The International Institute for Middle East and Balkan Studies (IFIMES)[1], based in Ljubljana, Slovenia, regularly monitors and conducts analyses of developments across the Middle East, the Balkans and beyond. This IFIMES analysis focuses on the situation in the Republic of Serbia in the aftermath of the commemoration marking the anniversary of the canopy collapse at Novi Sad railway station — an incident that sparked student protests and blockades nationwide — and places it within the broader context of the European Commission’s latest Progress Report on candidate countries. The analysis entitled “Serbia 2025: Restoring political stability” presents the most relevant and compelling findings, offering insights into Serbia’s current challenges, prospects for political stabilisation and the strengthening of democracy, its European path and efforts to improve citizens’ quality of life.
The political, social and institutional turmoil that followed the collapse of the canopy at Novi Sad railway station on 1 November 2024 is symptomatic of deeper dynamics within Serbian society. This event is not an isolated incident, but rather a manifestation of a structural crisis of trust in institutions, the political system and the media. This crisis can only be fully understood against the backdrop of Serbia’s long-term transformation challenges that Serbia has faced since 2000.
Across the public sphere, citizens’ call for a “normal life” – one marked by stability, predictability, fairness and functioning institutions – has become increasingly dominant. This demand, which transcends ideological and party divides, has emerged as a key political resource, yet also as a challenge for the government, the opposition and Serbia’s international partners. It reflects a profound social need for institutional responsibility and political stability.
The International Institute IFIMES emphasises that violence must have no place in Serbia. Any attempt to bring about political change through street action, physical clashes or pressure on institutions poses a direct threat to democracy and the rule of law.
Only institutions, dialogue and free elections can serve as a legitimate framework for political change and the expression of citizens’ will. Restoring trust in these mechanisms remains the cornerstone of Serbia’s stability and progress in the coming period.
The collapse of the canopy in Novi Sad stands as a symbol of systemic weaknesses and a lack of accountability within the chain of decision-making and institutional control. This tragic event profoundly affected the public and exposed the poor coordination between political structures, institutions and professional services.
The political response to such circumstances must be thorough, systemic and transparent. It should not be reduced to individual dismissals, but rather entail a redefinition of the relationship between politics, institutions and citizens. Serbia needs to establish a policy of accountability grounded in transparency, the professionalisation of public administration and the depoliticisation of public investment oversight. Only institutional renewal can prevent the politicisation of tragedies and the exploitation of public sentiment for political ends.
Although the protests were initially portrayed as a spontaneous student reaction to the tragic event, it soon became evident that they went beyond student demands and were part of a broader, pre-planned political mobilisation. The collapse of the canopy merely served as a trigger for scenarios aimed at creating an institutional crisis, undermining the constitutional order and attempting to overthrow President Aleksandar Vučić (SNS) outside democratic procedures.
Over the past year, parts of the public and certain media outlets have engaged in the dehumanisation of President Vučić, where legitimate political criticism often turns into systematic demonisation. Such practices deepen social polarisation, erode institutions and suppress reasoned political dialogue. Instead of discussions on reforms, the rule of law and public policy, the public sphere is increasingly becoming an arena of personal attacks, discreditation and emotional manipulation, further undermining citizens’ trust in democratic processes.
The protests did not serve to improve the position of students; their underlying objective was the political overthrow of the government outside the constitutional framework. Such actions not only destabilise the state but also seriously undermine the constitutional order and deepen social divisions. The institutions must respond prudently, through systemic and transparent measures, to restore stability, public trust and the effective functioning of the state order.
The political response to these events must be well-considered and institutionally grounded – not through selective reactions or individual dismissals, but through a comprehensive reform of the relationship between politics and institutions, with particular emphasis on accountability, transparency and integrity.
The International Institute IFIMES underlines that the responsibility of the Prosecutor’s Office is crucial in shedding light on the events and the organisation of the protests. Citizens expect the full truth to be established – who was behind the logistics, financing and political guidance that led to the violence and blockades.
There are indications that the so-called “deep state” may be obstructing a full investigation and that parallel power structures within institutions could be preventing the truth from being established in order to protect their own interests and links with external actors.
This dilemma confirms the need for institutional integrity and an independent judiciary. Building such integrity must become a national priority rather than an ad hoc response to individual crises.
Strengthening independent institutions – such as the State Audit Institution, the Anti-Corruption Agency and the judicial authorities – is a prerequisite for restoring citizens’ trust, reviving institutional culture and establishing a sustainable policy of accountability.
