Serbia: documented application of the same framework
Academic research base
How can a crisis and conflict within the government open a path to change?
The crisis changes the resources, relationships and expectations of the people who maintain power. The economic downturn can reduce the money for prizes, the military defeat can damage the reputation of the top, and the dispute over the successors divide the party or services. When important allies no longer believe that the leader can protect them, they begin to look for an alternative.
A limited political opening can then allow citizens to connect, exchange information and see that the system is weaker than it presents itself. But the crisis does not automatically lead to democracy: it can justify extraordinary measures, unite the elite around fear or bring a new authoritarian group. Change becomes possible when the division within the government merges with organized social pressure and when services, institutions and external allies change the expectation of who will survive.
The change in 2000 was not just because the society was dissatisfied. The electoral defeat intensified the conflict within the government: certain political allies, business actors, police and military leaders had to assess whether to continue defending Milosevic or to preserve themselves in the new order. When the top can no longer reliably share rewards and threats, the elite lose their common interest and the crisis opens up space to the opposition.
How the finding is separated in the matrix
Historical studies of the security forces, the Resistance and the 2000 elections describe various assessments and withdrawals of support from key actors in the final phase.
The split is important because it gives the opposition information, resources or neutrality of institutions that did not have it before; at the same time it shows other loyalists that change is no longer unthinkable.
Yes elite cracks were an important part of the turnaround, but not the only cause.
Certain agreements and motives from 2000 remain controversial or secret. It is necessary to distinguish documented behavior from later claims of participants who have an interest in beautifying their role.
The crisis can make the government stronger, and the limited opening can remain under its control. The outcome depends on the services, people within the government, the organization of opponents and outside help.
Works supporting this answer, with their evidence type and an explanation of how they relate to the claim.
comparing several countries or cases
O’Donnell, G. i Schmitter, P. C. (1986), Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies, Johns Hopkins University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- O’Donnell and Schmitter show why divisions within the authoritarian elite are often crucial: when a part of the people in power begins to believe that the system can no longer be maintained in the same way, there is room for liberalization, negotiations and new alliances. But once the process begins, even those who have opened it can no longer fully control its outcome.
comparing several countries or cases
Haggard, S. i Kaufman, R. R. (2016), Dictators and Democrats: Masses, Elites, and Regime Change, Princeton University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Haggard and Kaufman on dozens of transitions show how change is produced in various combinations of pressure from below and initiative or division among the elites from above. Some democratizations are pushed by mass protests, other negotiations and schisms in power, and their further course depends on the institutions that exist when the crisis begins.
review more research
Riedl, R. B., Slater, D., Wong, J. i Ziblatt, D. (2020), „Authoritarian-Led Democratization“, Annual Review of Political Science 23: 315–332.
- Contribution to this answer
- Riedl and the co-authors show an important fence: the authoritarian government does not have to open only when it is completely cornered. Sometimes democratization is acceptable to it precisely because it assesses that it is strong enough to take the risk of a freer game especially when it has a well-organized ruling party.
Development and verification of measurement methods
Geddes, B., Wright, J. i Frantz, E. (2014), „Autocratic Breakdown and Regime Transitions: A New Data Set“, Perspectives on Politics 12(2): 313–331.
- Contribution to this answer
- Geddes, Wright and Frantz show what can happen when an internal conflict or other crisis really overturns the regime: democracy is just one possible outcome, and very often the old authoritarian regime is replaced by another. That is why “crisis has opened the system” is not yet the same as “crisis has opened the way to democracy”.
comparing several countries or cases
Barany, Z. (2016), How Armies Respond to Revolutions and Why, Princeton University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Barany shows why, in a moment of great political crisis, the military’s decision can become crucial: the same army can defend the regime, refuse to shoot or divide, depending on its internal cohesion, its relations with power, its assessment of its legitimacy, the character of the protests and its external environment.
Sources supporting the Serbia example, with the claim they support and their limitations.
Reviewed scientific work - Verified 21.08.2026
Binnendijk, Anika Locke, i Ivan Marović. 2006. “Power and Persuasion: Nonviolent Strategies to Influence State Security Forces in Serbia (2000) and Ukraine (2004).” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 39(3): 411–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postcomstud.2006.06.003
Binnendijk, Anika Locke, and Ivan Marović. 2006. “Power and Persuasion: Nonviolent Strategies to Influence State Security Forces in Serbia (2000) and Ukraine (2004).” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 39(3): 411–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postcomstud.2006.06.003
- What the source records
- The Serbian movement has combined personal contacts, public messages, discipline and increasing the political price of repression to encourage neutrality or defection of parts of the apparatus of force.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that electoral and economic pressures open up change when key actors within the government stop believing that the old leadership can protect them.
- Source limitation
- “The case study does not mean that the same tactic will work against every apparatus of force, nor that the fall of 2000 had only one cause.
A documented study of nonviolent campaigning - Verified 21.08.2026
International Center on Nonviolent Conflict. 2011. Otpor and the Struggle for Democracy in Serbia (1998–2000). Washington, DC: ICNC.
- What the source records
- The case study shows that the success of 2000 came not only from protests, but from elections, more unified opposition, a wide social network, strikes and weakening the obedience of the apparatus of force.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that electoral and economic pressures open up change when key actors within the government stop believing that the old leadership can protect them.
- Source limitation
- ICNC promotes nonviolent action and the study is a didactic reconstruction of a successful case, so it carries the risk of subsequent simplification and selection of confirming events.
Reviewed scientific work - Verified 21.08.2026
Vladisavljević, Nebojša. 2016. “Competitive Authoritarianism and Popular Protest: Evidence from Serbia under Milošević.” International Political Science Review 37(1): 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512114535450
Vladisavljević, Nebojša. 2016. “Competitive Authoritarianism and Popular Protest: Evidence from Serbia under Milošević.” International Political Science Review 37(1): 3650. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512114535450
- What the source records
- “The work shows that the protest can force concessions and open the regime crisis, but that different protest waves have different outcomes and only in 2000 there was a change of regime.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that electoral and economic pressures open up change when key actors within the government stop believing that the old leadership can protect them.
- Source limitation
- Analyzing Serbia in the 1990s; the mechanisms are not automatically the same in today’s institutional, technological and international environment.
Reviewed scientific work - Verified 21.08.2026
Pavlović, Dušan. 2020. “The Political Economy Behind the Gradual Demise of Democratic Institutions in Serbia.” Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 20(1): 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2019.1672929
Pavlović, Dušan. 2020. “The Political Economy Behind the Gradual Demise of Democratic Institutions in Serbia.” Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 20(1): 1939. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2019.1672929
- What the source records
- The work links the weakening of democracy with the rules and economic incentives that enable the authorities to turn public resources into a political advantage.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that electoral and economic pressures open up change when key actors within the government stop believing that the old leadership can protect them.
- Source limitation
- It is a causal interpretation of a long process; it does not cover developments beyond 2019 and does not exclude other explanations.
Is a relevant source missing? Send it to us.
Suggest a source or report an error in this answer →