CIVICUS discusses the authorities’ response to recent anti-government protests in Serbia with Ivan Đurić, Policy Analyst at the Centre for Research, Transparency and Accountability, an independent, non-partisan civil society organisation committed to developing democratic culture and civic activism.

Since June, authorities have made over 500 arrests at largely peaceful protests and blockades across Serbia, raising concerns about state repression, police violence and judicial independence. Although most people face minor charges and are released shortly after arrest, several students remain in pretrial detention facing severe accusations. There is a systematic pattern of excessive police force, illegal surveillance and abductions by plainclothes officers. President Aleksandar Vučić’s inflammatory rhetoric and threats against political opponents have further escalated tensions.

How have the protests evolved?

On 28 June, a major student protest in the capital, Belgrade, brought together over 120,000 people. After the protest officially ended, police clashed with a small group of protesters, using excessive and disproportionate force. Arbitrary arrests followed, including of people who hadn’t engaged in any violence.

This sparked a new wave of decentralised protests across Serbia, including road blockades, sit-ins at public institutions and other acts of civil disobedience. While student groups – particularly in Belgrade – typically plan large demonstrations weeks in advance, these smaller, community-based actions sprang up spontaneously in towns and neighbourhoods.

The combination of organised and decentralised protests has become a defining feature of the movement since late 2024. It poses a challenge to authorities because it bypasses the near-total media blackout imposed by the pro-government press.

In response, the government has reverted to familiar tactics: instead of engaging in dialogue or addressing protesters’ demands, it has escalated repression to intimidate and wear down the movement. Authorities have launched smear campaigns that portray protesters as ‘enemies of the state’, intensified legal harassment by issuing hundreds of misdemeanour charges for blocking traffic and increased the number of criminal proceedings targeting students and activists.

How are authorities justifying the detention of students?

At least 10 students and others have been detained over private conversations they held ahead of major protests. People were wiretapped and illegally put under surveillance, and their messages were later aired on pro-government TV. In those conversations, students were simply brainstorming protest ideas and scenarios, but state-aligned media twisted their words to portray them as organisers of violence or coup attempts.

The Prosecutor’s Office adopted this narrative and filed serious charges without any tangible evidence. Students have been publicly labelled as terrorists and neo-Nazis and are now accused of attempting to overthrow the constitutional order. This isn’t law enforcement: it’s political persecution. It’s part of a coordinated campaign to intimidate the wider movement, using the judicial system as a tool of repression. This same logic also shapes police actions on the ground during protests.

What evidence exists of systematic police abuse?

Over the past few months, the police response has been highly selective and clearly politically motivated. Since protests have been largely non-violent, it’s hard for the government to justify using force. When sit-ins or roadblocks have been staged outside university faculties, local assemblies or prosecutors’ offices, reactions have varied sharply: in some cases, police have used excessive force to disperse peaceful protesters, while in others they have stood by and done nothing.

This inconsistency suggests that police actions are dictated not by law but by political calculation. Whether force is used depends on how useful repression is to the ruling party, rather than any objective law enforcement standard. There are also documented cases of arbitrary arrests and violence during detention, pointing to a system with no meaningful oversight or accountability.

How’s civil society responding to these violations?

Civil society organisations are working hard to defend freedoms of assembly and expression and provide legal support to those facing police violence and politically motivated prosecutions. They are also monitoring and documenting abuses, filing complaints with national and international bodies and mobilising public support to defend democratic values.

However, there’s a strong sense that foreign partners and the international community aren’t doing enough. Many people feel they keep treating the situation in Serbia as ‘business as usual’, despite clear signs of an undeclared state of emergency and violations of democratic norms. Civil society keeps calling for stronger, clearer responses from Serbia’s international partners: not just statements, but real political consequences for repression and democratic backsliding.

What are the long-term implications for Serbia’s democratic institutions and rule of law?

Even before the mass protests of late 2024, Serbia was widely recognised as a captured state, with institutions and media operating under direct political control. Since protests began, this trend has deepened. Institutions no longer pretend to act independently; they are openly used to suppress dissent and protect the ruling party’s interests.

Serbia’s democratic tradition is still relatively young, dating back only to 2000. Institutions have never developed enough resilience to resist authoritarian pressures and their current state shows how fragile the system is.

A meaningful reversal of this democratic backsliding seems impossible under the current regime. It will only be feasible to rebuild institutions and restore the rule of law after political change, when space opens for genuine reform. The challenge ahead is enormous: rebuilding will mean starting almost from scratch.

Serbia is currently on the CIVICUS Monitor Watchlist, which tracks countries experiencing a serious decline in respect for civic freedoms.