Serbia finds itself in a complex geopolitical position – at the crossroads of major power interests and within a region that is undergoing a redefinition of its security architecture. While the European Union focuses on institutional reforms and normative standards, Russia and China are increasingly leveraging economic, infrastructural and energy projects as instruments of soft power and long-term political influence in the region.
The issue of the Petroleum Industry of Serbia (NIS) and its relations with Russian partners requires a strategic rather than a political solution. This can be achieved through mutually beneficial models of management, investment and modernisation, while preserving Serbia’s energy sovereignty and national interests. What is needed is not pressure or politicisation, but a carefully calibrated balance between economic interests and geopolitical realities, underpinned by an even-handed approach to partners from both East and West.
In this context, Serbia’s ability to balance between East and West remains a key instrument of its foreign policy. In the period ahead, Serbia is expected to maintain its policy of military neutrality, amid increasing pressure from international actors to more clearly define and consolidate its strategic course towards the European Union.
According to the latest projections by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Serbia has recorded the most stable macroeconomic indicators in the region. Sustainable economic growth, a stable dinar exchange rate and fiscal discipline demonstrate the resilience of Serbia’s economy and the effectiveness of its macroeconomic policy. In September 2025, the Ministry of Finance announced that the public debt-to-GDP ratio had fallen to 43%. In October 2024, S&P Global Ratings upgraded Serbia’s credit rating to “BBB-” with a stable outlook, making the country an investment-grade state for the first time and opening up additional opportunities for financing and capital inflows. The IMF’s[2] 2025 report notes that “since last year, Serbia has held its first investment-grade rating.”
These results clearly show that attempts to destabilise Serbia are motivated not by economic, but primarily by political factors. The main risks stem from potential political isolation should Serbia fail to engage actively in emerging forms of regional cooperation.
Projects such as EXPO 2027, the Open Balkan initiative and the development of new infrastructure corridors serve as key platforms for positioning Serbia as a driver of stability, regional connectivity and development – rather than conflict and division.
Serbia’s information space remains deeply polarised and marked by significant media fragmentation. Traditional outlets, social networks and alternative information platforms often operate within parallel narratives, shaping perceptions of reality according to political, ideological or commercial interests.
The growing influence of social networks, coupled with the spread of disinformation, fake news and sensationalist reporting, seriously undermines the quality of public discourse and hampers reasoned debate on key social and political issues. In such an environment, public opinion becomes susceptible to manipulation, while evidence-based dialogue and professional journalism continue to lose both space and influence.
Without free, independent and professional media, there can be no democratic consensus, sustainable dialogue or citizens’ trust in institutions. The media landscape in Serbia faces numerous challenges: concentrated ownership, political pressures, self-censorship and the lack of financial sustainability of independent newsrooms.
Given these challenges, building social resilience becomes crucial. It can be achieved through strengthening citizens’ media literacy – particularly among young people – providing institutional support for independent and investigative media, restoring professional and ethical standards in journalism, and ensuring transparency in media financing and ownership structures.
The media should not be used as an instrument of political struggle but a channel of information, education and public accountability. Their role is to unite society rather than divide it, to serve the public rather than centres of power.
Only through the pluralism of media sources, institutional protection of journalists and the active media culture of citizens is it possible to build a resilient, informed and democratic society in which truth and responsibility become the foundation of political and social stability.
Economic stability remains the foundation of Serbia’s political stability and social resilience. Although the country continues to record GDP growth and maintain macroeconomic stability, social disparities and regional development imbalances are becoming increasingly visible. Of particular concern are youth unemployment, depopulation and the emigration of skilled professionals, all of which pose long-term risks to Serbia’s demographic and economic potential.
Addressing these challenges requires a strategy of inclusive economic development that promotes growth while reducing social inequality. The key components of such a strategy include: targeted investment in education and vocational training to prepare young people for the labour market of the future and reduce unemployment among the highly educated; the digitalisation of public and private services to boost productivity, innovation and ensure more efficient resource management; the development of sustainable and energy-efficient infrastructure to promote energy sovereignty, reduce regional disparities and create new jobs; and the strategic development of the country’s southeastern and border regions to curb internal migration, prevent emigration and strengthen the integration of marginalised regions into central economic flows.
Furthermore, it is essential to encourage local development initiatives and public–private partnerships capable of unlocking local potential, fostering innovation and enhancing economic inclusiveness.
