Pedalling for Change: How Serbian Students Are Confronting the EU’s Silence on Democratic Decline

It took almost 1,500 km for Serbian students to pedal their protest from the Serbian city of Novi Sad to the doorstep of EU institutions in Strasbourg this April. They rode their bikes because, after five months of marching against the country’s authoritarian drift, President Aleksandar Vučić had not budged. But what also drove them was that Brussels responded with deafening silence as they raised their voices against corruption, widespread institutional neglect, underfunded education, and violations of civic rights at home. Why, they asked, is the EU compromising its founding principles in pursuing strategic interests in Serbia, a candidate for accession?

The Spark That Ignited the Protests

The recent wave of dissent started with the deaths of sixteen people on 1 November 2024, when the canopy of the recently renovated Novi Sad railway station suddenly collapsed. The tragedy was the latest result of systemic corruption in Serbia. In protest against the country’s leadership and governance system, Belgrade Faculty of Dramatic Arts students shut down the university’s regular operations, triggering similar actions at universities across Serbia. Peaceful agitations have spread ever since, drawing in hundreds of thousands of people. The government responded with fierce repression, injuring and arresting protesters, using sound bombs, targeting independent media, and raiding the offices of several NGOs engaged in human and civil rights for alleged misuse of USAID funds.

Amid growing dissent and violence against demonstrators, Prime Minister Miloš Vučević resigned in March. In appointing a new government, the National Assembly confirmed most ministers from the previous one, closing the door to concessions to the protesters. This change was little more than a smokescreen, crafted to ensure that Vučić maintained his grip on power. In response, protests continued to escalate, yet, unlike in demonstrations in Moldova and Georgia, it was rare to see EU flags hoisted by the crowds. For the students, the reason was apparent. While, following her visit to Belgrade in late April, EU Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos stressed that what “the EU asks from Serbia closely aligns with the demands of the citizens protesting”, the EU leadership has exerted no leverage to counter the country’s steady democratic decline but merely reiterated that Serbia should pursue the necessary reforms. Only the European Parliament has been vocal, even calling on the Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen to cancel her meeting with Vučić, though to no avail.

Worse, just days before the Novi Sad tragedy, Von der Leyen praised Serbia for having “committed to delivering on reforms, particularly on the fundamentals of the rule of law and democracy”. This, when on that same occasion, she hailed a newly signed strategic partnership with Belgrade as a cornerstone of deepening ties, evidence to many in Serbia that the EU was prioritising economic interests and regional stability over democratic reforms.

The Jadar Valley Controversy

Signed in July 2024, the “Strategic Partnership on sustainable raw materials, battery value chains and electric vehicles” carries a twofold significance. It marks a critical step in the EU’s broader effort to strengthen its strategic raw materials supply, as Serbia bears considerable lithium deposits relevant for the production of batteries. It also provides the EU with a strategic opportunity to counter China’s expanding influence in the Western Balkans’ raw materials sector. However, the partnership also promotes compliance with the Union’s environmental, social, and governance standards.

Serbia has been remiss on this score. Following the signing of the partnership, broad swaths of civil society raised their voices against one particular lithium mining project in the Jadar Valley that Brussels is considering backing. In 2022, the government had already stalled it due to a lack of transparency and poor adherence to environmental and social benchmarks. Mobilisation against the project intensified in October after the National Assembly rejected an opposition bill to ban lithium mining. Serbian civil society organisations regard the project’s possible revival as unacceptable.

A core consideration is that the Serbian regulatory framework on environmental protection still falls short of EU standards and lacks appropriate enforcement and implementation mechanisms. The recent repression of independent voices further aggravates civil society’s concerns over the lack of transparency and oversight surrounding this project. Additionally, Rio Tinto, a multinational company previously condemned in a Canadian court for environmental violations, manages the project, raising further questions about the reliability and accessibility of data. In this context, experts have highlighted the project’s impact on groundwater, waste accumulation, soil, water usage, and biodiversity, disrupting the region’s ecological balance and affecting the livelihoods of local communities, particularly landowners. 

Though sparked by the Novi Sad incident in November, the most recent wave of protests gave voice to broader discontent over deep-seated issues and denounced the Jadar Valley project. In railing against the government this time, citizens also expressed resentment towards the EU.

The EU’s Credibility at Stake

Indeed, many Serbians, particularly those taking to the streets, perceive the potential backing of controversial mining projects, along with silence on civil society repression and democratic backsliding, as an EU endorsement of the government’s policies. They argue that to preserve its credibility as a Union grounded in democratic principles and standards, the EU should avoid supporting contentious practices that exacerbate breaches of environmental and social norms. It should also take a firm stance against clear violations of democratic and civil rights, lest its continued silence provokes a severe backlash.

Although protesters are far from ideologically unified, they have a shared determination to dismantle systemic corruption and push for institutional renewal. The EU should seize upon this, as support for the EU and accession could grow, provided Brussels aligns itself with the movement’s demand to uphold its standards. Weak public support for the EU’s presence in Serbia would further erode its leverage points and undermine enlargement prospects. Yet enlargement remains an effective tool for reinforcing European stability and unity, particularly at this critical juncture. Public backing is therefore more crucial than ever. In this light, the EU must balance its strategic interests in the region not only from an economic perspective, but also about its political influence and credibility.