Serbia: documented application of the same framework
Academic research base
How can we tell that this is not just one bad decision, but an authoritarian way of governing?
One bad or illegal decision in itself is not enough to talk about the authoritarian system. It is important what happens when a mistake is discovered: can the courts, the assembly, the media, independent bodies and citizens challenge it, correct it and hold those responsible accountable?
Authoritarian mode of government occurs when the government gradually weakens these very possibilities it adjusts the elections in its favor, punishes critics, takes over institutions and applies the law differently to allies and opponents. Therefore, it is not only crucial whether elections, courts and assemblies formally exist, but whether they can really limit the government and enable its dismissal.
Reports on elections, the work of the Assembly, the security sector and the space for the activities of the media and associations note various problems: a great advantage of the government in the campaign, weak parliamentary control, political influence on institutions and pressures on those who control and criticize the authorities. When these findings are read together, it can be seen that this is not a bad decision, but a broader pattern that the government increasingly protects from control and equal political competition.
How the finding is separated in the matrix
In addition to academic studies and international monitoring, domestic organizations independently document the repetition of problems in several areas. CRTA monitors unequal elections and media, Open Parliament weakens parliamentary oversight, BCSP political control of security institutions, Transparency Serbia selective application of anti-corruption rules, and BCHR and Civic Initiatives a large number of concrete pressures and violations of rights.
The strength of the conclusion is not that an organization calls Serbia authoritarian, but that different organizations, by methods adapted to their fields, find interrelated and repeated problems in institutions that should control the government.
Yes the form is confirmed by scientific, international and domestic sources
Domestic organizations have a public mission to protect rights and democracy and their reports are not court verdicts. That is why we only use sources with the described methodology or verifiable documentation, we specify the limitations and do not declare any individual case as evidence of the whole system.
There is no one perfect border. Different research measures slightly different when the government has become authoritarian, so border cases should be described, not just marked.
Works supporting this answer, with their evidence type and an explanation of how they relate to the claim.
Explain how the system works
Linz, J. J. (2000), Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes, Lynne Rienner.
- Contribution to this answer
- Linz is one of the first to clearly demarcate authoritarians from totalitarian regimes according to him, authoritarian power does not have to control everything, but it stifles political competition, rarely lays accounts and does not respect the clear limits of its own power.
Development and verification of measurement methods
Cheibub, J. A., Gandhi, J. i Vreeland, J. R. (2010), „Democracy and Dictatorship Revisited“, Public Choice 143: 67–101.
Cheibub, J. A., Gandhi, J. i Vreeland, J. R. (2010), "Democracy and Dictatorship Revisited", Public Choice 143: 67–101.
- Contribution to this answer
- “The authors offer concrete rules for separating democracy from dictatorship, but also a warning: the assessment depends on whether elections can really change power, not just whether elections exist.
comparison of different types of systems
Wahman, M., Teorell, J. i Hadenius, A. (2013), „Authoritarian Regime Types Revisited: Updated Data in Comparative Perspective“, Contemporary Politics 19(1): 19–34.
Wahman, M., Teorell, J. i Hadenius, A. (2013), "Authoritarian Regime Types Revisited: Updated Data in Comparative Perspective", Contemporary Politics 19(1): 19–34.
- Contribution to this answer
- The authors show that not all electoral autocracies are the same and that the way we classify them also changes the conclusions we draw from the data. That is why recognizing an authoritarian system requires more than one label or one event.
Development and verification of measurement methods
Teorell, J. i Lindberg, S. I. (2019), „Beyond Democracy–Dictatorship Measures: A New Framework Capturing Executive Bases of Power, 1789–2016“, Perspectives on Politics 17(1): 66–84.
- Contribution to this answer
- Teorell and Lindbergh distinguish five ways in which the executive power comes into office and leaves it inheritance, the military, the party, the direct elections and the confidence of the parliament. These grounds can overlap, so the regime cannot be reliably reduced to one label.
review more research
Brancati, D. (2014), „Democratic Authoritarianism: Origins and Effects“, Annual Review of Political Science 17: 313–326.
- Contribution to this answer
- Brancati shows that elections, parties and other democratic-like institutions can have an entirely authoritarian function: through them, the government collects information, shares benefits, monitors actors and stabilizes its own position.
Sources supporting the Serbia example, with the claim they support and their limitations.
