Serbia votes in election pitting longtime leader against student movement

A parliamentary election is a vote to choose representatives for a country’s legislature, or parliament. Those representatives turn public choices into laws and oversee national government. The election matters because the party or coalition controlling parliament can usually shape the government’s agenda and spending decisions.

Parliamentarians debate and pass legislation, approve taxation and public budgets, and question government ministers. They can investigate official decisions and demand explanations. In parliamentary systems, they may also support a prime minister, withdraw support, or help form a coalition government. The exact powers depend on Serbia’s constitutional system and election results.

In this election, voters are choosing among Vucic’s Serbian Progressive Party and the Student List, which offers 250 candidates. The result could therefore affect who controls Serbia’s government and its response to corruption, schooling, healthcare, pensions, and salaries. The article presents the vote as a possible watershed moment, but it does not specify the parliament’s precise constitutional powers.

Aleksandar Vucic is Serbia’s longtime populist leader. He has held power as prime minister and president for more than a decade. He resigned as president in September so he could run again for prime minister. His continued influence matters because this election could either extend his political dominance or produce a major change.

Vucic’s support comes partly from voters who credit him with pulling Serbia out of economic obscurity and overseeing sustained modernization. During the campaign, he promised higher pensions, larger public-sector salaries, healthcare investment, and subsidies for young couples. He also presents himself as able to balance ties with China, Russia, and the European Union.

He remains a strong incumbent, according to the article. An Ipsos poll gave his Serbian Progressive Party 47 percent, compared with 40 percent for the Student List, although other polls showed the students ahead. His party also denies accusations of repression, corruption, and spying.

The student protests were triggered by the deaths of 16 people when a train-station canopy collapsed in Novi Sad in 2024. Demonstrators connected the tragedy to perceived government corruption and then broadened their criticism to creeping authoritarianism. Their movement has continued for almost two years and gained widespread public support.

The students want corruption rooted out and schooling improved. Their wider political aim is to oust Vucic, whom they accuse of leading an increasingly repressive system. Their Student List includes 250 mostly unfamiliar candidates, including university professors, actors, and farmers. Cardiologist Ilija Srdanovic leads the roster.

Rights groups and activists say repression worsened after the collapse. Vucic and his party deny repression and corruption accusations. Vucic also claims foreign agents in Croatia and Montenegro fund the students, but the movement denies that charge. The protests therefore combine demands for accountability with a challenge to the existing political leadership.

The student movement has become unusually large for Serbia, a country of about six million people. Around 150,000 supporters gathered in central Belgrade on Thursday. That crowd equals roughly one person in 40 nationally, although a rally is not the same as a measure of total public support. The article says the students have gained widespread backing.

Election polling shows a much closer contest than the rally’s size might suggest. An Ipsos poll published Thursday gave Vucic’s Serbian Progressive Party 47 percent and the Student List 40 percent. Other polls placed the students ahead. These figures measure stated voting intentions, while the rally measures participation in one public demonstration.

The contrast makes the result uncertain. Vucic remains a strong incumbent, but the students have created the biggest challenge against him yet, according to analyst Mario Bikarski. Their movement’s ability to convert protests into votes will be central to the election’s outcome.

If Vucic loses, Serbia could see a new parliamentary majority and a government no longer led by its dominant political figure. The article calls such an outcome a profound political shift. It would show that the student movement had turned nearly two years of demonstrations into electoral power, rather than merely public pressure.

The Student List’s stated priorities are rooting out corruption and improving schooling. Its 250 candidates come from varied backgrounds, including academia, the arts, and farming. A victory could therefore bring unfamiliar people into parliament and place accountability at the center of government. The article does not describe how the students would form a governing coalition or implement every policy.

Serbia’s international direction would also face questions because the movement says little about its ambitions abroad. Vucic has balanced China, Russia, and the European Union. A defeat could change that balance, but the article does not establish which relationship a new government would prioritize.

Serbia’s relationships offer different advantages and pressures. China is a major investor. Russia is Serbia’s traditional ally and principal supplier of natural gas. The European Union remains a possible destination because Serbia has left the door open to joining. These relationships matter because they affect investment, energy, diplomacy, and domestic reforms.

Vucic has pursued a balancing strategy rather than choosing only one partner. He has strengthened ties with China and Russia while preserving the possibility of EU membership. However, EU relations have frayed under his leadership. The bloc is increasingly frustrated by insufficient reforms involving the judiciary, the rule of law, and corruption.

A future government could continue this balance, emphasize Chinese investment and Russian energy ties, or seek closer alignment with the EU through deeper reforms. The article does not say what the Student List would choose. Its agenda focuses on domestic corruption and schooling and says little about international policy, so the election’s foreign-policy result remains uncertain.

Judicial independence, the rule of law, and anticorruption institutions determine whether elected power is genuinely constrained. Independent courts can investigate abuses without political orders. Clear legal rules require officials to follow the same standards as citizens. Strong anticorruption bodies can examine public contracts, conflicts of interest, and misuse of state resources.

The mechanism is practical. Courts must be able to review government actions, watchdogs need authority and protection, and parliament must be able to question ministers. If these safeguards are weak, a government may win an election while limiting scrutiny, shielding allies, or pressuring opponents. Elections then provide legitimacy without guaranteeing accountability.

The article says the EU is frustrated by Serbia’s lack of reforms in the judiciary, rule of law, and corruption. Rights groups and activists also say repression worsened after the canopy collapse, while Vucic’s party denies those accusations. These disputes show why institutional independence will matter after the vote, whatever its result.