In Serbia, there is a widespread, decades-long practice of holding local elections on the same date as parliamentary or presidential elections. Dominant political parties favor consolidating elections because the leader’s name leads citizens, by inertia, to vote for the same option at the local level. Thus, instead of addressing real, unresolved citizen issues, local candidates, their backgrounds, past achievements, or community development opportunities during local campaigns, council elections are reduced to referendums on party leaders and national policy.
Combined with limited original competencies and revenues, total financial dependence on the state, and numerous unclear and non-transparent procedures that allow the national government to penalize and discipline municipalities—especially those governed by opposition majorities—consolidating elections is yet another way the importance of local self-government is eroded. Local self-government in Serbia has lost its original purpose and has been transformed into branch offices of the central government and political parties.
Therefore, the best first step toward restoring the right to local self-government to citizens is separating the timing of local and national elections.
With announcements becoming increasingly frequent that consolidated elections at all levels will take place again in the coming period, the research team at the Foundation for Liberal Public Policy has prepared several proposals to prevent this harmful practice in the future:
- Extending the mandate of local self-government units to 5 years, ensuring that their term does not coincide with the length of the parliamentary term (4 years). Achieving this requires amending the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia (Article 180), the Law on Local Self-Government, the Law on Local Elections, as well as municipal and city charters.
- Introducing a “constructive vote of no confidence” rule at the local level, meaning early local elections could no longer be called. Instead, within a 5-year term, government leadership in cities and municipalities could only change through a shift in the parliamentary majority and the election of a new mayor/municipal president and council within the assembly itself. This would prevent the intentional dissolution of local parliaments and the calling of snap elections to align their timing with parliamentary ones.
- Restricting list holders in local elections exclusively to candidates participating in those specific local elections. It would no longer be permissible to include the name of a national party leader alongside the party name in municipal and city assembly elections when that leader has no direct connection to local politics.
- Applying all recommendations to urban municipalities as well, even though they are not formally classified as local self-government units.
In a democracy, local self-government represents a right of citizens and a mechanism for constraining state power. Residents of a local community should have the autonomy to regulate its functioning within a defined scope of public affairs, covering daily life and issues most effectively addressed at the level of government closest to the people. Local self-government also encompasses the right of citizens to select representatives from among themselves to manage public affairs vital to that community.
The proposed changes will help emancipate local elections from party leaderships, high-level political topics, and deep divisions—giving them a meaningful purpose for citizens and directly supporting improvements in public services, cleaner streets and parks, reliable public transit, and overall quality of life.