Serbian university professor Milo Lompar has said that a change of government in Serbia is possible but cannot be considered certain, arguing that the country’s ruling leadership remains willing to make significant political concessions in order to preserve its hold on power.
In an interview with Beta News Agency, the professor at the Faculty of Philology of the University of Belgrade said the government led by President Aleksandar Vučić and parliamentary speaker Ana Brnabić has become politically weaker and is facing declining public enthusiasm. Nevertheless, he argued that it still possesses sufficient political and economic leverage to prolong its rule.
“They are prepared to grant foreign actors whatever they demand in order to remain in power,” Lompar said, alleging that Serbia’s leadership has repeatedly traded national interests for political survival while international partners have prioritized strategic and economic interests over democratic standards.
According to Lompar, traditional opposition parties have largely lost public trust because, in his view, they frequently followed political directions encouraged by international actors rather than offering a genuine alternative.
He argued that the emerging student movement now has an opportunity to reshape Serbia’s political landscape, provided it maintains a broad coalition that includes both civic-oriented and nationally oriented supporters.
Lompar said such a movement should pursue a limited transitional mandate focused on restoring the rule of law, ensuring political and individual accountability for constitutional violations, dismantling media monopolies, and prosecuting those responsible for violence against citizens.
He added that broader ideological and long-term political questions should be left for future democratic debate and referendums conducted under normal political conditions.
Looking ahead, Lompar warned that if the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) and President Vučić remain in power, Serbia would continue on its current political trajectory.
In foreign policy, he predicted closer alignment with NATO, acceptance of additional European Union demands, expanded arms sales to Ukraine, and continued uncertainty over whether Serbia would eventually impose sanctions on Russia, depending largely on the position of the United States. He also argued that relations with Serbs in Republika Srpska and Montenegro would remain largely symbolic, while the rights of Serbian minorities in Croatia and North Macedonia would continue to receive insufficient attention.
Domestically, Lompar claimed that continued SNS rule could lead to the signing of a binding agreement with Kosovo, further public borrowing backed by natural resources, the privatization of Serbia’s state-owned electricity utility EPS, support for the Rio Tinto mining project, stronger political repression, tighter media control, and deeper politicization of state institutions.
He described these developments as contributing to what he called the “colonialization” of Serbia and the fragmentation of the Serbian national interest, while arguing that Russian influence—already significantly reduced—would continue to diminish.
Lompar also discussed the possibility of a future political arrangement involving cooperation between the ruling SNS and opposition parties if encouraged by international actors. Such a scenario, he argued, could facilitate a gradual political transition while preserving many elements of the current system and offering political guarantees to the existing leadership.
He concluded by claiming that nationally oriented political forces have increasingly been excluded from Serbia’s foreign policy, public administration, diplomacy, economy, and cultural institutions, creating what he described as a democratic imbalance within the country’s political system.
Lompar’s remarks reflect his personal political analysis and assessments of Serbia’s domestic and foreign policy direction rather than established facts.