Reviewed scientific work - Verified 21.08.2026
Castaldo, Antonino. 2020. “Back to Competitive Authoritarianism? Democratic Backsliding in Vučić’s Serbia.” Europe-Asia Studies 72(10): 1617–1638. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2020.1817860
Castaldo, Antonino. 2020. “Back to Competitive Authoritarianism? Democratic Backsliding in Vučić’s Serbia.” Europe-Asia Studies 72(10): 161738. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2020.1817860
- What the source records
- Changing the type of regime in Serbia using V-Dem indicators and dozens of criteria of competitive authoritarianism.
- Claim it supports
- This paper is crucial for the first issue because the conclusion is based on dozens of electoral and institutional criteria, so the Serbian case does not reduce to one decision or one scandal.
- Source limitation
- The classification is not mathematically unquestionable and most of the data precedes the latest events.
Reviewed scientific work - Verified 21.08.2026
Bieber, Florian. 2018. “Patterns of Competitive Authoritarianism in the Western Balkans.” East European Politics 34(3): 337–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2018.1490272
- What the source records
- Comparison of old and new patterns of competitive authoritarianism in the Western Balkans, including Serbia.
- Claim it supports
- Regional comparison shows that the pattern is recognized when weak institutions, informal control and unequal elections begin to work together and repeat themselves.
- Source limitation
- It does not provide the same level of detail for every institution in Serbia.
Reviewed scientific work - Verified 21.08.2026
Milačić, Filip. 2025. “Democratic Backsliding Through Legislative Capture in Serbia: A One-Man Show.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 712(1): 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162251316346
- What the source records
- How control of parliament and its powers for appointments transfers power from the leader to the wider institutional system.
- Claim it supports
- The work has been monitoring continuity since 2012 and shows how control of parliament and appointments links multiple institutions into a more permanent pattern of government.
- Source limitation
- Emphasis on one leader can reduce the role of other actors and inherited weaknesses.
International scientific base and report - Verified 21.08.2026
Nord, Marina, David Altman, Tiago Fernandes, Ana Good God, i Staffan I. Lindberg. 2026. Democracy Report 2026: Unraveling the Democratic Era? University of Gothenburg: V-Dem Institute, dataset v16.
- What the source records
- Hundreds of indicators of elections, freedoms, the rule of law and the limitations of executive power over time.
- Claim it supports
- V-Dem enables checking the long course through multiple indicators and in 2025 ranks Serbia as an electoral autocracy in the current episode of autocracy.
- Source limitation
- The result depends on expert assessments, thresholds and measurement uncertainty, which the report explicitly states.
International expert report - Verified 21.08.2026
Bertelsmann Stiftung. 2026. BTI 2026 Serbia Country Report. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
Bertelsmann Stiftung. 2026. BTI 2026 Serbia Country Report. Gtersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
- What the source records
- Elections, rule of law, institutions, governance, economy and political integration in Serbia.
- Claim it supports
- BTI finds a simultaneous deterioration in elections, the rule of law and the media, and gives a modern check that the problem is not limited to one area.
- Source limitation
- It is a periodic expert assessment, not a work that isolates one cause.
Official international monitoring - Verified 21.08.2026
European Commission. 2025. Serbia 2025 Report. Commission Staff Working Document. Brussels: European Commission.
- What the source records
- Functioning of democratic institutions, elections, parliament, administration, judiciary, corruption, media and civil society.
- Claim it supports
- During the same period, the European Commission documents problems in elections, parliament, judiciary, independent bodies and civil society, which enables the verification of forms by institutions.
- Source limitation
- The report follows the EU accession and does not provide a unique scientific label of the regime.
Official election monitoring - Verified 21.08.2026
OSCE/ODIHR. 2024. Republic of Serbia: Early Parliamentary Elections, 17 December 2023 — Election Observation Mission Final Report. Warsaw: OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.
- What the source records
- Legal framework, campaign, media, electoral roll, financing, election day and dispute resolution.
- Claim it supports
- At the same time, ODIHR saw in the 2023 elections a real choice of alternatives and systemic advantages of government, which accurately shows how formal elections can exist without equal match.
- Source limitation
- One observation mission does not prove the entire political system.
Independent annual monitoring - Verified 21.08.2026
Burazer, Nikola. 2024. Serbia: Nations in Transit 2024 Country Report. Washington, DC: Freedom House.
