The problem with GOTV (Go Out to Vote) campaigns in Serbia is that none of them have achieved their primary goal: reducing corruption and improving society by providing pre-election support to “progressive” or “democratic” pro-Western forces. On the contrary, the successes of all previous GOTV campaigns, reflected in subsequent election results, have been accompanied by a surge in corruption, despite campaign promises of something entirely different.
“HE’S DONE! IT’S TIME!”
The first serious GOTV (Go Out to Vote) campaign in Serbia was carried out by “Otpor,” then operating under the guise of a student organization, ahead of the 2000 elections.
This campaign, codenamed “Exit 2000,” was developed professionally in two strategically well-designed phases, which led the more astute and experienced observers to conclude that “Otpor” was not an authentic student organization.
The first phase of the campaign, which many still remember, was called “He’s Done!” Its goal was to mobilize political leaders to participate in high-risk actions, most of which were public, as noted in one of the few academic papers published on GOTV campaigns in Serbia.
The second phase, called “It’s Time!”, targeted voters and broader segments of the so-called civil society.
These operations were executed so professionally and efficiently that the activists from “Otpor” later built international careers, conducting preparatory work for color revolutions worldwide under the banner of “Canvas.”
HOW DID A GOTV CAMPAIGN BRING TADIĆ TO VICTORY?
The next successful GOTV campaign was organized in 2004 by the Center for Modern Skills. The goal was to mobilize pro-Western voters in the Serbian presidential elections following the failed elections of 2002 and 2003 when there was a looming “danger” that Tomislav Nikolić might defeat Dragoljub Mićunović or another “democratic” candidate.
The 2004 campaign managed to increase voter turnout by around ten percentage points—from 38.8% in the November 2003 elections to 47.76% in June the following year. This increase in turnout was crucial in securing Boris Tadić’s victory over Nikolić.
WIKILEAKS TELLS IT LIKE IT IS
Similar campaigns were organized in 2006, 2008, and 2009 under the slogan “Go оut and вote,” which many still remember. The goal of these campaigns was to support the Democratic Party.
The broader significance of these GOTV campaigns is evident in the diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks.
One such cable, 06BELGRADE1277, explicitly states that the Democratic Party remains the key to Serbia’s short-term and economic transition, which is why its inadequate election preparation was a source of frustration. It also notes that hard work and Western assistance through aggressive GOTV campaigns would be necessary.
Another WikiLeaks cable, 06BELGRADE1294, quotes the U.S. Ambassador to Belgrade at the time, who stated that everyone would be ready to assist with an aggressive GOTV campaign to ensure that democratic voters turned out at the polls.
THE RISE OF PROGLAS
After these campaigns, there was a years-long pause in the execution of serious GOTV operations. From the Western perspective, there was no apparent need for such voter mobilization efforts in Serbia. This situation lasted until the emergence of ProGlas.
Until recently, ProGlas functioned as a classic GOTV organization—a group of prominent and respected individuals working to mobilize undecided voters in favor of a particular political option under the guise of defending “democratic” values.
ProGlas conducted its first GOTV campaign from November 7 to December 14, 2023. This campaign was deemed successful, as it managed to maintain voter turnout levels under what were considered unfavorable conditions and slightly increased the number of opposition votes.
Although these campaigns always target a specific segment of undecided voters—aiming to increase the influence of pro-Western forces that continuously promise to fight corruption and establish the rule of law and institutions—GOTV efforts are neither illegitimate nor illegal. In principle, it is always better for as many voters as possible to participate in elections, ideally from all parts of the political spectrum.
However, the key issue with the GOTV operations we have witnessed so far is that when the political forces on whose behalf these campaigns were conducted achieved electoral success—thanks precisely to the additional mobilization of their voters by so-called “non-partisan” and “respected” figures—they failed to fulfill their proclaimed goals. In particular, they never delivered on their promises to combat corruption.
This can be easily verified even with a cursory look at reports from international organizations monitoring corruption levels in different countries, such as Transparency Serbia.
