Serbia: documented application of the same framework
Academic research base
Why might what people say publicly differ from what they really think?
A public statement is not always a reliable window into private opinion, especially when the job, security or belonging to a group depends on the “right” answer. A man can praise the authorities to avoid conflict, save the benefit or because he believes that opposition is meaningless. He can also keep quiet about support if he moves among critics.
When many adapt public speech, the government and citizens get the wrong idea of the mood of society, so the appearance of consent is further expanded. But it should not automatically be claimed that everyone is acting: support can be sincere, partial or variable. That is why surveys, anonymous questions, behavior and conversations in safer circumstances should be viewed together, with the recognition that no method completely reveals the hidden “true will”.
Employees who praise the authorities in front of colleagues, help users who promise a voice or citizen who avoids a response do not have to think the same in private. In Serbia, documented pressures in the workplace and dependent groups give a reasonable reason for such adjustment, but do not allow us to measure exactly how many people hide their position. The best evidence comes when anonymous polls, secret voting and public behavior diverge.
How the finding is separated in the matrix
CRTA's qualitative surveys record fear, loyalty check and public adjustment, while public opinion surveys offer a more anonymous picture of attitudes and their contradictions.
People keep their jobs, relationships, and safety safe by publicly sending out a reward signal to the environment while keeping a private assessment to themselves.
Partially the conditions for concealing the position have been documented, but the size of the difference between public and private opinion has not been precisely determined.
Not every public expression of support should be declared false. Many people sincerely support the government; the claim is only that the pressure spoils the ability of public behavior to reliably measure private belief.
Hidden opinions are difficult to measure. Even anonymous surveys and indirect questions can be wrong and do not reveal a single 'true will' of all people.
Works supporting this answer, with their evidence type and an explanation of how they relate to the claim.
Explain how the system works
Kuran, T. (1991), „Now Out of Never: The Element of Surprise in the East European Revolution of 1989“, World Politics 44(1): 7–48.
- Contribution to this answer
- The Koran shows how people can be against the system privately for years, and publicly act as if they support it because everyone has their own risk threshold for open opposition. Therefore, the regime can seem almost invincible until the moment when several people come forward publicly and start a chain in which others suddenly realize that they are not alone.
review more research
Kuran, T. (1995), Private Truths, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification, Harvard University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- The Koran calls this mechanism a falsification of preferences: people under social or political pressure publicly display an attitude that is different from what they privately want. The consequence is not only an incorrect image of the individual the whole society begins to get the wrong image of itself.
long-term direct monitoring of political life
Wedeen, L. (1999), Ambiguities of Domination: Politics, Rhetoric, and Symbols in Contemporary Syria, University of Chicago Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Wedeen shows that public repetition of regime messages does not have to mean that people are convinced of them at all. In Syria, the obvious improbability of some rituals was part of their political function: people show that they know how to behave publicly, without having to believe privately what they are saying.
research that checks more closely what the cause is
Buckley, N., Marquardt, K. L., Reuter, O. J. i Tertytchnaya, K. (2024), „Endogenous Popularity: How Perceptions of Support Affect the Popularity of Authoritarian Regimes“, American Political Science Review 118(2): 1046–1052.
- Contribution to this answer
- Buckley, Marquardt, Reuter and Tertytchnaya give an important fence: not every change in expressed support is just an act. In experiments in Russia, when people got information that Putin’s popularity was relatively low, some of them really became less supportive additional tests indicate that it was not just a cover-up of a private attitude.
analysis of surveys
Geddes, B. i Zaller, J. (1989), „Sources of Popular Support for Authoritarian Regimes“, American Journal of Political Science 33(2): 319–347.
- Contribution to this answer
- Geddes and Zaller also show that support for authoritarian rule can be real, not just coerced: on Brazil, they find that the way that regime information affects citizens depends on political information people with a middle level of political attention are often most susceptible to influence, while highly informed people see propaganda more and resist it more easily.
Sources supporting the Serbia example, with the claim they support and their limitations.
Domestic NGOs qualitative field research - Verified 21.08.2026
CRTA. 2023. Mreža političkih pritisaka u centrima za socijalni rad. Beograd: CRTA.
CRTA. 2023. Network of political pressures in centers for social work. Belgrade: CRTA.
- What the source records
- Testimonials describe centers as points in a hierarchical network in which business, contract and assistance can be linked to political loyalty and electoral mobilization.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that pressure and addiction create a reason to distinguish public behavior from private attitude, with the fence that the size of this difference is not precisely known.
- Source limitation
- The sample is qualitative and anonymous; the findings reveal mechanisms and patterns, but do not measure their frequency in all centers.
Domestic NGOs qualitative election research - Verified 21.08.2026
CRTA. 2022. Preliminarni izveštaj o izbornom nasilju i korupciji. Beograd: CRTA.
CRTA. 2022. Preliminary report on electoral violence and corruption. Belgrade: CRTA.
- What the source records
- The report describes repeated patterns of reward and punishment towards fixed-term employees, party members, poor and other dependent groups.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that pressure and addiction create a reason to distinguish public behavior from private attitude, with the fence that the size of this difference is not precisely known.
- Source limitation
- The deliberate and “snowball” pattern is not representative and the statements are not the same as the legally established facts in any case.
Domestic NGOs representative public opinion - Verified 21.08.2026
CRTA i Democracy Action Lab. 2026. Veruju u demokratiju, ne veruju u vlast: istraživanje javnog mnjenja u Srbiji. Beograd: CRTA.
CRTA and Democracy Action Lab. 2026. They believe in democracy, they do not believe in government: public opinion research in Serbia. Belgrade: CRTA.
- What the source records
- Six out of ten citizens consider democracy the best system, but the same share estimates that democracy in Serbia does not work; trust in the main political institutions is about one-third.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that pressure and addiction create a reason to distinguish public behavior from private attitude, with the fence that the size of this difference is not precisely known.
- Source limitation
- The survey measures attitudes at a time of great political mobilization and cannot explain on its own why people support different, sometimes contradictory values at the same time.
Reviewed scientific work - Verified 21.08.2026
Petrović, Valentina. 2025. “Under Pressure: The Politics of Clientelism and Coercion in Serbia.” Democratization, online first: 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2025.2520349
Petrović, Valentina. 2025. “Under Pressure: The Politics of Clientelism and Coercion in Serbia.” Democratization, online first: 126. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2025.2520349
- What the source records
- The paper shows that the exchange of services and coercion is intertwined and that the exposure depends on local political and economic competition, employment and social position.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that pressure and addiction create a reason to distinguish public behavior from private attitude, with the fence that the size of this difference is not precisely known.
- Source limitation
- Measures of experience and observation in one year; cannot verify each reported practice as a single legal case.
Is a relevant source missing? Send it to us.
Suggest a source or report an error in this answer →