Vučić opens a new Belgrade railway station weeks before the start of the campaign
Photo: Facebook / Aleksandar Vučić
Campaign of public officials, dominant position of the ruling majority in the media, and pressures on voters have once again marked election campaign in Serbia. Additionally, as it was the case in recent cycles, suspicions about the manipulation of the nomination process and voter registry were present as well.
Moreover, these elections have been widely described as a setback for local democracy. Snap local elections were announced in 66 cities and municipalities, following the announcement by the President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić. No explanation has been provided from the ruling SNS as to why extraordinary local elections are being held in December, rather than in the spring, when the terms of local parliaments were set to expire. SNS held stable majorities in all cities and municipalities.
The fact that the President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić, is the most visible figure in the electoral campaign, even though he is not running for any position in these elections, is perhaps the best illustration of the problems of Serbian democracy.
Despite the fact that the European Parliament mediated talks on improving electoral conditions between government and opposition from 2019 to 2022, these elections demonstrate that significant improvements have not been made.
Vučić and the ruling party dominate the media
According to the finding of the Crta monitoring mission, during the first 36 days of the election campaign, the media landscape in Serbia has maintained existing inequalities of the representation of political actors on TV channels with national coverage.
Ruling majority continued to hold an extremely dominant role in media space, occupying 75% of the prime-time coverage, while the opposition was allocated only 25%. According to Crta, this data represents a worsening trend compared to the previous year when the representation of the ruling majority was slightly lower at 64%, and the opposition had a higher share of 36%.
Although opposition lists have been given space on the public broadcaster in the election-related segments, the inequality in the representation of the government and opposition is particularly pronounced in the regular news segments where, according to Crta, opposition has received only 10% of the time.
Regarding to tone of reporting, Crta has observed an unfair approach by the media towards political actors. The ruling majority is mostly portrayed neutrally (75%), positively (24%), and almost never negatively (1%). On the other hand, the opposition is more often presented neutrally (66%) but with a significantly higher percentage of negative tone (27%) and rarely positively (7%).
Additionally, Crta noted that opposition lists and politicians are most frequently the subjects of reporting and do not have the opportunity to address the public directly on TV channels with national frequencies.
When it comes to the print media, findings of the Transparency Serbia, published on 14 December, show that from 2 November to 13 December Aleksandar Vučić appeared on 268 newspaper front pages, 85.1% of which in a positive tone. Dragan Đilas, one of the opposition leaders, was in the second place in terms of the number of front pages: 62 times, 93.5% in a negative tone.
Pressures on voters intensified
Various forms of pressure on voters are among the most frequently recorded electoral irregularities. According to results published by Crta, these pressures particularly intensified at the end of the election campaign. The organisation detected elements of pressure on voters, as well as political actors, in more than 110 activities across Serbia. The report of the organisation states that public sector employees must secure “safe votes” and attend party rallies.
Crta’s observation mission notes that during the campaign, citizens from economically vulnerable groups were also targeted for pressures and bribes.
In addition to pressures on voters, research from the Center for Investigative Journalism (CINS) revealed a scheme involving vote buying by the Serbian Progressive Party. On 29 November, CINS released an audio and video material of acoordinator of an SNS call centre offering an undercover CINS journalist 9000 RSD (76 euros) for voting for SNS. The workers in the call centre were reportedly paid in cash through a youth organisation receiving state funding through various projects.
Transparency Serbia has submitted a complaint to Anti-Corruption Agency regarding potential violation of the Law on the Financing of Political Activities and the Criminal Code. So far, the case has not gotten an institutional epilogue. Government representatives, including President of Serbia, have shifted the narrative, claiming that there is nothing wrong with a party having its own call center.
Massive misuse of institutions and public functions
The election campaign has also been marked by widespread abuse of public resources and the campaign of public officials. While the changes of the Law on Electronic Media banned media coverage of promotional activities of public officials, such as the visits to construction works, opening of factories or signing contracts 30 days before election date, the ban does not apply to officials who are not candidates in elections, which includes President Aleksandar Vučić.
Transparency Serbia found that the number of promotional activities of public officials increased by 330% in the first 43 days of the campaign compared to the same period (November-December) last year, when there was no election campaign.
President Vučić visits construction works
Photo: Facebook / Aleksandar Vučić
According to data from the Crta monitoring mission, activities and messages of public officials and the ruling party, in many cases, do not clearly and unequivocally distinguish between the state and the party, leaving room for manipulation and undue influence on voters.
“Crta observers have recorded almost 450 appearances of high state officials in local communities in the past month – whether in individual or group visits or activities. Their visits largely coincide with municipalities where extraordinary local elections were announced. In almost half of the recorded visits, officials were presented in their capacity as public officials and representatives of the state of Serbia”, the report stated.
Forged signatures and phantom voters – deterioration of confidence in electoral process
Controversies over “phantom signatures” and “phantom voters” characterized the preparatory phase of the electoral process, affecting the confidence in the elections and their credibility among parts of the Serbian public. Potential abuses were primarily noticed in Belgrade, where the election results are the most uncertain.
For an electoral list to participate in the elections, it needs to gather signatures of support – 10,000 for parliamentary election and 3,000 for Belgrade election. The collection of signatures has been controversial during previous electoral cycles, as small and unknown lists, without or with a poor infrastructure, managed to gather the requred number of signatures from citizens. Their participation primarily favors the ruling party by taking votes away from the opposition parties, both on the left and the right.
That citizens may not have actually supported several lists, and some personal data and signatures have been forged, the public in Serbia learned accidentally. Signatures of certain public figures, who claim never to have supported any lists, were found by the members of electoral commission submitted by the list. Among them was also investigative journalist Jelena Zorić, whose signature of support was found on an electoral list for the Belgrade election.
However, institutional response to these allegations was lacking. Although the prosecution addressed this issue, the Higher Court in Belgrade dismissed eight appeals from voters and one appeal from the opposition coalition “Serbia Against Violence”. These appeals sought to determine the extent of forged signatures that led the acceptance of even seven out of the 14 lists that will appear on the ballot in the Belgrade elections.
In addition to phantom signatures, controversies were also caused by allegations of “phantom voters”.
Opposition representatives have claimed that a large number of citizens who do not live in Belgrade were registered to vote in the local election by the ruling party. A statement by one of the coalition partners of Aleksandar Vučić, Milan Stamatović, interpreted by some as confirmation of pre-election “voter migration” orchestrated by the Serbian Progressive Party, have brought the voter registry under public scrutiny.
The Ministry of State Administration and Local Self-Government has not commented on this issue, leaving the Serbian public without answers to the question of whether there is significant registering of new voters for the Belgrade election. The official number of registered voters in Belgrade increased by 13,000 since 2022, which does not represent a major difference – but whether some voters who do not live in the city have been de-registered, leaving space to register additional voters, remains unknown.