HEAD-FIRST THROUGH THE FORMULA “THESE MUST GO”
Corruption in our society, in fact, has not decreased even after the GOTV operations carried out in 2000, nor after the GOTV actions in favor of pro-Western forces in 2004, and especially not after the GOTV operations conducted in 2006, 2007, and 2008.
On the contrary, despite very successful GOTV actions and the victories of the forces for which GOTV organizations lobbied among undecided voters—always under the guise of social reform, democracy, and anti-corruption efforts—our country found itself in despair in 2012, once again seeking to dispel it with the formula “it is only important that these ones go…”
The fact that the political change in 2012 was formally achieved through elections should not comfort anyone, especially after the European Commission and the Council of Europe congratulated the suddenly “democratized” Tomislav Nikolić—clearly their favorite at the time—on his electoral victory before the polling stations had even closed.
PROGLAS AND CIVIC INITIATIVES
More than a year ago, colleague Ana Vuković determined and revealed that ProGlas is directly linked to the non-governmental organization Civic Initiatives, which in the meantime has come under the scrutiny of Serbian investigative authorities due to funds received from American agencies.
The activities of Civic Initiatives, which can be easily verified by simply reviewing their very transparently designed website, have so far been financed by many geopolitical actors from the West.
Among others, Civic Initiatives are or have been funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Freedom House, the Open Society Foundation, USAID, the European Commission (the same one that prematurely congratulated T. N. on his election victory), the embassies of the United States, Norway, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, as well as a large number of similar institutions and organizations.
If we rightly criticize the current authorities for the undeniable fact that, among other things, they enjoy very broad support from the US and the European Union—regarding the agreements from Brussels, Washington, and Ohrid—we must also be aware that these powers distribute the “eggs” of their interests into other Serbian political “baskets” as well, and not just recently.
At this point, I kindly ask those who believe that funding social activities from abroad is unimportant or even desirable to refrain and understand that there are also those who consider that embassies, NED, USAID, and similar organizations do not allocate funds out of humanitarian and philanthropic motives but for reasons of interest.
This is all the more relevant since the author of these lines knows a thing or two about the work of NED, primarily by following events in the People’s Republic of China over the past decades, where this organization has repeatedly played very negative roles in sometimes bloody attempts to destabilize that country.
POLITICAL HORIZON OF THE PROTEST
The political horizon of the student protest will become a burning and decisive political topic in Serbia this year. The government, despite the incredible mistakes and foolishness it has made and continues to make, will wait for the endless repetition of street demonstrations, as before, to weaken the energy of the protest.
Pro-Western political forces will likely, little by little, attempt to take the lead of the protest or capitalize on it in some other way, which the students have so far successfully avoided.
Intellectuals and politicians of national orientation are appealing to the conscience of the rebellious youth, urging them to anchor themselves to the mast of ethics and not fall for the politically seductive siren calls of the West, which they rightly see as destructive to the nation, its identity, and the state.
SIREN OF THE PROTEST
One of these political sirens is Ivanka Popović from ProGlas, who, appearing on N1 Television on January 16, as can be easily verified, literally stated:
“…The students have done an enormous thing, they have freed us from fear, given us hope, and now the only decent thing is to tell them, ‘Thank you for doing this, whoever has the strength should stay here, but we are taking over now!’ Now, this ‘we are taking over now’ will be a test for us, and the consequences will be felt by all! It is true that we were not successful before, but now history is giving us a chance, and it would be terrible not to seize this opportunity! The students have given us a second chance!”
There is no sentence that has more intensely relativized the student protest than the claim that the rebellious students should, in fact, provide the last political opportunity for Ivanka Popović’s politically unsuccessful “generation.”
Judging by Ivanka Popović’s statement, students, along with all their reasons for protesting and their demands, are expected to serve as initiators and catalysts for a mere repackaging of the government through the idea of a transitional government, which, in the modest opinion of the author of these lines, they should not agree to—especially not to transitional governments in the format of ProGlas and Civic Initiatives.
