Voters queue for hours at embassy in The Hague: 'I want a new future for Serbia'

Serbian citizens living in the Netherlands had to vote at the Serbian embassy in The Hague. Voters came from across the country, so the polling place became heavily crowded. Many waited for three hours or more. They accepted the delay because the election could influence whether Aleksandar Vucic remains in power.

The queue included voters from Groningen, Apeldoorn, Rotterdam, and Nootdorp. One voter travelled three hours and then waited three more. Another said she had already waited three hours and would do it again. Some voters were also voting for family and friends still in Serbia.

Their determination reflects broader concerns about Serbia’s direction. Voters mentioned corruption, favoritism, freedom of expression, and uncertainty about the future. Similar queues appeared in Switzerland and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The long lines showed strong interest in an election that polls described as a close contest.

A parliamentary election is a vote for the representatives who will sit in a country’s parliament. Those representatives help shape laws and determine which political party or coalition can form the government. It therefore affects national leadership, policies, and the direction of the country.

In Serbia, voters were choosing among competing party lists. The article highlights the Serbian Progressive Party, or SNS, led by Aleksandar Vucic, and the Students List. The Students List grew out of protests against the sitting government. Polls described the contest between these two lists as very close.

The election mattered especially because Vucic hoped to become prime minister again. He had announced his departure as president, while his second and final presidential term was due to end the following year. A strong parliamentary result could therefore help him retain political power through another office.

Voter turnout measures the share of eligible voters who have cast a ballot. It helps show how strongly citizens are engaging with an election. Higher turnout can indicate that more people see the result as important, although it does not by itself predict which party will win.

At 14.00 uur, 46,4 percent of Serbia’s eligible voters had voted. The figure came from Serbia’s public broadcaster RTS. At the same point during the 2023 election, turnout was 32,2 percent. The comparison shows that participation was substantially higher this time.

Voting was still continuing when these figures were reported, so the final turnout could be higher. The crowded embassy in The Hague and queues in other countries matched the national pattern of increased participation. The higher engagement mattered because polls presented the election as a close race between SNS and the Students List.

The Serbian Progressive Party, known as SNS, is the party of Aleksandar Vucic. The article identifies it as the governing political force associated with him. Vucic held several ministerial posts on behalf of SNS before becoming prime minister in 2014 and president in 2017.

The Students List is an opposition party formed from protests against the current government. Those protests began after part of a railway station roof collapsed in Novi Sad, killing sixteen people. Demonstrators blamed corruption within the government. They also accused Vucic of intimidating political opponents and restricting press freedom.

The election placed these two forces at the centre of a close contest. Polls predicted a neck-and-neck race between SNS and the Students List. Their rivalry represented a choice between continuing the current political direction and supporting a movement that grew from demands for government change. The result could shape Serbia’s leadership and political debate.

The early election was linked to Vucic’s political timetable. He announced his departure in June, and his second and final presidential term was expected to end the following year. Holding parliamentary elections early created a way to seek a different powerful office before that presidential limit arrived.

Vucic hoped that his Serbian Progressive Party would perform strongly enough for him to become prime minister again. A parliamentary election determines which parties control the legislature and can form the government. If SNS won sufficient support, Vucic could move from the presidency to the premiership instead of leaving national power.

The article describes this as a tactical step. It means that announcing his departure did not necessarily mean withdrawing from politics. The election could allow him to remain influential, or even return as head of government. The result therefore mattered not only for parliament but also for Serbia’s overall leadership.

The election could influence Serbia’s political freedoms and how government power is exercised. Vucic’s opponents accuse him of intimidating political rivals and restricting press freedom. They also blame corruption within the government for the Novi Sad station disaster, in which sixteen people died. These claims made the vote a test of the current system.

If opposition forces gained strength, they could press for greater freedom of expression and closer scrutiny of officials. Voters in The Hague specifically mentioned corruption, favoritism, and fear about the future. However, the article does not establish what the final result would change. It only shows why many voters wanted a different direction.

The result could also affect Serbia’s European future. The article says Serbia made hardly any progress toward joining the European Union during Vucic’s rule. A change in political leadership might alter that direction, while continued SNS control could preserve the existing course. The election’s outcome would determine which possibility becomes more likely.

Corruption weakens a country when public decisions serve private interests instead of citizens. Political favoritism can make jobs, opportunities, and services depend on personal connections. That reduces trust and makes people feel that effort cannot reliably improve their lives. It also makes government less effective.

The article gives Serbia as a clear example. A voter from Apeldoorn said young people eventually see no future because of corruption and favoritism. She said they then leave the country. Another voter described Serbia as deeply corrupt and hoped for a future without fear or uncertainty.

When many young people leave, the country loses residents who could work, start businesses, and build communities. The voter said that a country then “runs empty,” which helps nobody. The election could become an opportunity for voters to demand change, but the article does not say whether the result will reduce corruption or reverse emigration.