- What the source records
- Seven areas of democracy, including elections, media, local government, judiciary, corruption and civil society.
- Claim it supports
- “Nations in Transit has seen a decline in several areas in the same year and through the same methodology compares it to earlier years, so it helps to separate the trend from the incident.
- Source limitation
- Expert reports require verification of individual claims by other sources.
Independent annual monitoring - Verified 21.08.2026
Freedom House. 2026. Freedom in the World 2026: Serbia Country Report. Washington, DC: Freedom House.
- What the source records
- Political rights and civil liberties, including elections, pluralism, expression, association and the rule of law.
- Claim it supports
- Freedom in the World shows that multi-party elections persist while political rights and civil liberties are narrowed, complementing the institutional findings of other sources.
- Source limitation
- A broad assessment of the rights does not explain the cause itself or the precise moment of crossing the threshold.
Domestic NGOs election monitoring - Verified 21.08.2026
CRTA. 2024. Final Election Observation Report – 2023. Beograd: CRTA Election Observation Mission.
CRTA. 2024. Final Election Observation Report 2023. Belgrade: CRTA Election Observation Mission.
- What the source records
- It shows a repeated set of electoral and institutional practices throughout the election cycle, not just one irregularity.
- Claim it supports
- This monitoring is important for the first issue because it combines the campaign, election day and the reactions of institutions, so it can be checked if more problems together form a pattern.
- Source limitation
- It refers to the 2023 elections and cannot determine the pattern outside the elections on its own.
Domestic NGOs parliamentary monitoring - Verified 21.08.2026
Otvoreni parlament. 2025. Godišnji izveštaj o radu XIV saziva Narodne skupštine, februar 2024 – april 2025. Beograd: CRTA.
Open Parliament. 2025. Annual Report on the work of the XIV Assembly of the National Assembly, February 2024 April 2025. Belgrade: CRTA.
- What the source records
- Documents how the control function of the Assembly is weakened through repeated procedures and decisions throughout the convocation.
- Claim it supports
- This report shows that the form is not limited to elections, but continues in the day-to-day work of the institution that should control the executive power.
- Source limitation
- “A single parliamentary meeting is not evidence of all institutions or of any decision of the authorities.
Domestic NGOs research report - Verified 21.08.2026
Đokić, Katarina, Saša Đorđević, Marija Ignjatijević, Jelena Pejić Nikić i Predrag Petrović. 2020. Security Sector Capture in Serbia – An Early Study. Beograd: Beogradski centar za bezbednosnu politiku.
okić, Katarina, Saša orđević, Marija Ignjatijević, Jelena Pejić Nikić and Predrag Petrović. 2020. Security Sector Capture in Serbia An Early Study. Belgrade: Belgrade Centre for Security Policy.
- What the source records
- It connects several cases from the police, services and defence with the same mechanisms of weakening surveillance and political control.
- Claim it supports
- This study is important because it shows that from multiple verifiable cases comes to a cautious conclusion about the systemic pattern in one clearly limited sector.
- Source limitation
- The sectoral study is also early, so the conclusion should not be passed on to the whole country without other sources.
Domestic NGO Coalition semi-annual monitoring - Verified 21.08.2026
Koalicija prEUgovor. 2025. Alarm Report on Progress of Serbia in Cluster 1 – May 2025. Beograd: prEUgovor.
- What the source records
- During the same period, it monitors multiple areas and notes that the concentration of power, poor control and pressures appear together.
- Claim it supports
- prEUgovor is useful because it shows the simultaneousity of problems in several institutions, which is a much stronger sign of an authoritarian way of governing than a single event.
- Source limitation
- Coalition shadow report has a reform mission and covers six months, so each area should be checked through its sources.
Domestic NGOs annual monitoring of human rights - Verified 21.08.2026
Beogradski centar za ljudska prava. 2026. Human Rights in Serbia 2025. Urednik Dušan Pokuševski. Beograd: Beogradski centar za ljudska prava.
Belgrade Centre for Human Rights. 2026. Human Rights in Serbia 2025. Editor Dušan Pokuševski. Belgrade: Belgrade Centre for Human Rights.
- What the source records
- The annual legal review and event collection shows repeated pressures against multiple social groups in 2025.
