Ponos Slams Vucic's 'Borat Campaign', Eyes Opposition Unity

Zdravko Ponos, leader of Serbia Center, said during an appearance on TV Nova that the ruling camp is running what he called a “Borat campaign” designed to lull and send back to sleep every voter who had become politically awakened in recent months. He spoke in Belgrade, amid growing talk of a possible election call and increasingly open preparations by parties for a pre-election cycle.

Ponos described the president’s approach as an attempt to rally the electorate around familiar patterns, arguing it amounts to a strategy of anesthetizing voters rather than offering substance. He also aimed criticism at the government, insisting it was not assembled by chance.

Why Ponos calls the cabinet part of a broader plan

The Serbia Center leader argued that the cabinet of Djura Macut was deliberately staffed with figures he labeled “failed”, and that this, in his telling, is part of a plan prepared in advance. The ultimate goal of that arrangement, according to Ponos, is to create the conditions for Aleksandar Vucic to move into the prime minister’s post, which he says would formally shift the center of executive power without changing the real distribution of influence.

Ponos also offered an assessment of the timeline. In his reading, the scenario calls for elections to be held early, which would turn the president’s address to the United Nations General Assembly on September 23 into part of the campaign choreography. This is his interpretation of the authorities’ intentions, not a confirmed voting calendar, which has not been published.

Such readings from opposition ranks are not new, but Ponos ties them into a single narrative of a campaign as a tool of demobilization. The ruling camp, for its part, routinely rejects claims of pre-scripted moves and stresses that it decides on the election date in line with constitutional procedures.

Is the opposition closer to a joint candidate?

The most significant part of Ponos’s appearance concerns relations within the opposition. He said he is ready for unity among opposition actors after the elections, regardless of current differences, and that he is willing to respect the students’ decision on a joint presidential candidate. In doing so, he signaled that he would subordinate his party’s personal and strategic interest to a broader agreement, provided partners take the same approach.

The message of cooperation after the vote raises the question of how close the opposition bloc really is to an operational deal, and how much of this is a matter of principled willingness without a precise mechanism. The student movement, which has taken over a significant share of the initiative in the streets, is cast in Ponos’s reading as an arbiter in choosing a common figure, a role that is not free of tension with parties nursing their own ambitions.

For now it remains uncertain whether the promise of unity will survive the pressure of the campaign itself, in which partners often compete against one another before joining forces. Will the opposition manage to turn its deference to the students’ decision into a concrete deal before the election date is set?