Serbian citizens living abroad remain entitled to participate in decisions about their country’s future, but concerns over complicated registration procedures, inconsistent information and delays in processing applications have raised questions about whether they are being given equal opportunities to exercise that right.
In an article published by Radar on October 19, Miodrag Kreculj, a member of the Serbian Diaspora Committee of Matica Srpska in Munich, argues that the government should have no reason to fear the votes of citizens abroad if it has confidence in its policies. He contends that administrative barriers could discourage diaspora voters and reduce uncertainty over the outcome of parliamentary elections.
The issue goes beyond the number of electoral lists, campaign messages and political promises. It concerns whether Serbian institutions provide equal conditions for participation to all citizens, including those living thousands of kilometres from home.
“Citizens who live abroad have not ceased to be part of the political community to which they belong. Their physical distance from Serbia does not diminish their right to participate in decisions about its future,” Kreculj writes.
Registration procedures raise concerns
Ahead of the snap parliamentary elections scheduled for October 25, voting from abroad has become a subject of particular concern. Although registration may appear to be a routine administrative process, its success depends on timely information, accessible consular services, accurate documentation, prompt processing and effective communication between the authorities.
For Serbian citizens living in Munich, Frankfurt, Zurich, Chicago, Melbourne and elsewhere, delays can mean lost working hours, additional travel and telephone expenses, and uncertainty over whether their applications will be approved in time.
According to a report published by Srpske novine on September 25, Jelena Vranješ, a member of the expanded composition of Serbia’s Republican Electoral Commission (RIK), said the commission had not received feedback from diplomatic and consular missions about the number of registered voters. She also reportedly pointed to insufficient coordination with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding applications received.
The same report cited accounts from members of the group “Frankfurt with the Students,” who said some citizens had waited weeks for confirmation of their applications.
Limited staffing at consular missions has been cited as one possible explanation. While high application volumes can create organisational difficulties, Kreculj argues that election deadlines are known in advance and that institutions have a responsibility to prepare, provide clear instructions and process requests on time.
If citizens are held accountable for missing deadlines, he asks, who is responsible when institutions fail to perform their duties?
Civic groups report inconsistent procedures
Maja Morošan, speaking on behalf of the informal civic initiative UključiSe in Munich, told Radar that the group had documented procedural and communication problems but could not, without further evidence, conclude that deliberate political obstruction was taking place.
She cited cases in which applicants reportedly received no confirmation of receipt for days, different consular missions applied inconsistent procedures, and information about establishing additional polling stations remained unclear.
Morošan described one case in Hanover in which two women seeking to vote in the same city reportedly received different documents: one listing Hanover as the polling location and the other listing Hamburg.
She said the initiative had offered the consulates and the Foreign Ministry practical assistance in finding suitable venues and providing other logistical support.
The group was also monitoring requests for additional polling stations in Nuremberg, Cologne, Hanover and Karlsruhe. According to information it had received from citizens, more than 150 people had registered in Karlsruhe and over 100 in Nuremberg. Morošan said the group was more cautious about the figures for Hanover because applications had not always been recorded consistently.
Separately, the Kreni-promeni movement alleged that Foreign Ministry Secretary-General Dušan Kozarev had verbally instructed officials to make it more difficult to establish polling stations abroad, particularly in Germany and the United States. The allegation has not been established as fact. Kreculj argues that it should be investigated transparently: if such an instruction was issued, the public should be told who gave it, on what basis and with what consequences.
Dispute over the number of polling stations
According to information attributed to Radar and described as unofficial, approximately 106,000 Serbian citizens abroad had registered to vote by October 4, while 93 polling stations had been arranged, compared with an expected 120.
The article cites a general threshold of at least 100 registered voters in a city, with exceptions possible through RIK approval. It further reports that polling stations had not been established in Karlsruhe, Cologne, Hanover and Nuremberg despite what civic organisers said was sufficient interest.
These figures and claims reflect the information available to Radar and the civic groups it interviewed; they do not, by themselves, establish that the authorities deliberately prevented citizens from voting.
Kreculj contrasts Serbia’s arrangements with the organisation of Turkish elections abroad, pointing to the use of large venues in Berlin to accommodate voters. He argues that Serbia should likewise treat diaspora participation as a core democratic responsibility rather than an administrative inconvenience.
Students and civic initiatives help voters
Student groups in Munich and other parts of Germany have been helping citizens navigate registration requirements, complete forms, check electoral records and contact the relevant consulates. The civic initiative ProGlas has also held presentations in Frankfurt, Munich and Stuttgart to encourage eligible voters to register.
According to Kreculj, these efforts demonstrate how civic engagement can help citizens overcome procedural obstacles, while also highlighting the need for clearer institutional communication.
He argues that democracy cannot be reduced to the act of voting alone. It also requires timely information, accessible procedures, impartial decision-making, accurate records and transparency about decisions on polling locations.
Elections, he writes, are not a mechanism for preserving any particular government but a means for citizens to decide who should exercise public responsibility.
“An equal right to vote is measured not merely by a sentence in the law, but by the actual conditions under which a person can exercise it,” the article argues, whether in Belgrade, Niš and Novi Sad or in Munich, Zurich, Vienna, Chicago and Melbourne.
Kreculj concludes that a state expecting loyalty from its citizens must first earn their trust by respecting their rights, including the right to vote according to their own convictions—even when that means voting against the government.
