Serbia: documented application of the same framework
Academic research base
Why are schools, universities, culture, and the way we remember the past important to those in power?
Schools, faculties, culture and public memory shape what society considers knowledge, who belongs to the community and what abilities future officials, journalists and politicians will have. Therefore, the government can simultaneously invest in education and limit the topics, methods and people that question its portrayal of reality.
Control goes through textbooks, appointments, accreditations, research funding, culture programs, archives and the way in which the past is marked. The consequence is not only in one lesson, but in whether people learn to check the claim and submit a disagreement or to recognize the “correct” answer. The state necessarily participates in these areas. The difference is in the independence of teachers and institutions, the public criteria and the real possibility of punishment.
Schools, faculties and culture transfer knowledge, but also teach people who are allowed to ask questions, what is considered evidence and how to imagine a common past. In Serbia, the government through programs, appointments, funding of culture, textbooks and state commemorations affects this framework; research also records the political reworking of memories of the wars of the 1990s. At the same time, university blockades 202425 showed that educational institutions can become a space for independent discussion.
How the finding is separated in the matrix
Scientific papers document the politics of memory and state narrative, while domestic reports record pressures on education and culture and the large role of the faculty in the protests.
The government invests in these institutions because they shape a long-term idea of the normal and possible; for the same reason their professional autonomy can set a limit to the political story.
Yes Serbian case shows both control and autonomous potential of education and culture.
The curriculum and public funding necessarily involve political decisions. An authoritarian problem arises when professional proceedings are replaced by loyalty, prohibition, retaliation or denial of established facts.
The same school can produce both knowledge and adjustment of government. The outcome depends on what is taught, how it is taught and how free the teachers and students are.
Works supporting this answer, with their evidence type and an explanation of how they relate to the claim.
review more research
Paglayan, A. S. (2026), „Education as a Political Institution“, Annual Review of Political Science 29: 525–546.
- Contribution to this answer
- Paglayan shows why education is not just a neutral public service: schools shape political values and national identity, create a large number of jobs that can be used for patronage, can serve surveillance and influence how the state builds a social order. That is why almost every regime has a political interest in what happens in schools.
research that checks more closely what the cause is
Cantoni, D. i dr. (2017), „Curriculum and Ideology“, Journal of Political Economy 125(2): 338–392.
- Contribution to this answer
- Cantons and co-authors provide very strong evidence that the content of teaching can really change political attitudes: after the reform of Chinese textbooks, students were more positive about Chinese governance, changed attitudes towards democracy and were more skeptical about the free market. The effects on real behavior were less clear.
data from a large number of countries
Neundorf, A., Nazrullaeva, E., Northmore-Ball, K., Tertytchnaya, K. i Kim, W. (2024), „Varieties of Indoctrination: The Politicization of Education and the Media around the World“, Perspectives on Politics 22(3): 771–798.
- Contribution to this answer
- Neundorf and co-authors show that politicizing education and media is not a feature of a single regime: on the data for 160 countries they follow different ways in which states control or shape political messages through schools and media. This shows how much systematic regimes invest in what citizens learn about politics and society.
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 not only textbooks create political culture: public symbols, rituals, and obligatory displays of loyalty teach people how to speak and behave publicly, even when they don’t believe in the regime’s story privately.
review more research
Han, H., Baggetta, M. i Oser, J. (2024), „Organizing and Democracy: Understanding the Possibilities for Transformative Collective Action“, Annual Review of Political Science 27: 245–262.
- Contribution to this answer
- Han, Baggetta and Oser show why schools, colleges and other places where people can build lasting organizational ties are politically potentially important: real collective power arises from relationships, leadership and the ability to act together, and not just from a large number of individuals. But the work is not about education, culture or the politics of memory as such.
Sources supporting the Serbia example, with the claim they support and their limitations.
Reviewed scientific work - Verified 21.08.2026
Đureinović, Jelena. 2023. “Marching the Victorious March: Populism and Memory Appropriation of the Yugoslav Partisans in Today’s Serbia.” Nationalities Papers 51(6): 1250–1262. https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2022.50
ureinović, Jelena. 2023. “Marching the Victorious March: Populism and Memory Appropriation of the Yugoslav Partisans in Today’s Serbia.” Nationalities Papers 51(6): 125062. https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2022.50
- What the source records
- The paper finds that since 2012, the government has been taking over and merging various historical symbols into a populist story of heroism and sacrifice that helps modern political legitimacy.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that education, culture and politics of memory shape long-term boundaries of knowledge and identity, but can also become an infrastructure of self-organization.
- Source limitation
- It studies the official policy of remembrance, not showing how every citizen accepts or rejects these messages.
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 education, culture and politics of memory shape long-term boundaries of knowledge and identity, but can also become an infrastructure of self-organization.
- Source limitation
- Scenario analysis is time-sensitive and does not predict the future; it is based on information available until November 2025.
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 twenty-eighth annual report documents systemic pressures and violations of rights in 2025 and brings together data from institutions and sectoral organisations on the prosecution of protest participants and incidents towards journalists.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that education, culture and politics of memory shape long-term boundaries of knowledge and identity, but can also become an infrastructure of self-organization.
- Source limitation
- The report follows the rights and institutional treatment, not the type of regime; part of the numerical data is taken from state authorities and other organizations and should be read with their original records.
Official international monitoring - Verified 21.08.2026
European Commission. 2025. Serbia 2025 Report. Commission Staff Working Document. Brussels: European Commission.
- What the source records
- The report notes weak election conditions, limited parliamentary scrutiny, strong political pressure on the judiciary and concerns that the president is in practice directing decision-making beyond the constitutional idea.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that education, culture and politics of memory shape long-term boundaries of knowledge and identity, but can also become an infrastructure of self-organization.
- Source limitation
- The report is related to the EU accession process and describes a certain period; it does not represent a scientific causal study or a uniform assessment of the type of regime.
Is a relevant source missing? Send it to us.
Suggest a source or report an error in this answer →