Serbia: documented application of the same framework
Academic research base
Why are churches sometimes pillars of the government and sometimes a limit on its power?
Churches and religious communities have moral authority, spaces, money and a network of people who reach out even where political organizations cannot. The government can therefore seek their support to present its decisions as morally, nationally or historically necessary, and in turn offer privileges, property, media space or influence in education.
The same independence, however, can turn the church into a place of protection, public criticism and gathering of people that the state hardly ignores. The relationship differs between faiths, countries and within the same community. The official alliance of the religious leadership and the authorities does not automatically say what the local clergy and the faithful think. It is important who controls the appointments and resources, how much the community can publicly refuse the request of the government and what consequences it then bears.
The Serbian Orthodox Church has great trust, a network of parishes and a symbolic connection with the national identity, so the authorities are important as a source of legitimacy. Research describes the close relations between the state and the church top, common messages and public resources, but the Church is not a unique political actor: individual bishops, priests and believers can criticize the government or support the protest. Its power can therefore strengthen the government and set a moral limit for it.
How the finding is separated in the matrix
Studies of state-SPC relations document political rapprochement and the exchange of legitimacy, while public cases show differences within the church structure towards government and protests.
The government gets a cultural authority that the electoral function itself does not; the church gets access, resources and influence. But its own base and doctrine leave it with the opportunity to reject the political demand.
Yes the dual role is visible, with great internal differences.
It is not necessary to attribute the attitude of the patriarch, a bishop or a public figure to all the faithful. For a political claim, it is necessary to distinguish between the institution, its leadership, individual actors and the religious belief of the citizens.
Experiences of countries and faiths differ greatly. The official alliance of the church leadership and the authorities does not automatically tell what the faithful or the local communities think.
Works supporting this answer, with their evidence type and an explanation of how they relate to the claim.
comparing several countries or cases
Koesel, K. J. (2014), Religion and Authoritarianism: Cooperation, Conflict, and the Consequences, Cambridge University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Koesel shows that the relationship between the church and the authoritarian state is not simply a story of repression: religious communities and the government negotiate money, influence, prestige and space for action and often find common interest. That is why the same religious community can be an ally of the state in one relationship, and in the other keep enough of its own organizational and moral autonomy to oppose it.
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 give a broader logic: authoritarian authorities treat organizations differently according to whether they are politically demanding, provide useful services or support regime discourse. This may also apply to religious organizations, but work is not specific about churches.
Explain how the system works
Teets, J. C. (2014), Civil Society under Authoritarianism: The China Model, Cambridge University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Teets shows how an organization can have its own autonomy, cooperate with the state and at the same time remain a potential source of political risk. This is a useful general model of the relationship between government and organized civil society, but the book does not study religious communities.
comparing several countries or cases
Schleutker, E. (2021), „Co-optation and Repression of Religion in Authoritarian Regimes“, Politics and Religion 14(2): 209–240.
- Contribution to this answer
- Schleutker directly shows two sides of authoritarian attitude to religion: positive state support can be a form of co-optation, and prohibitions and restrictions a form of repression. How much the regime will use one or the other depends on both the abilities and ambitions of religious groups to influence society.
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 help us understand where the potential power of the church comes from at all: organizations that build lasting relationships, leadership and the ability to act together can have a political power that a loose group of individuals lacks. But the work is not a specific study of religion or the relationship between the church and the authoritarian state.
Sources supporting the Serbia example, with the claim they support and their limitations.
Reviewed scientific work - Verified 21.08.2026
Aleksov, Bojan, i Nicholas Lackenby. 2023. “‘Symphonia’? A New Patriarch Attempts to Redefine Church–State Relations in Serbia.” Comparative Southeast European Studies 71(4): 578–600. https://doi.org/10.1515/soeu-2023-0039
Aleksov, Bojan, and Nicholas Lackenby. 2023. “‘Symphonia’? A New Patriarch Attempts to Redefine ChurchState Relations in Serbia.” Comparative Southeast European Studies 71(4): 578600. https://doi.org/10.1515/soeu-2023-0039
- What the source records
- The authors show close cooperation between the Church and the state leadership, but also tensions and borders, so they do not reduce the Church to a simple addition of power.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that the Church can give cultural legitimacy and social network, while its own authority and internal diversity leave it with the possibility to set a limit.
- Source limitation
- Study the top of institutions and public events for a limited period; it does not represent the views of all believers, bishops or priests.
Domestic NGOs representative public opinion - Verified 21.08.2026
CRTA. 2025. Raste nezadovoljstvo vlašću; natpolovična podrška studentima. Beograd: CRTA.
CRTA. 2025. Growing dissatisfaction with the government; above-half support for students. Belgrade: CRTA.
- What the source records
- After five months of protests, 59% of respondents continued to support students and protests, showing broad support that cannot be reduced to the core of opposition parties.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that the Church can give cultural legitimacy and social network, while its own authority and internal diversity leave it with the possibility to set a limit.
- Source limitation
- One poll does not measure the organizational capacity of the protest, nor does it predict whether support will produce institutional or electoral change.
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 the Church can give cultural legitimacy and social network, while its own authority and internal diversity leave it with the possibility to set a limit.
- 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.
Reviewed scientific work - Verified 21.08.2026
Stojiljković, Zoran, i Dušan Spasojević. 2018. “Populistički Zeitgeist u ‘proevropskoj’ Srbiji.” Politička misao 55(3): 104–128. https://doi.org/10.20901/pm.55.3.04
Stojiljković, Zoran, and Dušan Spasojević. 2018. “Populist Zeitgeist in ‘Pro-European’ Serbia.” Political Thought 55(3): 104–128. https://doi.org/10.20901/pm.55.3.04
- What the source records
- The paper shows that populism in Serbia has several forms and can be merged with a broad, ideologically expansive party.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that the Church can give cultural legitimacy and social network, while its own authority and internal diversity leave it with the possibility to set a limit.
- Source limitation
- He studies populism and parties, and does not independently prove that the political system is authoritarian.
Is a relevant source missing? Send it to us.
Suggest a source or report an error in this answer →