectations and sustained engagement.
Why European Engagement Matters Now
The combination of electoral intimidation, political threats, institutional pressure, and media vulnerability presents a deeply concerning picture. Serbia is facing not a temporary democratic setback but a systemic challenge that demands urgency and clarity from European partners.
What is needed is reinforced international monitoring, consistent public messaging on violence against democratic actors, and stronger support for civil society organisations operating under pressure. It is equally important that the EU maintain clear links between accession progress and measurable improvements in democratic safeguards. Such an approach does not constitute interference; it reflects a commitment to the standards Serbia itself has pledged to uphold.
At a more fundamental level, Serbian citizens need reassurance that Europe stands with them. The aspirations expressed quietly by many Belgrade residents, including the taxi driver who summarised the moment so candidly, reflect a desire for institutions that function responsibly, leaders who are accountable, and elections that reflect genuine choice.
Democratic principles are only meaningful when grounded in practice. They must be defended where they are most vulnerable. Serbia today is one such place, and European solidarity should be directed where democratic resilience still exists, in the determination of citizens, journalists, activists, and local actors who continue to stand for democratic values despite increasing pressure.
A democratic future for Serbia remains possible, but it requires engagement that matches the urgency of the situation. Solidarity must not be remote; it must be present on the ground, where it is needed most.
