Zoran Stojiljković, a professor at the Belgrade Faculty of Political Sciences (FPN), remarked that by acting against the protesters, the police have degraded themselves to a Praetorian Guard tasked with safeguarding Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić.

“This reaction from the regime reveals their frustration towards the students’ political demand for parliamentary elections, which drew 140,000 people in the summer heat of a mostly deserted Belgrade. Through harsh, disproportionate measures, including extensive space closures, arrests, and violence, the police have been reduced to a mere protector of Vučić’s vision for Serbia, confusing roles as we are no longer certain of what constitutes ‘real’ police or who among them are Vučić’s loyalists dressed in uniforms,” Stojiljković shared with “Vijesti”.

As protests in Serbia reach their ninth month, they remain unyielding. Students and various groups persist in organizing diverse forms of civil disobedience, demanding government accountability and systemic reform.

Tensions have escalated following mass protests on June 28, which led to confrontations between police and demonstrators. Since June 29, daily hour-long street blockades have commenced nationwide. On Thursday evening, students announced a campaign dubbed “Total Blockade of Serbia” in response to the violent dispersal of earlier protests and the arrests of participants.

Their primary demands entail calling early parliamentary elections, dismantling the camp in Pionirski Park, where anti-blockade students have gathered for months, and releasing those arrested during the Vidovdan protests in Belgrade.

When queried about potential increased pressure from the West on Belgrade’s authorities should the brutal treatment of protesters continue, Stojiljković answered:

“Sadly, I do not expect it unless there is mass repression leading to severe physical confrontations.”

He believes that a firmer response is absent for two main reasons.

“Firstly, Serbian police do not depart from the typical repertoire of anti-protest brutality observed in European nations. Secondly, Vučić continues to portray himself as a negotiation partner for projects like lithium mining, which face significant pushback from the majority of Serbia. Cynically, a more democratically aware, yet equally compliant Vučić seems to be nonexistent.”

Discussing Serbian President Vučić’s rhetoric towards independent media, Stojiljković considers this an anticipated reaction.

“Despite massive efforts, infrastructure projects, and vote-buying in local elections in Zaječar and Kosjerić, the government failed to secure anything more than a tie with the opposition.”

He emphasizes that the opposition this time had a suitable coalition strategy, avoiding wasted votes.

“These media outlets provided an important framework for political learning and subsequently facilitated mobilization, support, and visibility during these elections. The regime in Serbia does not forgive such empowerment,” Stojiljković noted.

Vučić labeled employees of N1 and Nova S television stations as “terrorists,” urging the public prosecutor’s office to take action against them, a narrative echoed in the regime’s media.

“Critiquing the regime alone is insufficient. We must demonstrate that we possess a credible alternative and its leaders. This requires operational unity among social and political opposition, along with civil and professional associations and unions,” Stojiljković asserted.

When asked about the realistic potential for early parliamentary elections, Stojiljković mentioned that this could only happen through sustained and strong pressure from various sources: “perpetual protests, resistance to unpopulous regime measures, and subsequently non-cooperation, while establishing elements of an alternative governance structure communicating with state authorities, including a shadow government and alternative public policies.”

He stressed the importance of moving beyond mere criticism of the regime, emphasizing the necessity of showcasing a credible alternative. He highlighted the need for cohesive operational unity among social and political opposition, along with civil and professional associations and unions. This is why, he added, it is not surprising that even the representative union Nezavisnost is calling for elections.

When asked by “Vijesti” whether the current political crisis could spur a wider social movement for systemic change rather than merely a change in government, Stojiljković replied:

“This is only feasible through strategic demonstration of high coordination power. No protestor in Serbia, who has been actively resisting for months, would consent to merely substituting one political group for another. The aim here is to transform the current authoritarian populist regime into a democratic and participatory system.”

He affirmed expectations of unification between students and opposition parties.

“This time, they must unite, even if compelled, as change necessitates a parliamentary political support base comprised of a notable third of opposition members in the national parliament. Once again, students are the most trustworthy social actors, against whom there is no significant political opposition.”

Anticipated National-Patriotic Rhetoric

Following the Vidovdan protests, some public members were taken aback by the nationalist rhetoric from certain speakers. When asked if this could alienate wider social groups, particularly the urban and pro-European populace, Stojiljković stated that such rhetoric was expected even among “citizens” during the protests on June 28.

“Students, who embody diverse ideologies, also need a platform within the political mainstream.”

He described it as a “rightward encirclement of Vučić,” indicating that some pro-opposition voters view him as a traitor to national interests while being accountable for disputes with neighboring countries.

The absence of Euro-enthusiasm in Serbia raises questions that should be directed towards European authorities, particularly in the context of lithium exploitation or Vučić’s democratic transgressions, concluded Stojiljković.

Vučić: Declining Support for Blockades

During attempted blockades across Serbia, President Vučić noted that the police “had complete control,” asserting that those participating “did not stand a chance.”

Speaking to Pink television, Vučić claimed that more police were on duty than those “harassing citizens.”

“No vital interests have been harmed, except those of your neighbors. They likely don’t understand the reason behind their actions, perhaps seeking attention on social media. Each day of such blockades further diminishes their support, as the public is uninterested in this disturbance. They may continue to harass citizens, but to their own detriment,” Vučić stated.

He urged block participants to “exercise their rights, vote as they choose, but do not jeopardize the rights of others.”

“Our priority is to ensure no one gets hurt, yet they casually throw containers into the streets. Only they can cause harm, not anyone else,” Vučić remarked.

He extended “great tribute” to Interior Minister Ivica Dačić, Police Director Dragan Vasiljević, and all police units in Serbia for their bravery and lawfulness in managing a challenging and often thankless task.

Vučić noted, “They executed their duties with utmost professionalism and will continue to do so in the future.”

News