Social cohesion and economic resilience are closely interconnected: only balanced development that reduces regional and social disparities can secure Serbia’s stability and long-term sustainability. The economy should therefore serve not merely as an instrument of growth, but as a cornerstone of social harmony, equal opportunity and a sustainable future for all citizens.
Although Serbia remains firmly committed to its European path, the fact that no negotiation cluster has been opened for more than three and a half years – a period coinciding with the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – has created the impression that the process of European integration is turning into a geopolitical game rather than remaining a transparent and consistent reform process.
Paradoxically, while the EU continues to evaluate Serbia’s progress, it has not provided an opportunity to open key negotiation clusters, such as Cluster 3, which encompasses the information society and media, economic and monetary policy, social policy and employment, entrepreneurship, industrial policy, science and research, education, culture and the customs union.
In Belgrade, a growing segment of the public believes that the European Commission’s country Progress Report[3] on Serbia was “written in Zagreb rather than in Brussels.” This perception seriously undermines the credibility of European institutions and deepens the impression of political bias towards Serbia. The report favours Albania as the new “star” of the enlargement process, while even Ukraine is praised for its swift adoption of reforms – further reinforcing the sense of unequal treatment and exposing the susceptibility of the process to political and corruption-related influences.
A clear message is that the EU should enable Serbia to take concrete steps towards membership so that progress assessments are grounded in reality and carry genuine credibility. This would allow for an objective and fair evaluation of the reform process.
In practice, Serbia finds itself in a kind of EU “waiting room”, despite possessing the human, institutional and economic capacity to catch up with – and even surpass – some candidate countries that are formally closer to membership within a relatively short timeframe.
The European Commission must restore objectivity and apply an equal approach to all Western Balkan states. Only in this way can it preserve its political authority, the credibility of the integration process and the overall legitimacy of the European idea in the region.
At the same time, the EU should offer Serbia a genuine European perspective – not just declaratively, but through tangible steps: opening new clusters, supporting reforms and actively involving Serbia in the Union’s key policies. Without this, the risk of political fatigue and euroscepticism in Serbian society will grow, threatening the country’s long-term stability and reform momentum.
President Aleksandar Vučić’s announcement of early parliamentary elections in 2026 presents an important opportunity to put Serbia’s political reality to a democratic test. These elections could become a key measure of political maturity – determining whether institutional dialogue, accountability and democratic processes will prevail, or whether the trend of polarisation, street confrontations and distrust in institutions will continue.
Serbia today stands at a historic turning point. In the coming years, it has a genuine opportunity to consolidate its institutions, rebuild public trust and reaffirm its position as a key pillar of stability in the Western Balkans. The driving forces of this process are dialogue, institutional accountability, regional cooperation and a clearly defined European perspective.
However, progress in implementing structural reforms remains slow, constraining potential economic growth, social cohesion and Serbia’s ability to respond effectively to internal and external challenges. It is particularly important that Serbia remains firmly committed to dialogue with Pristina within the EU-facilitated process.
The International Institute IFIMES underlines that Serbia’s political stability in 2025 and 2026 will be achievable only through accountability, institutional renewal and a clear commitment to dialogue. The key points of this process include: restoring citizens’ trust in institutions, safeguarding the constitutional order, ensuring economic sustainability and energy security, and pursuing a European-oriented policy while preserving strategic autonomy. Serbia can achieve a return to “normal life” only if politics truly serves its citizens and institutions operate in the public interest rather than as an extension of political power. Such an approach would allow Serbia to consolidate internal stability, restore its international credibility and strengthen its position within regional and global frameworks – as a guarantor of peace, stability and predictability in the Western Balkans.
Ljubljana/Washington/Brussels/Belgrade, 6 November 2025
[1] IFIMES - International Institute for Middle East and Balkan Studies, based in Ljubljana, Slovenia, has a special consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council ECOSOC/UN in New York since 2018, and it is the publisher of the international scientific journal "European Perspectives." Available at: https://www.europeanperspectives.org/en
[2] IMF Executive Board Concludes the 2025 Article IV Consultation with the Republic of Serbia and Completes the First Review Under the Policy Coordination Instrument, at: https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2025/06/30/pr-25228-serbia-imf-concludes-2025-art-iv-consult-completes-1st-rev-policy-coor-instrument?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[3] European Commission, Serbia 2025 Report. Available at: https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/document/download/6e68ce26-b95b-48e1-921a-c60c12da8f00_en?filename=serbia-report-2025.pdf
