The problem of Serbia’s political system is reflected in the dominance of a political party supported by the “public service.” The public service is the dominant factor in Serbian politics, and whichever political party aligns with this—that party wins. It sounds absurd, but it is so, and now we will explain why and how the system works.

In short, the issue is corruption. The state apparatus is a massive resource for money, but even more importantly for mobilizing people—which is the most crucial factor in politics. The greatest resource the state apparatus has is not money, as many would assume, but jobs within those institutions. The concept of giving party members employment in the public sector determines election outcomes.

How does it determine elections?
The party promises—or has already provided—state jobs to its members, who are then obliged to gather votes for it. This means members must persuade their family, friends, acquaintances, or even strangers to vote for the party. They are also expected to attend party rallies, campaign on social media by posting positive content, go door to door, campaign in the streets, or participate in actions organized by the party. They feel obligated to do all of this because they believe they could lose their jobs if they do not—and this is precisely where the solution lies, and it is quite simple.

Why is the state apparatus even more important?
This is another dimension of power: the ability to extract money, but also something even more important—total control over the state. When a single political party controls all state institutions, inspections, and public enterprises, it gains absolute leverage and can destroy anyone who opposes it. This applies to individuals, to any company that supports the opposition, and to any media outlet that seeks to broadcast freely. The problem is that media owners cannot withstand the pressure from the system, because under extreme regulatory pressure, their outlets—and even their other businesses—would not survive.

In this way, the system has secured the support of company and media owners, drastically limiting the opposition’s ability to finance itself and promote its positions.

There is also a group of people known as “signatories”—individuals placed in positions of power who sign anything the party orders without question. They are also called loyalists, but their function is simply to approve everything.

The system functions in such a way that the party installs its people in all key positions and, through those positions, controls the entire state. These members are obliged to do whatever the party tells them.

Now that we see people are a far more important element of power than money, we must understand why people behave this way. It is crucial to realize that power is largely imaginary—it is based on citizens’ perception that a political entity has the ability to punish disobedience. Through complete control of state institutions, the system has instilled fear in citizens, convincing them it holds a monopoly over punishment—but that is not the whole story, even if everyone believes it.

The solution lies precisely in the fact that this is not the full picture. As we said, power is imaginary and stems from the perceived ability to punish. Therefore, what must be neutralized is that perceived ability of the political actor—the party or the system—to punish.

If we analyze the system more deeply, we find a “golden vein” for change that must be used. This lies in the contradictory logic of those who follow the system’s rules. Their reasoning is short-sighted, and what is needed is a media campaign to make their thinking more long-term. They are aware that, as individuals, they cannot change the system, so they comply without questioning whether it makes sense.

When a party tells you it is giving you a job—it is lying, and you are the victim of that lie. Your job is in the state sector, and it is the state—not the party—that provides it. Once this is understood, the next step is clear: you are the ones who choose the representatives of the state, which means you control those who provide jobs. In other words, you are the master of your own fate and decide in elections who will be in charge.

Because of the lie they inherited from the communist system, parties present themselves as intermediaries between you and public employment. But you do not need intermediaries when you can act directly—you just need to realize that you can.

In practice, the party coerces its members, who—due to this “big lie”—believe they are gaining something, while in reality they are only losing. This is difficult to understand in Western countries, but it is common across Eastern Europe, where communism or socialism once prevailed.

This is the point where the values of Western and post-socialist countries diverge. Once this issue is resolved, values will naturally align with those of Western countries, as was once predicted—that global opinion would converge toward liberal democracy, a free market, and consumer society.

The final obstacle to this transition in post-socialist and post-communist societies is the old system, which was never truly dismantled. It is based on power, money, and a major illusion—the “big lie,” known from Goebbels’ propaganda. Even though these countries shifted toward the West after the Cold War, their internal systems of control and power remained largely unchanged. This is why their political and value systems differ from those in the West. True systemic change is directly tied to the collapse of this entrenched structure—only then can a country move toward a new future.

