The current protests are a great opportunity for the democratic consolidation of Serbia and, if things move in that direction, this will certainly take precedence over the implementation of formal reforms in the European integration process, at least in the short term. On the other hand, as long as a clear alternative to the government does not emerge, we should not expect stronger involvement of international actors in the crisis in Serbia.
This is the assessment of Srđan Majstorović, the Chairman of the Governing Board of the European Policy Centre – CEP in Belgrade and a member of the Balkans in Europe Policy Advisory Group (BiEPAG), in an interview with European Western Balkans. He adds that it currently does not seem that there is a consensus to open Cluster 3 for Serbia, while the goal set by the government of meeting EU membership conditions by the end of 2026 is unrealistic.
Speaking about the current protests in Serbia, Majstorović assesses that they are the result of over a decade of accumulated frustrations, which, in turn, are the result of the nature of the ruling political parties.
“It is evident that all the problems we pointed out in the previous period, primarily concerning the functioning of democratic institutions, the rule of law, basic freedoms, freedom of expression, and media freedom, have now become the slogan of student protests and a sort of vanguard of the future democratic consolidation of Serbia,” says Majstorović.
This can, as he adds, be best seen in smaller communities where citizens have been encountering the true nature of the government for over a decade, which, according to Majstorović, is based on the principles of force and corruption, and unacceptable for a democratic system.
“As long as there is an insufficiently clear alternative, stronger international involvement is unrealistic”
It took the European Union’s institutions several weeks to react to the current events in Serbia. This is why civil society organizations and individuals on several occasions called for more attention to be given to what is happening in an EU candidate country.
The first serious reactions from the European Parliament and the European Commission started coming in February. On the other hand, it seems that President Vučić was particularly keen in recent weeks to show that he still maintains friendly and constructive relations with the EU, holding multiple phone calls and meetings with EU leaders, including Ursula von der Leyen and Emmanuel Macron.
“The reactions we have seen so far from the European Union should by no means be interpreted as support for the ruling regime. The EU has taken note of the nature of the current situation in Serbia based on the interpretation of one side in this political crisis. Therefore, it is good that intellectuals and representatives of various civil society organizations have, with their reactions and letters, mobilized the international public, thereby influencing the increasing number of reactions from abroad at this moment,” says Srđan Majstorović.
However, as he adds, the reaction of the European Union, its officials, and representatives of member states is typical for this phase of the political crisis.
“As long as we are in this phase of the crisis, where students and all other social actors present their positions on the level of political principles, we cannot expect a more concrete reaction or involvement in resolving the political crisis in Serbia. As long as there is an insufficiently clear alternative to the government, it is not realistic to expect stronger involvement of international actors,” says Majstorović.
He adds that, while he understands the need to communicate at the level of principles at this stage, at some point it will be necessary to translate those principles into concrete political proposals.
“If the student-civic movement against the government does not have a leader, or does not offer a personal alternative, it is necessary to offer policies that this broad movement will advocate for. This whole spectrum of social actors—students, professors, educators, intellectuals, actors, and all others involved in this process—must nevertheless sit together and define certain political proposals and plans so that international partners can see what the political stances of this future alternative are. Regarding the war in Ukraine, European integration, regional relations, the continuation of dialogue with Pristina…” says Majstorović.
Once policies are articulated in this way, it will be much easier to attract international attention, Majstorović points out, adding that he is aware that the participants in the protests are very diverse in their ideological views and that at some point when the debate moves from the level of principles to concrete policies, there will likely be tensions between different groups.
“But without that, without a clear definition of how Serbia will look in the future, it is not realistic to expect concrete interest from foreign partners,” he concludes.
Letter from Marta Kos and the debate in the European Parliament
The new European Commissioner for Enlargement, Marta Kos, responded last week, as she said, to numerous letters that had come to her desk. In an open letter, Kos stated that “it is important to ensure the conditions for an inclusive dialogue,” and that “Serbia’s path to EU membership offers solutions to many issues that are at the center of today’s discussions.” Some commentators expressed disappointment with the content of the letter, expecting a stronger reaction from the European Commission.
According to Srđan Majstorović, on the other hand, while citizens may be irritated by Brussels’ jargon, that letter is the maximum we can expect from Brussels at this moment.
“This should not be interpreted as something malicious or bad. What I strongly criticize is that those letters do not locate responsibility for what is being criticized. When discussing violence and incitement to violence, I would like those letters to be more specific and clearly identify who this part refers to. We all know who initiated the divisions, violence, and hatred, and who bears the greatest responsibility. I fear that this bureaucratic Brussels jargon does not contribute to enhancing the credibility and authenticity of the EU’s European integration process or the EU itself among students and citizens participating in the protests,” he explains.