- Claim it supports
- This annual report allows us to check the general statement on a large number of specific cases and on the difference between the rights on paper and the conduct of institutions.
- Source limitation
- Monitors human rights, not determines the type of regime, and takes some of the data from other records.
Domestic NGO monitoring of civic space - Verified 21.08.2026
Građanske inicijative. 2025. Udruženja građana — sužavanje prostora za delovanje 2024. Beograd: Građanske inicijative.
Civic Initiatives. 2025. Citizens’ Associations narrowing the space for action 2024. Belgrade: Civic Initiatives.
- What the source records
- It systematically brings together hundreds of documented cases of pressure on expression, assembly and association over the course of a year.
- Claim it supports
- "This report is important because it preserves a number of local and sectoral examples that show repetition together, but does not claim to have registered every incident in the country.
- Source limitation
- The number of documented cases is not a representative rate of all violations and depends on the availability and reporting of events.
Domestic NGOs anti-corruption parallel report - Verified 21.08.2026
Đorđević, Miloš, i Nemanja Nenadić. 2023. Civil Society Report on the Implementation of UNCAC Chapters II and V in Serbia. Beograd: Transparentnost Srbija i UNCAC Coalition.
orđević, Miloš, and Nemanja Nenadić. 2023. Civil Society Report on the Implementation of UNCAC Chapters II and V in Serbia. Belgrade: Transparency Serbia and UNCAC Coalition.
- What the source records
- Shows a repeated gap between the broad legal framework and selective or weak application in a number of anti-corruption areas.
- Claim it supports
- “This report shows that the authoritarian pattern does not have to come from repealing the law, but through its long-term unequal or ineffective application.
- Source limitation
- The anti-corruption framework does not cover all dimensions of authoritarian government and data ends in mid-2023.
Domestic NGOs and research media case study - Verified 21.08.2026
Cvijić, Srđan. 2018. When Law Doesn’t Rule: State Capture of the Judiciary, Prosecution, Police in Serbia. Open Society European Policy Institute, Transparentnost Srbija i CINS.
Cvijić, Srđan. 2018. When Law Doesn’t Rule: State Capture of the Judiciary, Prosecution, Police in Serbia. Open Society European Policy Institute, Transparency Serbia and CINS.
- What the source records
- Twelve case studies link it to seven repeated mechanisms of political influence on the judiciary, the prosecution and the police.
- Claim it supports
- This study is a good model of how individual cases are checked and compared before concluding that there is a broader institutional pattern.
- Source limitation
- The cases are older and do not prove that every current procedure follows the same pattern.
Domestic NGO ten-year monitoring synthesis - Verified 21.08.2026
CRTA. 2026. A Decade of Election Observation: Is Everything the Same, Worse, or Better? Beograd: CRTA.
- What the source records
- Ten years of election observation gives a time series of the same problems and records their deepening.
- Claim it supports
- “This retrospective directly answers the first question because it shows the difference between one controversial choice and problems that have been recurring and deepening throughout the decade.
- Source limitation
- Short synthesis must be read with full reports for individual election cycles.
The International Longitudinal Democratic Index - Viewed official website, methodological framework and Serbia profile
International IDEA. 2025. Serbia — The Global State of Democracy (GSoD) Democracy Tracker. Poslednje ažuriranje: septembar 2025.
International IDEA. 2025. Serbia The Global State of Democracy (GSoD) Democracy Tracker. Last updated: September 2025.
- What the source records
- Timely compares representation, parliament, elections and civil liberties and finds significant multi-dimensional declines between 2019 and 2024.
- Claim it supports
- Supports the claim that we recognize the authoritarian pattern by repeating and spreading the problem across multiple control areas rather than one decision.
- Source limitation
- The index shows a common direction, but it does not prove that all changes are part of a single plan.
Official International Monitoring of the Rule of Law - Full official report reviewed
European Commission. 2025. 2025 Rule of Law Report: Country Chapter on the Rule of Law Situation in Serbia. SWD(2025) 931 final.
- What the source records
- The same report notes political pressure on the judiciary, weak parliamentary oversight, REM problems, the resources of independent bodies and pressure on civil society.
- Claim it supports
- Gives a new, modern multi-sectoral confirmation that related problems appear simultaneously in institutions that should control the government.
- Source limitation
- The Commission does not provide a uniform regime label and uses multiple types of data provided.
