Aleksandar Vucic has lost power. Now the question is whether he will be held accountable for the way he exercised it. Following the victory of the Student List in the 25 October elections, Serbia faces a challenge that goes beyond a change of government: investigating corruption, separating institutions from political influence, and establishing responsibility for alleged abuses during the rule of the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS). Two analysts in Belgrade assess that the investigations could reach the former president, but warn that political responsibility does not necessarily imply criminal liability.
“I believe the investigation should also reach Vucic, just as it did in Croatia with Sanader,” says Dushan Spasojevic, professor at the Faculty of Political Science in Belgrade, referring to former Croatian prime minister Ivo Sanader, who was convicted of corruption. Dragan Popovic, director of the Center for Practical Politics, also considers it difficult for the new prosecution not to investigate Vucic’s role. However, he warns that the charges that can be proven in court may be more limited than citizens expect.
In a discussion for the program “Most” of the Balkan Service of Radio Free Europe, both analysts speak about the possibility of criminal prosecution of the former Serbian president and the challenges facing the new government in confronting the legacy of the previous regime.
From the tragedy in Novi Sad to the change of power
The political change in Serbia came after a wave of protests triggered by the collapse of a concrete canopy at the Novi Sad railway station on 1 November 2024, which killed 16 people. The tragedy, at a recently renovated facility, raised suspicions of corruption, negligence and lack of oversight in public projects. Students, who led the protests, demanded the publication of renovation documentation and accountability for the victims. Over time, their demands expanded, turning the movement into a direct challenge to power.
The victory of the Student List in the early parliamentary elections marked the loss of power by the SNS after years of dominance in Serbian politics, and brought an unusual development: a movement without a single leader managed to defeat a party with a strong structure and broad institutional influence. According to Spasojevic, the students ran a well-organized campaign, with prepared candidates and a constant presence on the ground, achieving a better result than even the most optimistic forecasts.
Now, he expects their victory to be followed by a deep reorganization of the political scene. “A reconstruction of the political scene is certainly ahead of us, and at the first upcoming elections we will have two million voters who will demand new actors,” says Spasojevic. Popovic assesses that the students’ success creates an opportunity for the renewal of political parties, weakened both by “autocratic rule” and by their own internal problems.
I recall that most opposition parties backed the Student List, while those that ran separately failed to secure significant support. For Popović, the victory also demonstrates the rejection of a governance model in which power is concentrated in the hands of one leader. “At this moment, the majority of Serbia said no to the authoritarian system,” he says.
Is there a basis for criminal prosecution of Vučić?
The possible criminal liability of the former Serbian president is among the most sensitive issues of the political transition. Spasojević recalls that Vučić had publicly positioned himself as the main decision-maker, although his decisions were implemented by ministers and other officials with formal competences. “Vučić had positioned himself publicly as the main actor. He gave orders, while his decisions were implemented by ministers, assistants and other persons who had the competences to do so,” says Spasojević.
For this reason, he expects investigations to begin with officials who had direct responsibility for implementing the decisions. However, according to him, there is grounds to examine Vučić’s role as well, especially in the case of the collapse of the canopy at the Novi Sad railway station. Spasojević assesses that there is evidence that can help determine the former president’s role in accelerating the works, which, according to him, Vučić had an interest in completing as quickly as possible for political promotion purposes.
Popović also expects Vučić’s role to become the subject of investigation, given the concentration of power in his hands. “I find it difficult to imagine that the new prosecutor’s office would not deal specifically with Vučić, as the bearer of all power in the pyramidal autocratic system he created,” says Popović.
However, he draws a distinction between suspicions of responsibility and the evidence needed to bring an indictment. “The next question is what they will manage to find sufficient evidence for and what they will be able to charge him with. This will probably be less than citizens expect,” he says. According to Popović, investigations may require documents, testimonies and the cooperation of people who were part of the previous system. He stresses that public expectations should not affect respect for legal procedures.
Will the experience after Milošević be repeated?
Serbia has already faced the challenge of establishing accountability after a change of power. The overthrow of former president Slobodan Milošević on 5 October 2000 paved the way for democratic reforms and promises of a break from the practices of the previous regime. However, some of these promises remained unfulfilled. One example is the attempt to purge institutions of officials responsible for abuses during the exercise of power – a process known as lustration. Popović recalls that Serbia had adopted a law for this purpose, which remained in force for ten years but was never implemented. According to him, the commission that was supposed to implement the law was never formed, because the parties of the overthrown regime, now in opposition, refused to appoint their representative.
The Student List has promised to implement this process, along with the confiscation of illegally acquired assets. However, Spasojevic doubts that the purge of institutions will be comprehensive. “I am afraid that a broader lustration probably will not happen,” he says. According to him, pressure from within the institutions to remove those who have contributed to abuses may be more feasible.
Popovic, on the other hand, warns that confronting the past should not turn into political revenge. He stresses that removing officials from public functions is a legally complicated process and that those affected must be guaranteed the right to contest the decisions. “These measures may be useful, but they must be implemented with care. They must not turn into a witch hunt. Human rights must be respected,” says Popovic.
Suspicious assets, another test for the new government
Another challenge will be the investigation of assets acquired during the years of SNS rule. Popovic assesses that a class of extremely wealthy people has emerged in Serbia, whose sources of wealth raise serious doubts. He cites luxury villas and private planes owned by people linked to those in power as examples of enrichment that has fueled public discontent.
For this reason, Popovic believes that reforming the tax administration should be among the priorities of the new government, so that the origin of assets can be investigated and the confiscation of those proven to have been acquired illegally can be made possible. According to him, this approach may produce more concrete results than a broad process of removal from public functions.
However, the implementation of reforms will also depend on the new government’s ability to change the way institutions function, which for years have been under the influence of the former political structures. Spasojevic warns that Vucic is trying to keep his supporters united and to prevent the dissolution of the structures he has built.
The true test of change
For both analysts, the victory of the Student List is only the beginning of a much more complicated process. The new government must prove that it can build independent institutions capable of investigating even former senior officials, without political interference and without prejudging their responsibility. For Spasojevic, this is particularly important to avoid repeating the mistakes made after the fall of Milosevic, when Serbia failed to fully confront the legacy of the previous regime. “If now we punish no one, then in the future a similar leader will appear,” Spasojevic concludes./REL/