Serbia’s snap election: What’s at stake and can students unseat Vucic?

A snap parliamentary election is an early vote held before the date normally set for choosing lawmakers. Serbia’s regular parliamentary election was not due until late 2027, so the October 25 vote brings the contest forward by almost two years. It matters because parliament will determine who can form the next government and whether the Serbian Progressive Party, or SNS, can remain dominant.

The early election follows Vucic’s resignation from the presidency in September. He stepped down before completing his second and final constitutional term, then began leading the SNS campaign for prime minister. This move made the parliamentary election central to his effort to stay politically powerful.

The vote is therefore more than a routine change of government. It is also a test of whether the SNS can withstand a student-led movement born from mass protests. A separate presidential election must eventually be held, but this parliamentary contest comes first and could reshape Serbia’s political system.

The main challenger to the SNS is Student List–Students Win, a student-backed slate bringing together candidates with little or no previous political experience. Its candidates include academics, teachers and other professionals. The list emerged from the student movement that became the driving force behind Serbia’s largest demonstrations in decades.

Its programme centres on restoring the rule of law, ending corruption and rebuilding public institutions. It deliberately avoids making divisive questions such as Kosovo, European Union membership and relations with Russia the centre of its campaign. That broad approach is designed to unite voters from the left, centre and right.

Some opposition parties are not running and instead support the student list. Others are competing but may fail to pass the parliamentary threshold. This makes the Student List more than another party: it could become a new political home for voters who distrust both the SNS and Serbia’s fragmented traditional opposition.

The movement began after a concrete canopy collapsed at a railway station in Novi Sad in November 2024. Sixteen people were killed. Initial protests demanded accountability for the disaster and answers about how it happened. The government’s handling of the tragedy then became part of a much broader criticism.

Students took the lead in organising demonstrations. They connected the collapse to allegations of corruption and to frustration with the Serbian Progressive Party’s long control of government. Their protests grew into a nationwide movement, drawing people who were also unhappy with weak institutions and an ineffective traditional opposition.

The demonstrations became some of Serbia’s biggest since the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic. Students, previously seen as one of the country’s least politically engaged groups, became the core of a major social mobilisation. Their movement eventually produced a political vehicle, Student List–Students Win, for the October 25 election.

The Serbian Progressive Party has governed Serbia since 2012. By the time of the snap election, it has built a 14-year grip on power. That duration matters because the SNS has had years to shape political institutions, maintain a loyal electorate and develop the governing system its opponents now challenge.

The party’s advantage is not only its time in office. Jelena Vasiljevic said the SNS retains a disciplined core electorate supported by a clientelist model, in which goods and services are exchanged for political support. Critics also accuse the party of pressuring independent media, manipulating elections and using state resources to maintain power. The SNS rejects allegations of abuse and corruption.

The October 25 vote is therefore a serious test of the party’s resilience. A strong result could extend its dominance, while a breakthrough by the student list could begin a major reorganisation of Serbian politics. Either outcome will show how much the protests have changed the country’s political balance.

If the student-backed list performs strongly, Serbia’s parliament could look very different. It could contain a large group of politicians who are politically inexperienced and ideologically diverse. Traditional opposition parties, already seen by many as fragmented and ineffective, could be greatly reduced.

The mechanism is electoral and political at once. Some opposition parties are supporting the student list instead of running, while others risk failing to clear the threshold for parliament. A strong result would therefore concentrate opposition support behind a new movement and weaken the parties that previously represented it.

The consequences would extend beyond the number of seats won. Jelena Vasiljevic said the result could start a wider reorganisation of Serbia’s political landscape, regardless of who forms the government. But winning power would be only the beginning. A new government would face the harder task of rebuilding institutions, public trust and the rule of law after years of alleged party control.

Turnout matters because the SNS begins with a disciplined core electorate. Jelena Vasiljevic said that base is supported by a clientelist model, where goods and services are exchanged for political support. Such an organised voting bloc can be powerful when opponents are divided or when many citizens stay home.

The student list faces a different task. It must unite voters who oppose the SNS, while also persuading habitual non-voters and undecided citizens to participate. That is difficult because traditional opposition parties are fragmented, some are not running, and others may not pass the threshold for parliament.

A low turnout could leave the SNS’s organised supporters with greater influence over the result. Higher participation could give the student-backed list access to voters who rarely vote but are motivated by anger over corruption, weak institutions and the railway-station disaster. Turnout will therefore help determine whether the election preserves the existing system or begins changing it.

Independent courts, free media, fair elections and the rule of law are basic safeguards against unchecked political power. Courts must be able to apply laws without party pressure. Media must be able to scrutinise leaders. Elections must give voters a genuine choice. Together, these institutions help rebuild public trust and make governments accountable.

Serbia’s situation shows why they matter. Critics and rights groups accuse the SNS of pressuring independent media, electoral malpractice and using state resources to maintain power. Srdan Majstorovic said years of party control had damaged institutions, the rule of law and public trust. A broad democratic reset would therefore require more than simply changing ministers.

These reforms also affect Serbia’s relationship with the European Union. Majstorovic said concerns about the rule of law have helped block progress toward membership. Judicial independence, free media and anti-corruption measures could renew cooperation with Brussels and revive the accession process, although a government change would not automatically transform foreign policy.