The system itself is a relic of the past, originating in socialist states where the state controlled everything. This meant that whoever controlled the party controlled the entire system. In the past, it was impossible to question or oppose the system—doing so could lead to imprisonment or worse—so people believed nothing could be changed. This repression made it possible to sustain the “big lie” that the party gives you a job and must be obeyed. Today, it is enough to present people with arguments and facts to show how easily the system can be changed.

People must be shown that they will personally benefit—not through abstract solidarity, but directly—if they vote against the ruling system. Those coerced into supporting the ruling party gain nothing from doing so, but they do gain something by opposing it. Why?

Let us consider two parties: one representing the system, and the other an anti-system party that essentially negates the existing order.

Actions | System party | Anti-system party

As we can see, supporting the system party brings only obligations and problems, while a job in public administration can also be provided by an anti-system party.

Therefore, an anti-system party is a better choice for an ordinary citizen because it offers the same thing as the system party—a public-sector job—without requiring anything in return. Anyone who has accepted to vote for the system party under pressure has every incentive to vote for an anti-system party in elections.

The only remaining issue is old beliefs and values ingrained in people, which make them think change is impossible and that the party has authority and the ability to punish—something perceived as power. In reality, this is not the case, because voting is secret and there is no way to verify how someone voted.

The system that has functioned so far relies on the fact that the party has no real method to verify who voted for it. Voting operates on trust—someone claims they voted for the party, but there is no way to verify it. Because of the perceived power of the system party, most people vote as they say they will, believing they cannot change anything. Other methods used to sustain the system are also ineffective and based on trust between people who do not know each other. For example, when a politician wanted to cooperate with the party, party representatives would call individuals who supported that politician and ask whether they would vote for them. This shows there is no real enforcement mechanism—only reliance on people’s word.

This demonstrates that the system is fundamentally flawed and cannot withstand pressure; it survives only because it has not been seriously challenged.

The party’s methodology is based on mobilizing people who will vote, which is why ideology is not important and few know the party’s actual policies. What matters is that a certain number of people support it due to personal benefit. That is why current politics resembles a “big tent.”

Let’s look at the numbers:

In Serbia, there are about 6.5 million registered voters, of whom around 5.4 million live in the country, while the rest live abroad. Voter turnout ranges between 3.5 and 4 million. The key factor is the number of “secure” votes—those controlled by the system regardless of which party is currently in power. This is why the term “party switcher” exists, referring to individuals who change parties to remain in power.

Serbia previously had a communist system with a single party, but in 1990 a multi-party system was introduced. Transfers of power occurred in 2000 and 2012, when many individuals shifted from the old ruling party to the new one. This shows how powerful the system infrastructure is—it spans the entire country and aggressively secures votes.

In the 2000 presidential election, the system’s candidate Slobodan Milošević received 1.8 million votes and lost to Vojislav Koštunica. However, just three months later, in parliamentary elections, Milošević’s party received only 0.5 million votes—a drop of 1.3 million. This happened because many local actors responsible for campaigning and pressuring voters withdrew, and key figures in the old system aligned themselves with new political actors to survive.

Another example is the 2012 elections, followed by the 2014 elections, where former ruling parties lost half their support after defeat, while the new ruling party grew from 0.9 million to 1.7 million votes. In subsequent elections, it remained around 1.7 million, failing to attract many new voters.

The voting bloc driven by jobs, power, or status is significant—estimated at around 800,000 votes. Influencing this group alone can easily change election outcomes. It is not only that the ruling party loses votes, but also that the anti-system party gains them, rapidly narrowing the gap.

Because the system controls the government, those in power rarely oversee how the system itself operates. As a result, citizens often have very poor experiences with public institutions. The only way for ordinary citizens to improve their lives is to dismantle this system.

Important for Russia

A similar dynamic exists in Russia, though with different intensity. Influencing internal political forces and weakening the current government could weaken its negotiating position with Ukraine and potentially contribute to ending the war. A similar situation occurred during World War I, when Russia withdrew due to internal unrest.

This system has comparable effects in other Eastern European countries such as Hungary, Slovakia, Russia, and Ukraine.

Given that this model of centralized control is similar across communist and socialist systems, there is a possibility that similar approaches could influence systems in countries like China and Cuba as well.