BIRODI Seeks Review of Vucic's Name on Election List

The Bureau for Social Research (BIRODI) filed a complaint with Serbia’s Anti-Corruption Agency on September 14, asking the institution to determine whether President Aleksandar Vucic broke Article 40 of the Anti-Corruption Law by agreeing to have his name included in the name of an election list, and by running as its top candidate.

The list in question, “Aleksandar Vucic, United Serbia,” was certified by the Republic Election Commission (RIK) a few days earlier. That certification confirmed the list formally meets the requirements to run in the election, but BIRODI argues that question is separate from the one it is now raising with the Agency.

“The RIK’s handling of the election list does not resolve the question of a possible violation of anti-corruption rules,” BIRODI said, insisting that the two institutions’ mandates must remain separate. In the organization’s reading, nothing the RIK does or fails to do can prejudge the Agency’s decision on whether a public official acted contrary to the law.

What BIRODI is asking the Agency to examine

Article 40, paragraph 1 of the Anti-Corruption Law bars public officials from placing private interest above the public interest. BIRODI argues that private interest need not mean only money or other material gain. It can also mean political influence, electoral success, a strengthened position for a party, and a benefit to the political organization itself.

Under BIRODI’s request, the Agency should examine five elements:

• the circumstances under which Vucic agreed to have his name included in the list’s name
• his status as the list’s leading and top candidate
• the benefit that using his name brings to the list and to the political organization behind it
• the relationship between his party or campaign activity and his role as President of the Republic
• whether the public interest was subordinated to a private one as a result

“This is not a question of Aleksandar Vucic’s right to be politically active. That right is not in dispute,” BIRODI said, adding that the real question is different: whether a public official may put the authority gained from holding public office in the service of party and electoral interests while simultaneously serving as President of the Republic.

The central question BIRODI wants the Agency to resolve is this:

“By agreeing to have his name become part of the election list’s name and to be listed first on that list, did President of the Republic Aleksandar Vucic place his private political or party interest in the service of political gain, using the authority and public recognition of the office he holds, thereby subordinating the public interest to a private interest?”

It is a legal question the Agency has not previously ruled on, since a sitting official’s name has not appeared in an election list’s name in this form before.

Warning over criminal liability

BIRODI said in its statement that it had formally submitted the complaint to the Agency, and argued that a failure to act would amount to a failure to examine the boundary between a state office and party interest, that is, between the state and a political party.

The organization added that, in its assessment, inaction by the Agency, its director and its Council would carry criminal liability under Serbia’s Criminal Code. BIRODI’s statement does not specify which criminal offense it has in mind, leaving the warning general, as pressure for the institution to actually review the complaint rather than shelve it without a response.

The Anti-Corruption Agency is an independent state body responsible for overseeing enforcement of the Anti-Corruption Law, including the obligations of public officials while they hold office. As of publication, the institution had not said when, or whether, it would take up BIRODI’s complaint. The deadline by which it must respond depends on whether it treats the complaint as a formal submission or as an initiative to open proceedings, a distinction BIRODI says it deliberately raised in its statement.

The complaint comes as the public, ahead of the upcoming election, is paying closer attention to whether election lists meet not only the formal requirements the RIK checks, but also the ethical limits that apply to holders of public office. There is no precedent for a sitting President of the Republic’s name being built into an election list’s name itself, so the Agency’s response, whenever it comes, could set a precedent for every similar list that follows.