Meanwhile, on 11 February, a debate was held in the European Parliament regarding the political crisis in Serbia, where most of the Members of Parliament supported the students’ demands and highlighted the problems with corruption in Serbia. According to Majstorović, the fact that this debate took place is a good signal.
“This is a sign that the European Parliament, which has the greatest democratic legitimacy of all EU institutions, is taking the crisis in Serbia seriously. The mere convening of the debate is far from what could be characterized as the usual practice. It indicates that Serbia is viewed as a country in political crisis and that there is a need to discuss this in the EP,” he says.
He adds that it is also good that the European People’s Party (EPP), whose member is the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS), accepted the debate, as the membership of SNS directly influences the difficult-to-understand tolerance by the EPP of basic democratic principles and values being violated in Serbia.
“Currently, there is no consensus to open Cluster 3”
The protests in Serbia have overshadowed recent developments regarding Serbia’s EU accession process, particularly efforts to open Cluster 3 in December. Although it was announced that this would probably happen at the beginning of this year, the topic is no longer being mentioned.
Majstorović assesses that, at this moment, there is no consensus in the Council of the EU to move in that direction. When asked whether the expulsion of activists from several EU countries, including Croatia, Romania, and Slovenia, which occurred at the end of January, could further block Serbia in opening Cluster 3, for which there needs to be a consensus among member states, Majstorović says that we cannot know that for certain right now, but that “this government has shown an incredible talent for turning traditional allies into potential enemies.”
“In theory, opening Cluster 3 should pave the way for some changes, but realistically, I think it is naive to believe that such a thing will happen. Because even the previous opening of Cluster 1 (which relates to the core EU values) did not lead to the democratization of Serbia nor to better implementation of the rule of law principles,” he says.
What is a priority in this process, he adds, is for the citizens of Serbia to see some substantial progress. Any progress so far has not been substantive, according to Majstorović.
“On the contrary, since 2015, when Serbia was considered a semi-consolidated democracy according to the Freedom House, we have found ourselves in a situation where, in 2024, Serbia is rated as a hybrid regime. In 2018, the European Commission noted that Serbia and all the countries in the region are, to a degree, captured states. The particularly worrying fact is that a country which is a candidate and has been negotiating for 11 years is essentially backsliding in an area considered fundamental and crucial for EU membership. This brings into question the thesis that EU integration contributes to the progress and development of candidate countries,” says Majstorović.
He adds that for the past 13 years, we have witnessed this government trying to maintain the appearance that the process hasn’t stalled. “The reason for maintaining this illusion lies in the fact that European integration is, in a way, a source of legitimacy both internally and externally. Internally, the message is that citizens voted for a pro-European party and we are doing everything to join the EU, and externally, it is a source of legitimacy to remain a partner to all external actors who are influential within the EU, with whom these ties are then used for economic agreements, the purchase of military equipment, or large infrastructure projects,” Majstorović adds.
“Momentum for enlargement exists in the EU, but 2026 is an unrealistic goal”
Parallel to the protests that erupted in Serbia, the European Union sent, after several years, the first signs that it is seriously considering speeding up enlargement, prompted by the war in Ukraine. Montenegro closed chapters for the first time since 2017 at the end of last year, and the process has accelerated with Albania as well. Until recently, Serbia’s leadership did not seem aware of the new dynamics in the accession process.
“In a way, we find ourselves in an absurd situation where, now that there is momentum in the EU favouring strategic enlargement, the government in Serbia and some other countries in the region still do not want to believe that this is possible,” says Srđan Majstorović.
Then, in November of last year, President Vučić set the goal of aligning with EU legislation by the end of 2026. Majstorović assesses that, at this moment and under these circumstances, that is an unrealistic expectation.
“I think that 2026 is nothing more than wishful thinking at this point, or an unrealistic expectation. It will take us two or three years to return to the situation from 2015, the state of semi-consolidated democracy,” says Majstorović.
He assesses that, if things move in the right direction, much of this year will be used for the democratic consolidation of Serbia. In this context, he adds, it is illusory to talk about the European integration process because he believes the focus will be on democratic consolidation in Serbia before the European integrations.
“This does not necessarily mean that the accession process will inevitably be delayed, because if we do manage to consolidate democracy and the political system, the process could be quickly restarted and brought back to a solid foundation, thereby accelerating it. However, there is another option, which is an extra-institutional resolution of the crisis, which could have medium- and long-term consequences on the EU accession process,” says Majstorović.
Interview conducted by: Sofija Popović and Aleksandar Ivković