Serbia: documented application of the same framework
Academic research base
How do banks, companies, lawyers, and platforms from democracies help authoritarian governments?
Institutions and companies from democracies can become an important part of the authoritarian network without an official political alliance. Banks and the real estate market can hide assets, lawyers and accountants make complex ownership structures, lobbyists and experts fix reputations, technology firms sell surveillance, and platforms hand over data or spread coordinated campaigns.
These services turn money and openness of democracy into protection for the power acquired without responsibility at home. However, dealing with an authoritarian state is not automatic complicity and the service can have a legitimate purpose. Responsibility depends on what the provider knew or could reasonably check, what precautions he applied and whether he continued to cooperate after reliable evidence of abuse.
The authoritarian power of Serbia is not only maintained by partners from the East. Companies from democracies invest and sell technology, banks finance projects, consultants and lawyers arrange contracts, and digital platforms reinforce political content and slowly remove coordinated harassment. European governments can at the same time give priority to stability, Kosovo, migration or jobs over pressure for democracy. Thus, democratic actors do not have to want authoritarianism to reduce its price.
How the finding is separated in the matrix
Scientific papers on EU conditionality, reports on democratic regression and technical studies of commercial surveillance describe external incentives, suppliers and inconsistent political conditionality.
Assistance arises through ordinary business and diplomatic decisions when profits, security or short-term stability are suppressed by checking who is using money, data and legitimacy.
As a systemic risk with multiple documented channels; the responsibility of each specific company or state must be determined separately.
A foreign company or an EU project can strengthen rights and development. The claim requires the monitoring of a concrete contract, due diligence standards, political conditions and a reaction to abuse.
Cooperation with authoritarian government is not automatic complicity. It is important what the company or expert knew, what he could check and how the service was really used.
Works supporting this answer, with their evidence type and an explanation of how they relate to the claim.
Analysis of international cash flows and impacts
Cooley, A. i Heathershaw, J. (2017), Dictators Without Borders: Power and Money in Central Asia, Yale University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Cooley and Heathershaw show perhaps most directly how authoritarian power uses the infrastructure of democracies: money is kept in Western banks and real estate, lawyers and intermediaries protect the interests of the elites, lobbyists fix political ties, and legal systems and financial markets allow authoritarian money and influence to operate far beyond the home state.
comparing several countries or cases
Feldstein, S. (2021), The Rise of Digital Repression: How Technology Is Reshaping Power, Politics, and Resistance, Oxford University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Feldstein shows a similar relationship in the technology sector: the ability of the regime to monitor and control citizens depends not only on the state, but also on companies that produce and sell tracking, filtering and data analysis technologies.
comparing several countries or cases
Schiffrin, A. (ur.) (2017), In the Service of Power: Media Capture and the Threat to Democracy, CIMA/NED.
- Contribution to this answer
- Schiffrin and the authors in the proceedings show how private media can lose independence through a combination of political and economic power through ownership, advertising, financial dependence and business pressures. For this question, it is useful as an example of how the private sector can become part of the political control system, but not primarily work on companies from democratic countries that help foreign autocracy.
comparing several countries or cases
Tansey, O. (2016), The International Politics of Authoritarian Rule, Oxford University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Tansey shows that international actors can directly change the chances of an authoritarian regime to survive and that external support is not just a diplomatic matter. But the book does not specifically study Western banks, lawyers or technology platforms, so here is a broader framework.
review more research
Tsourapas, G. (2021), „Global Autocracies: Strategies of Transnational Repression, Legitimation, and Co-Optation in World Politics“, International Studies Review 23(3): 616–644.
- Contribution to this answer
- Tsourapas shows how repression outside the borders often uses the infrastructure of the country in which the critic lives digital tools, international legal procedures, extradition, monitoring and other cross-border mechanisms. This shows how much authoritarian control depends on the international environment, although the work is not specifically about commercial “enablers”.
Sources supporting the Serbia example, with the claim they support and their limitations.
Reviewed scientific work - Verified 21.08.2026
Kakarnias, Theofanis. 2025. “Decoding Serbia’s Democratic Backsliding: EU Conditionality Meets Domestic Realities.” European Political Science 24(3): 293–312. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-025-00518-8
Kakarnias, Theofanis. 2025. “Decoding Serbia’s Democratic Backsliding: EU Conditioning Meets Domestic Realities.” European Political Science 24(3): 293–312. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-025-00518-8
- What the source records
- Process monitoring indicates that the internal interests, the issue of territorial integrity and the uncertainty of EU membership are mutually reinforcing.
- Claim it supports
- Claiming that companies, platforms and democratic governments can unintentionally or consciously facilitate authoritarian practices when profits and stability suppress abuse checks.
- Source limitation
- The paper explains part of the cause and the external environment, and does not offer a complete classification of the regime.
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
- Claiming that companies, platforms and democratic governments can unintentionally or consciously facilitate authoritarian practices when profits and stability suppress abuse checks.
- 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.
University laboratory technical research - Verified 21.08.2026
Citizen Lab. 2021. Pegasus vs. Predator: Dissident’s Doubly-Infected iPhone Reveals Cytrox Mercenary Spyware. Toronto: Munk School, University of Toronto.
- What the source records
- Scans have listed Serbia among the likely users of Predator infrastructure, showing the international market of tools that give countries secret surveillance capabilities.
- Claim it supports
- Claiming that companies, platforms and democratic governments can unintentionally or consciously facilitate authoritarian practices when profits and stability suppress abuse checks.
- Source limitation
- The network infrastructure indicates a likely user, but it does not prove itself who used the tool in Serbia, against whom and with what legal basis.
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
- Claiming that companies, platforms and democratic governments can unintentionally or consciously facilitate authoritarian practices when profits and stability suppress abuse checks.
- 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 →