Serbia has not recorded an election turnout of more than 60 per cent at the national level for almost two decades, while the 70 per cent threshold has not been crossed for exactly 26 years. The upcoming elections, however, could change that picture.
Given the long-awaited return to the ballot box, the general mood in society and the tectonic changes that have shaken the country’s political scene, the prevailing assumption among experts is that voter turnout could be significantly higher than in previous election cycles. Who would benefit most from that at this point, and why?
In traditional electoral arithmetic, high turnout generally favours the opposition, based on the assumption that a mass turnout “dilutes” the disciplined and firmly established electoral base of the ruling party. The authorities therefore benefit from the opposite scenario and, according to analysts, are now actively working to demobilise opposition voters. To this end, they say, the regime is also employing various campaign strategies.
Serbia last recorded more than 4 million voters turning out in parliamentary elections in 2007 (60.62 per cent) and 2008 (61.35 per cent). In the 2008 presidential election, turnout exceeded 60 per cent in both rounds. In the first round, 61.37 per cent of registered voters cast their ballots, while in the second the figure was as high as 68.14 per cent. The presidential candidates were Tomislav Nikolić and Boris Tadić.
The highest turnout, meanwhile, was recorded on 24 September 2000, in the elections for President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Federal Assembly. More than 70 per cent of voters cast their ballots. Early parliamentary elections were held in December of the same year, but turnout fell to 55.91 per cent.
The last two rounds of local elections in Serbia, held after the collapse of the canopy at Novi Sad railway station, were marked by high turnout. And 58.77 per cent of voters turned out for the most recent parliamentary elections, held in December 2023. How certain is it that turnout will be higher this time? And what impact could turnout have?
Could high turnout be a problem for the authorities?
Research analyst Miljan Mladenović told Insajder that a turnout of 60 per cent is now almost certain. In his assessment, given the current circumstances, even that percentage would be low.
“If we took the local elections held after the canopy collapse and projected those trends onto the national level, the turnout we could expect would be around 67.5 per cent, which is significantly higher than 60. The 65 per cent threshold is increasingly being mentioned in the media as crucial, with the suggestion that the student movement would have significantly better chances if turnout exceeded that level. But I would put the expected threshold even higher,” Mladenović says.
He also believes that turnout above 65 per cent and approaching 70 per cent could pose a problem for the authorities. Asked why high turnout favours the opposition, Mladenović says that, in societies such as ours, those in power are always much more successful at motivating their own voters.
“There are, of course, various ways of achieving that ‘motivation’. On the other hand, the opposition in previous election cycles was often divided and failed to project the sense of power and strength needed to shake up those in power. That made it much harder to motivate voters who are generally disinclined to go to the polls. This time, the situation is somewhat different,” Mladenović explains.
He says turnout at the protests, particularly the 15 March protest in Belgrade, has contributed to a much larger number of people now being inclined to vote.
“Although they are probably still not entirely certain about their choice, they will nevertheless turn out. The mere possibility of a change of government has pushed people towards considering going to the polls. On election day, when turnout is at a normal level, various factors that may seem trivial can push turnout up or down by several percentage points, such as the weather, the holiday season and so on. But when we are talking about an increase of 10 or 15 percentage points compared with a given baseline, that means certain voters have been motivated,” Mladenović points out, adding that these voters are largely opposition-oriented.
And, he says, this is not unique to Serbia. He cites elections in Hungary, major cities in Turkey and Montenegro as examples. Asked whether the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) campaign is geared towards discouraging opposition voters, Mladenović answers in the affirmative.
“Their voter base has been shrinking for years. If high turnout is expected and they have a limited pool of voters, the aim is to reduce turnout – because those votes generally go to opposition parties,” he says.
Mladenović adds that this is also supported by the fact that representatives of the ruling party are taking part in media debates for the first time in many years.
“There is a possibility that some opposition voters could be deterred from going to the polls by attempts to portray representatives of the Student List as incompetent, or something similar. There is a risk for the opposition camp that it could lose some of its voters in this type of debate. Because the essence of their campaign and messaging is to demonstrate the other side’s lack of competence to run the country,” Mladenović says.
Asked how much turnout could affect the position of other parties fighting to cross the electoral threshold, he says it is difficult to say, although he increasingly believes that, by creating a referendum-like atmosphere, “the largest share of the votes cast by people who may be voting for the first time will probably go towards the strongest opposition option, which will evidently be the Student List”.
“The only battle now is over turnout”
Political consultant Vladimir Dobrosavljević previously told Insajder that the authorities are keeping their voters motivated and cohesive while simultaneously attempting to discourage citizens who might support a political alternative.
“I am primarily referring to former abstainers who became politically active during the protests in the winter of 2024 and 2025. The message being sent to them is: ‘Look, they are all the same, they don’t know what they need to do, they have neither a programme nor a plan.’ We can assume that these are voters who want predictability, security and stability. By constantly undermining confidence, the regime is quite skilfully attempting to demobilise them again,” he said, adding:
“The essence of the authorities’ strategy is to discourage people, control turnout and motivate their own voters, both willingly and unwillingly, to go to the polls. Their opponents must learn from this and keep their voters highly motivated. The authorities regularly conduct focus groups and public-opinion research, but above all they monitor trends and the reactions of their own voters. Their most important task is to get those voters out to vote while discouraging the others as much as possible.”
Political scientist Dejan Bursać also recently wrote on the social media platform X that “the only battle now is over turnout”.
“For the SNS, the other side is a bigger problem than its own voters. They have their voters and will get them to the polls. They certainly cannot win over any new voters,” Bursać wrote.
That is why, he says, we are not witnessing an SNS campaign in the traditional sense. Communication is now directed at the other side, he adds, and the aim is not necessarily to win over opponents’ voters. He sees this strategy as encouraging conflict between students and opposition parties, as well as raising ideological and identity issues that could divide the heterogeneous electorate opposed to the authorities. All of this, he says, is intended to discourage voters and make them question their own choice.
“And make them doubt the possibility of a change of government, keep them at home, scatter them among several lists, leave them below the electoral threshold. It all helps,” Bursać wrote.
That is why, he believes, voter mobilisation is crucial for the Student List, rather than engaging in as many political conflicts as possible.
“Because what does huge turnout do? It pushes the SPS below the threshold. It leaves the Russian Party without a minority seat. It reduces the number of seats won by the SVM. It also leaves the DSS below the threshold,” Bursać concludes.
(Insajder, 25.09.2026)