International monitoring of public administration with indicators - Full report and methodology reviewed
OECD/SIGMA. 2025. Public Administration in Serbia 2024: Assessment against the Principles of Public Administration. SIGMA Monitoring Reports. OECD Publishing.
- What the source records
- Through 1,732 criteria, it finds a gap between formal rules and practices in public administration, accountability, appointments and public finance.
- Claim it supports
- Expands the verification of the form to the state administration and shows that the problem is not limited to elections, media or individual scandals.
- Source limitation
- “The data mostly ends in mid-2024 and does not explain every political cause.
Independent international monitoring of media pluralism - Viewed official country page and available full report
Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (CMPF), European University Institute. 2026. Media Pluralism Monitor 2026: Serbia.
- What the source records
- The standardised framework finds a high risk in all four areas of media pluralism, especially in political independence.
- Claim it supports
- Supports the media part of the wider pattern independent of domestic election and parliamentary monitoring.
- Source limitation
- The risk assessment relies partly on local sources and does not measure each newsroom.
Domestic NGOs institutional and judicial monitoring - Full report and methodology reviewed
Mandić, Sofija, i CEPRIS. 2026. Report on the Transparency of the Work of the High Judicial Council and the High Prosecutorial Council: 2025.
Mandic, Sofia, and CEPRIS. 2026. Report on the Transparency of the Work of the High Judicial Council and the High Prosecutory Council: 2025.
- What the source records
- Follows the work of the two judicial councils of claims and records both progress and unfulfilled recommendations on public decision-making.
- Claim it supports
- It adds immediate domestic institutional evidence that control problems are not limited to elections and the media.
- Source limitation
- Measure transparency, not the political motive of any decision.
Local media network local survey and field research - Full report and methodology reviewed
Cvejić, Bojan, i ANEM. 2026. Indikatori stanja lokalnih medija u Srbiji za 2025. godinu: studija slučaja osam gradova i opština i jednog regiona.
Cvejić, Bojan, and ANEM. 2026. Indicators of the state of local media in Serbia for 2025: case study of eight cities and municipalities and one region.
- What the source records
- In nine local areas, freedom, security, economic position and access to information declined between 2024 and 2025.
- Claim it supports
- Adds a local level and shows that the national pattern is seen in different environments and through multiple types of pressure.
- Source limitation
- A sample of 79 journalists is not representative of the entire country.
Primary source annual report of the independent state body - Viewed full official report and tables
Poverenik za informacije od javnog značaja i zaštitu podataka o ličnosti. 2026. Izveštaj o radu Poverenika za 2025. godinu.
Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection. 2026. Report on the work of the Commissioner for 2025.
- What the source records
- The primary data records a large number of complaints about the silence of the administration and a fifth of unexecuted orders for the delivery of information.
- Claim it supports
- Shows a verifiable gap between formal law and the behaviour of authorities, including public companies.
- Source limitation
- The items before the Commissioner do not represent all the requirements or prove themselves a political motive.
Primary source annual report of the independent state body - Viewed full official report and tables
Zaštitnik građana Republike Srbije. 2026. Redovan godišnji izveštaj Zaštitnika građana za 2025. godinu.
Protector of Citizens of the Republic of Serbia. 2026. Regular annual report of the Protector of Citizens for 2025.
- What the source records
- It records 6,317 established violations of rights, but also 86.74% of actions according to 915 recommendations of the Protector of Citizens.
- Claim it supports
- At the same time, it confirms a broad institutional problem and prevents exaggeration: corrective mechanisms have not completely disappeared.
- Source limitation
- The records of one body do not measure the state of all institutions.
Primary source annual report of the state anti-corruption body - Viewed full official report and tables
Agencija za sprečavanje korupcije Republike Srbije. 2026. Annual Report 2025.
Agency for Prevention of Corruption of the Republic of Serbia. 2026. Annual Report 2025.
- What the source records
- It shows that many local governments have formally adopted anti-corruption plans, but significantly less have formed appropriate monitoring bodies.
- Claim it supports
- substantiates the claim that the form should be sought in a repeated gap between the formal obligation and the mechanism to implement it.
- Source limitation
- Self-reported and official data do not assess the effectiveness of each plan.
Is a relevant source missing? Send it to us.
Suggest a source or report an error in this answer →