As Serbia approaches local elections on March 29 in ten municipalities, multiple reports indicate systematic misuse of public resources and electoral advantages by the ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS). Despite official claims of aligning electoral processes with ODIHR recommendations and revising voter lists, field reports show little change—and in some cases, worsening conditions.
Transparency Serbia has documented numerous irregularities in the pre-election period, filing 69 complaints with the Anti-Corruption Agency. Violations include presenting public projects as party achievements, using state resources to promote campaigns, favoritism toward a single electoral list on official platforms, and involving public officials in campaign activities under the guise of regular duties.
Nemanja Nenadić, Program Director of Transparency Serbia, highlighted that complaints cover only a small fraction of abuses publicly observable. Officials reportedly visited construction sites and public projects to create the appearance of active governance during the campaign. Monitoring data shows that from the election announcement to March 25, 66% of government field activities occurred in the ten municipalities holding elections, compared to just one-third in the remaining 160 municipalities.
High-level involvement is also evident. The President’s name appears on all ruling coalition lists, and he actively promoted initiatives such as the so-called “Serbia 2030” program—presented as a state initiative but lacking official documentation—raising concerns about blending state and party agendas.
Reports also reveal anomalies in voter lists, including deceased individuals, inaccurate addresses, and so-called “phantom voters.” In some municipalities, citizens have received voter notifications for people who do not exist or have been dead for over a decade. Legal teams and election observers have been mobilized to monitor and prevent irregularities.
Members of the Voter List Review Commission, including MP Ana Gođevac, confirmed that systematic irregularities extend across multiple municipalities. They documented over 1,100 changes in voter registrations from February, with examples such as 286 changes in Knjaževac alone, often based on unclear “address change” justifications.
Gođevac emphasized that these issues are not isolated mistakes by local officials but reflect systemic abuses originating from institutions like the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Public Administration. She described the situation as “systemic election manipulation.”
These findings underscore persistent challenges to election integrity in Serbia, highlighting the need for vigilant monitoring and enforcement to protect voters’ rights and ensure a fair electoral process.
