Vucic Splits Elections: Parliamentary First, Then Presidential

Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic said the presidential and parliamentary elections will not be held on the same day but separately, and that the parliamentary vote will most likely come first, followed by the presidential one. He made the announcement in recent days, framing it as a response to a demand from part of the opposition.

As a possible date the president named October or November, while the decision to call the vote itself could, in his words, come in August or September. Vucic also repeated what he has been saying for months, that he intends to return to the post of prime minister once the electoral cycle is over.

Why does Vucic speak of a concession while the opposition speaks of a duty?

The president presented the split as an accommodation to the opposition. He said they had asked for parliamentary elections and had not asked for a presidential one, and that he was offering both. In that framing, the offer of two electoral contests instead of one is meant to read as a gesture of good will from the top of government.

The opposition rejects that logic entirely. From several opposition camps comes the same message, that calling elections is neither a concession nor personal generosity but constitutional matter, an obligation that follows from the regular electoral cycle. Citizens, they say, want to decide again, and that right does not depend on the good will of one man.

Part of the opposition goes a step further. In Vucic’s offer to hold both votes they see a tactical move, an attempt to prolong a period of uncertainty and, among other things, learn the final makeup of the so-called student list before a date is set. On that reading, splitting the elections is not a concession to the rival but a way for the government to keep control over the tempo.

What does the calendar the president offered actually mean?

If the framework Vucic laid out were followed, the decision to call the vote would come in late summer or early autumn, with the ballot itself in late autumn. The order in which the parliamentary vote comes first is not a technical detail. It determines who forms the majority in the National Assembly before the race for head of state opens, setting the political frame for everything that follows.

For the government, splitting the process leaves room to run the two contests separately, with different themes and a different balance of forces. For the opposition, the key question remains whether the conditions will be such that the result reflects the real will of the voters, rather than a date that suits one side.

For now little is certain beyond intent. No date has been called, the field of contenders has not been closed, and both sides already read the same move in two opposite ways, one as generosity, the other as an obligation that is taken for granted. It remains to be seen whether the announced calendar will be honored or whether, as before, the date will keep slipping until the last moment.

In your view, does splitting the parliamentary and presidential elections favor the government or the opposition?