“At a time when democracy in Serbia and globally has been in crisis for over a decade, enabling citizens to understand key decision-making processes and participate in them is the only way to restore lost trust in democratic institutions and mechanisms,” concluded participants at the roundtable “Mechanisms of Participatory Democracy as a Response to the Crisis of Democracy in the 21st Century,” organized by the Foundation for Liberal Public Policy.
Vujo Ilić, a researcher from CRTA, presented the results of recent public opinion surveys regarding citizen attitudes toward democracy and participation: “Despite significant democratic backsliding over the past decade, citizen attitudes toward democracy remain surprisingly stable. Our society displays a standard division regarding support for democracy versus authoritarian rule. However, the fundamental problem lies in how citizens currently understand democracy and authoritarianism. A significant portion of those who choose democracy as the best form of governance view it in a minimalist sense: democracy means parties exist, some form of elections take place, and the winner governs for the next four years until the next election. Issues such as equal electoral conditions, institutional constraints, and human rights are secondary to them. The largest single group of respondents, around 30 percent, supports a combination of democracy and authoritarianism—a ‘democracy with a strong hand’—which reflects the current system in Serbia.”
Enabling citizens to participate more directly in political processes during the four years between elections would contribute to increasing trust in and expectations of democracy. However, Irena Fiket, a research associate at the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, expressed skepticism regarding the scope and intent behind traditional direct democracy mechanisms, such as referendums, in authoritarian regimes: “Organizing a referendum in authoritarian societies—where free media, access to multi-faceted arguments, and a free public sphere are absent—merely yields results that mirror dominant regime media narratives. Referendums are held only when it suits the authorities, with outcomes known in advance.” The conclusion is that democratically and critically oriented actors in Serbia can achieve the greatest impact by independently initiating innovative participation models, such as deliberative mini-publics.
Citizens’ assemblies represent one of the most widely used forms of deliberative mini-publics. In Serbia, the first two citizens’ assemblies were recently organized in Valjevo and Belgrade by the Active Citizenship Lab at the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, as discussed by IFDT Director Gazela Pudar Draško. While the assemblies themselves were successful, participating citizens were disappointed by communication with authorities and their handling of requests: “Although this is a major challenge we will face whenever we try to make decision-makers listen to citizens, it does not mean such processes should cease. The current political culture makes these instruments, experiments, and civil society initiatives even more necessary. Deliberative democracy is gaining traction across Europe, creating space for political pressure to adopt and implement these mechanisms.”
Jovana Timotijević from Ministarstvo prostora discussed her organization’s efforts to apply deliberative mini-publics to urban planning: “In urban planning, mandatory citizen participation forms exist prior to adoption. However, this participation remains limited to information sharing and consultation, lacking true partnership. Public awareness of participation opportunities is low, and a lack of data and material reinforces the belief that citizens lack the knowledge to participate effectively. On the contrary, our deliberative forums demonstrated that citizens are fully competent and understand local urban issues.”
Natalija Stojmenović, a member of the Belgrade City Assembly representing Ne davimo Beograd, noted that her organization incorporates participatory practices internally: “Our greatest challenge was candidate list formation for elections—not because members fought for positions, but in encouraging people to run for parliamentary and council seats. Our members take responsibility seriously, and representing citizens involves a substantial workload. Our participatory mechanism allowed every territorial and thematic group within Ne davimo Beograd to propose candidates, decide on numbers, and vote on selection, maintaining an equal ratio of men and women on all lists.”
Pavle Grbović, president of the Free Citizens Movement, argued that motivating citizens and passive members to engage actively in political life remains the primary challenge for opposition parties: “Low citizen participation in political parties and participatory processes—not just in membership numbers, but in the willingness to take responsibility and enter politics—is not merely the result of poorly organized parties. It is also driven by an intense anti-politics campaign in recent years. Even during mass protests, the primary message was often ‘this is not a political protest and we are not politicians.’ This anti-politics narrative harms society while benefiting the current regime, and it should not be legitimized.”
Political decision-making and governance remain in the hands of citizens beyond elections held once every four years. Deliberative democracy processes help citizens recognize this responsibility, making the scaling of these mechanisms a crucial priority. This approach fosters a democratic political culture, increases social and political trust, applies greater pressure on political actors, and supports a gradual transition away from authoritarian models. For democratically oriented political actors aiming to become decision-makers, this represents the path toward building public trust.