Changing the nature of the political system and personnel reshuffling within the system are simply not the same.
There have been other proposals on how to use the student protest for change, and so far, it is excellent that the rebellious students are keeping their distance from such political manipulations and abuses, even though some faculties, such as the Faculty of Economics in Subotica, have organized ProGlas panels to create the impression that students support this organization and its Euro-Atlantic political goals.
FROM GOTV ORGANIZATION TO POLITICAL ACTOR
Without a doubt, ProGlas is now attempting, through forums across Serbia, to impose itself as a force aiming to shape the political horizon of the student protest, as evidenced by the statements of Ivanka Popović. From a classic GOTV organization, ProGlas is gradually transforming into a direct political actor.
This shift comes as the pro-Western opposition parties, due to the unpopularity of their leaders and their lack of a concrete program—beyond mere opposition to everything Aleksandar Vučić announces—are simply unable to gather the necessary support, despite the significant decline in the popularity of the president and especially his party.
For this reason, ProGlas is compelled to shed its old skin as a GOTV organization and become a direct political actor, marking a significant precedent and a maneuver previously unseen in Serbian political life.
The question arises: what should be the acceptable political horizon of the student protest if we dismiss ProGlas as a mere disguise for unpopular pro-Western political parties, essentially a recycled version of the former Democratic Party and all its current political derivatives?
Considering that the vast majority of Serbs seek fundamental systemic changes rather than a simple personnel reshuffle in power, a more acceptable political horizon for the student protest could be a national agreement.
FORMALIZING KEY NATIONAL INTERESTS
A national agreement could transform political life in Serbia from an amorphous mass of unprincipled behavior, open betrayal of Kosovo and Metohija, rampant corruption metastasizing throughout society, unlawful imposition of foreign power interests, and destructive external influences—affecting both the “government” and the “opposition”—into a firm and ethically structured system by defining and formalizing key national interests. Among these, the general fight against corruption, as an undeniable societal cancer, would take one of the top priorities.
A national agreement, as the horizon of the protest, would mean that national interests, if they truly are national, do not exclude civic values, provided that these civic values are genuinely civic.
This is not an original thought but an axiom of all meaningful changes—if we genuinely want change to be real change.
Such a framework would lead to the much-needed balance in the political spectrum, a faster crystallization of clearer political offers, including leadership alternatives, and an exit from the political crisis that threatens to provoke internal national conflicts and the resurgence of destructive political ideas, which we believed had long been relegated to history.
The key test for students is to ensure that their protest does not allow the nation itself to be thrown out with the dirty water of the anti-corruption struggle—that is, that the fight against corruption does not remain, as it has for the past thirty years, an empty letter on paper while Serbia continues down the dangerous path of creeping recognition of Kosovo and Metohija and stagnation in the endless limbo of European Union accession—especially after its key member states have expressed their willingness to continue the war in Ukraine.
ENDING SERBIA’S “WARRING STATES” PERIOD
The extent of this “dirty water disposal” is at the core of today’s political crisis—provided that political actors in Serbia have even the minimal capacity for reaching a strategic social and national agreement.
Otherwise, by collectively working against national interests while continuing to thrive on a political climate of conflict and inflaming internal divisions within a destructive binary political framework, we will only extend the senseless societal agony that has lasted for decades—resembling what was known in ancient China, and is still referred to today, as the Period of the Warring States. This is one of the most crucial lessons from Chinese civilization, a lesson they have consistently upheld, but which we have yet to embrace.
A general national agreement is the only way out of the destructive binary political state. Without a national agreement, in a strategic sense, it does not even matter who “goes” or who “comes.” Without this fundamental accord, our society will remain a panopticon of sporadic changes in political figures, creating only the illusion of social dynamism—an illusion behind which Serbia will remain merely a political spectacle, incapable of solving even one of its major issues, including the fight against corruption.
