Serbia’s political landscape is entering another tense election period, with representatives of the ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) and opposition parties offering sharply different assessments of electoral conditions, media access, political dialogue and whether the results of the upcoming parliamentary elections should be accepted.
The debate was held as part of Serbian Kompas’ roundtable discussion “In Search of Dialogue,” bringing together Marina Raguš, deputy speaker of the Serbian parliament from the SNS, Vladimir Gajić, president of the People’s Party and lawyer, and Predrag Marsenić, an MP from the NADA coalition, comprising New DSS and POKS.
At the center of the discussion was whether opposition parties should commit in advance to recognizing the election results.
Gajić argued that the opposition should not make a blanket commitment before the electoral conditions and conduct of election day are known. However, he said his party would recognize the results if there were no serious violations.
He maintained that Serbia’s electoral legislation provides opposition parties with significant mechanisms for monitoring the process, but argued that those mechanisms are not being used effectively enough.
Gajić pointed to provisions allowing electoral material from a percentage of polling stations to be opened and reviewed, arguing that opposition parties could use these procedures to identify irregularities. He also called for greater transparency in voter lists, saying publication of used voter registers could help citizens living abroad determine whether votes had been cast in their names.
Marsenić, meanwhile, described the electoral environment as fundamentally unequal, citing what he characterized as the abuse of state resources, the ruling party’s dominance in the media and unresolved questions surrounding voter lists.
He also criticized what he called the ruling party’s use of public officials’ activities as a form of electoral campaigning and argued that opposition parties have insufficient access to national television channels.
“Early elections are being discussed, but it is too soon to say whether we will recognize them,” Marsenić said, arguing that the opposition needs guarantees for genuinely free and fair elections.
Raguš defended the existing electoral framework and rejected claims that the ruling party was preparing to manipulate the vote. She argued that political disputes should be resolved through institutions rather than street protests and called for all parties to accept the results if there are no serious violations at polling stations and the official records are properly completed.
She also criticized what she described as the increasing involvement of foreign observers and international actors in Serbia’s electoral process, arguing that domestic political disagreements should primarily be addressed through dialogue within Serbia.
The discussion also focused heavily on the emerging “student list,” which opposition figures and the SNS view very differently.
Raguš described the student movement’s potential entry into electoral politics as an attempt to reshape and fragment the existing opposition landscape. Gajić similarly warned that multiple lists presenting themselves as student, patriotic, left-wing or right-wing alternatives could divide the opposition vote.
Marsenić took a more conciliatory position, saying that his party disagrees with some positions associated with the student movement but remains willing to cooperate with any political force seeking a peaceful change of government.
He also called for opposition parties to consider agreeing on a single candidate for the presidential election, potentially a politically independent figure capable of attracting support across a wider section of society.
The participants also disagreed sharply over the record of the SNS government.
Raguš highlighted infrastructure investment, foreign investment, wages, pensions and economic stability as evidence of the government’s achievements. She argued that citizens can see the impact of public spending through roads, hospitals and other projects.
Gajić acknowledged that the government had achieved economic results, particularly through infrastructure investment, but criticized what he described as excessive reliance on subsidies for foreign investors and the politicization of public-sector appointments.
Marsenić also acknowledged positive economic developments while arguing that major infrastructure projects require much stronger oversight of public spending.
The debate touched on the collapse of the railway station canopy in Novi Sad and the broader social crisis that followed. Raguš argued that technical factors should be distinguished from allegations of corruption and said responsibility should be established through professional investigations.
Marsenić called for an independent and professional examination of the project, while Gajić said allegations of corruption should be investigated through institutions rather than turned into political confrontations.
Foreign policy and Kosovo were another major dividing line.
Gajić and Marsenić expressed skepticism toward Serbia’s EU membership prospects, particularly because of the Kosovo issue and the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy. Both opposed imposing sanctions on Russia and advocated closer relations with China and the BRICS countries.
Raguš defended the government’s policy of maintaining relations with multiple global powers while refusing to impose sanctions on Russia. She described Serbia’s foreign policy as sovereign and independent and argued that Kosovo remain part of Serbia under the country’s Constitution.
Marsenić, however, accused the government of sending contradictory messages to Russia and Western countries, particularly over Serbia’s arms exports and relations with Moscow.
The debate ultimately reflected a much broader dispute over Serbia’s political direction: whether the country should pursue continuity under the SNS, undergo a peaceful change of government followed by institutional reforms, or seek a new political model centered on emerging student and opposition movements.
Despite their deep disagreements, all three participants emphasized the importance of preventing political violence and maintaining stability during the upcoming electoral period.
