Serbian publicist Zlatoje Martinov sees President Aleksandar Vučić’s defeat in the parliamentary election as a positive development, but warns that the Student List’s ideologically diverse makeup could make governing and shaping Serbia’s foreign policy more difficult.
According to preliminary results from the Republic Electoral Commission (RIK), published on October 26, the Student List won the election held on October 25, with 52.71 percent of the vote and 140 seats. “United Serbia,” the list backed by Vučić, received 39.17 percent and 104 seats.
Të lidhura
None found
The list led by Ivica Dačić secured 2.17 percent of the vote but won no seats. RIK had processed data from 8,187 of the 8,392 polling stations. By that stage, 4,246,513 valid votes and 55,472 invalid ballots had been counted.
The Albanian Coalition received 27,670 votes, or 0.64 percent, and secured two seats in the Serbian parliament, according to preliminary results from the parliamentary election held on October 25, 2026.
Martinov describes Vučić’s defeat as good news, calling him a dictator, populist and totalitarian. He notes that, apart from Russia and Belarus, Serbia is the only country where the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) controls every municipality, with none governed by the opposition.
However, the publicist says the Student List includes various currents, including nationalists, Russophiles and opponents of the West. He says this diversity could create difficulties both in foreign policy and in governing the country. According to him, Serbia’s new left also leans toward Russia and opposes European integration, as does the populist right.
Martinov argues that the victory was made possible by the Student List’s rapprochement with various political and social groups: the left, the right, the center, the Church, clericalists, supporters of Russia and advocates of Serbia’s path toward the EU. But, he says, its outreach to the latter group was more limited. At protests, he says, crosses, icons and pro-Russian flags were visible, while EU flags were overshadowed or banned.
He compares this alliance against Vučić to the coalition of 18 parties with different orientations that led to the overthrow of Slobodan Milošević on October 5, 2000. Martinov is concerned that Vučić may have been defeated not because of his authoritarianism and populism, or his failure to respect the Brussels and Ohrid agreements with Kosovo, but because he accepted them. According to him, a large part of the Student List considers that acceptance to be a “betrayal of Kosovo.”
The publicist also sees worrying signs in statements by two prominent members of the list, who he says are expected to become ministers. He says that the day after the election they gave interviews to Russia Today, not to The New York Times or The Guardian. One said the new government would not impose sanctions on Russia, while the other said the Serbian Constitution would be upheld, as it defines Kosovo as an inalienable part of Serbia. According to Martinov, the country’s European orientation was not discussed.
Martinov asks how the new government will differ from Vučić’s if it, too, opposes concessions on Kosovo and does not align its foreign policy with the EU because it does not want to impose sanctions on Russia.
For this reason, he does not expect significant progress from the Serbian side in the Kosovo-Serbia dialogue and predicts that the new government’s rhetoric will be close to Vučić’s. Nevertheless, he advises Kosovo to try to engage in dialogue with the next Serbian government, with the EU’s full support. He says this would give Kosovo democratic legitimacy in the eyes of the international community, regardless of whether “the new Serbia” accepts or rejects talks.
