Serbia: documented application of the same framework
Academic research base
Why can those in power tolerate criticism but not people who organize?
The government can sometimes suffer individual criticism because it detects a local problem, releases some of the dissatisfaction and does not have to produce a joint action on its own. It is a much more dangerous moment when people connect, share tasks, collect money, preserve evidence and agree on what they will do together.
The organization turns dissatisfaction from opinion into the ability to stop the decision, defend the fired man, supervise the election or carry out a large protest. That is why the government can allow complaints against individual officials, and at the same time stifle groups that associate the same complaints with the responsibility of the top. The practical measure is not only how harsh the word is allowed, but what happens when critics try to create a permanent network, a joint request and an independent source of money.
The authorities can tolerate individual critical text or angry comments because they do not change the balance of power themselves. A bigger problem arises when journalists, students, lawyers, local groups or citizens connect, divide tasks and create a network that can collect evidence, organize a protest or monitor elections. In Serbia, in 2024 and 2025, pressures were particularly directed at organizers, faculties, associations and media who could turn into a compromise.
How the finding is separated in the matrix
Civil initiatives, BCHR, BCSP and NUNS record inspections, smear campaigns, digital surveillance, attacks and procedures towards organizers and intermediary institutions.
Authoritarian power is less threatening to the opinion of others than the ability of people to find themselves, trust each other, divide costs and act together.
Yes sources show that pressure is often directed at organizational nodes, not just the content of criticism.
The state is allowed to control the legality of the work of organizations and protests. Authoritarian sign is selectivity, disproportion, public targeting and repetition towards critical actors without equal treatment to close groups.
The most famous evidence comes from China and can not be automatically copied to every country. It is necessary to check what the domestic government really hides and what allows.
Works supporting this answer, with their evidence type and an explanation of how they relate to the claim.
a large amount of data from the Internet
King, G., Pan, J. i Roberts, M. E. (2013), „How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression“, American Political Science Review 107(2): 326–343.
- Contribution to this answer
- King, Pan and Roberts find something very counterintuitive: Chinese censorship did not systematically remove even very harsh criticism of the authorities. It was much more reliable in removing content that could help people gather and act together even when the content itself was not against the authorities.
checking of digital traces and content
King, G., Pan, J. i Roberts, M. E. (2017), „How the Chinese Government Fabricates Social Media Posts for Strategic Distraction“, American Political Science Review 111(3): 484–501.
- Contribution to this answer
- “The same authors show that the government doesn’t even have to argue with critics: China’s massive operation of false revelations largely didn’t defend the government with arguments, but rather changed the subject and buried the space with positive content, especially around moments with potential for collective action.
Detailed analysis of one or several cases
Lorentzen, P. (2014), „China’s Strategic Censorship“, American Journal of Political Science 58(2): 402–414.
- Contribution to this answer
- Lorentzen explains why a certain amount of criticism can even be useful to the authoritarian government: investigative journalism reveals problems and bad local officials that the top might not otherwise know about. The risk arises when the same freedom allows people to understand that their dissatisfaction is shared by many others and to coordinate.
analysis of institutions in China
Truex, R. (2016), Making Autocracy Work: Representation and Responsiveness in Modern China, Cambridge University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Truex shows similar logic outside the media: the Chinese system allows “representation within borders” institutions can convey certain needs of citizens and fix insensitive problems, but without opening up space for political competition that could threaten the regime.
review more research
Toepler, S., Zimmer, A., Fröhlich, C. i Obuch, K. (2020), „The Changing Space for NGOs: Civil Society in Authoritarian and Hybrid Regimes“, VOLUNTAS 31: 649–662.
- Contribution to this answer
- Toepler and co-authors show that the same principle applies to organizations: authoritarian authorities can strangle some organizations and finance others or involve them in cooperation. Particularly important is the difference between groups that provide services or support regime discourse and those that make political demands and organize people around them.
Sources supporting the Serbia example, with the claim they support and their limitations.
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
- Based on the standardized regional matrix and bi-weekly reports, 234 cases of violations of fundamental rights and freedoms were registered, with an increase in physical and verbal attacks and other pressures compared to the previous year.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that pressure is particularly directed at the organizers and institutions that can turn individual criticism into a permanent joint action.
- Source limitation
- The records include documented and reported cases, and not a representative rate of all incidents in Serbia, while the organization at the same time has a clear role of protecting the civil space.
Domestic journalistic association monitoring of attacks - Verified 21.08.2026
Nezavisno udruženje novinara Srbije (NUNS). 2026. NUNS retrospektiva 2025: godina u kojoj je pritisak postao sistem. Beograd: NUNS.
Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia (NUNS). 2026. NUNS retrospective 2025: the year in which pressure became a system. Belgrade: NUNS.
- What the source records
- NUNS recorded 371 cases, including 113 physical attacks and 165 threats, along with legal, economic and digital forms of pressure.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that pressure is particularly directed at the organizers and institutions that can turn individual criticism into a permanent joint action.
- Source limitation
- The register depends on the reported and documented cases, it can overlap with other databases and does not measure the experience of every journalist.
Domestic NGOs analysis of the political crisis - Verified 21.08.2026
Belgrade Centre for Security Policy. 2025. Political and Institutional Crisis in Serbia: Possible Scenarios. Belgrade: BCSP.
- What the source records
- The analysis describes mass mobilization and growing repression, but concludes that the size of the protests does not alone address the issue of organization, choice and division within the government.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that pressure is particularly directed at the organizers and institutions that can turn individual criticism into a permanent joint action.
- Source limitation
- Scenario analysis is time-sensitive and does not predict the future; it is based on information available until November 2025.
International Organization for Human Rights Forensic Research - Verified 21.08.2026
Amnesty International. 2024. A Digital Prison: Surveillance and the Suppression of Civil Society in Serbia. London: Amnesty International.
- What the source records
- The report documents cases of unlocking phones and installing spyware during police or security conversations, as well as consequences for civil society.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that pressure is particularly directed at the organizers and institutions that can turn individual criticism into a permanent joint action.
- Source limitation
- Forensic findings are strong for the analyzed devices, but the number of cases is not a measure of distribution in the entire population; the authorities have disputed the allegations of illegal work.
Is a relevant source missing? Send it to us.
Suggest a source or report an error in this answer →