Following recent events in Belgrade, where student protests erupted in opposition to government corruption, nepotism, and other grievances, Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić issued a notable statement via Instagram.
He called on the opposition to seek an advisory referendum to assess public support for his presidency.
Referring to a survey by the NGO CRTA, which revealed that more than 50% of citizens are against him, Vučić dismissed these findings as foreign influence.
In his message, he stated: “Since the CIA and others claim that I lack public support, if these data are true, it makes no sense for me to remain president,” as noted in the Robert Lansing Institute analysis.
Vučić then urged opposition parties to gather the necessary parliamentary signatures to initiate the referendum. Similarly, Milenko Jovanov, leader of the Serbian Progressive Party’s parliamentary group, and Ana Brnabić, President of the National Assembly, reiterated this call.
The past two months have revealed widespread dissatisfaction with the authorities in Serbia. The collapse of the roof at the Novi Sad railway station, which resulted in 15 deaths, served as a turning point.
The allegations suggest that the renovation contract with a Chinese company was either poorly managed or completely unsupervised. This incident sparked protests across Serbia, with recent figures indicating over 100,000 participants, many of whom were students from 60 universities.
Vučić acknowledges the power of student movements, which have historically driven political change in the region. In response, the ruling party began manipulating the protests and proposing a referendum to reaffirm Vučić’s political authority.
However, the opposition in Belgrade rejected Vučić’ trap. Within 24 hours, they turned down his referendum proposal and instead called for the formation of a transitional government to address the crisis.
With international support, such a government would create conditions for free and fair elections—a possibility Vučić swiftly dismissed.
Meanwhile, attempts to infiltrate and discredit the protests have been reported. Among the demonstrators, infiltrators were seen carrying nationalist slogans and symbols, such as a Nazi-inspired slogan “No Surrender” from the Battle of Stalingrad or flags depicting Kosovo as part of Serbia.
Despite the failure of the initial referendum proposal, it seems unlikely that Vučić will abandon his efforts to consolidate power.
It seems likely that Vučić will now turn to constitutional reforms to secure his position, following a model similar to Vladimir Putin’s 2020 amendments.
Putin’s constitutional changes allowed him to extend his presidency beyond 2024, with amendments permitting re-election until 2036.
These changes also included symbolic measures, such as affirming Russia’s status as the successor to the Soviet Union, emphasizing faith in God, defending the Soviet Union’s role in World War II, and defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
The Kremlin used state-controlled media to highlight provisions that supposedly increase public support, while obscuring the primary goal of consolidating Putin’s power.
In Serbia, Vučić will likely present all proposed constitutional changes as “patriotic reforms” aimed at strengthening the nation.
Nationalism has been Vučić’ strongest political tool since coming to power, and he is expected to use the current protests to advance his agenda.
By incorporating nationalist elements into the narrative, Vučić could divert public attention from the original causes of the protests—government corruption, nepotism, and mismanagement—and shift it toward patriotic rhetoric.
If another referendum were to occur, it would likely follow these constitutional changes and serve as a means to legitimize the extended Vučić rule, solidifying his power in the foreseeable future, the analysis concludes.
