At the Belgrade Security Conference, the panel “Democracy Under Siege: The Rise of Anti-Establishment Extremism in Europe and Serbia” examined how anti-establishment narratives, conspiratorial thinking, and far-right activism are reshaping European politics and weakening democratic norms.

Moderated by Predrag Petrović, Research Director at the Belgrade Centre for Security Policy, the discussion emphasised that extremism today is not a fringe occurrence but a mainstream challenge that influences political communication, public attitudes, and institutional behaviour. Petrović opened by noting that anti-establishment parties in Europe now command close to 30% of support, compared to 12% in the 1990s. “This is no longer a marginal phenomenon,” he said. “These movements thrive on grievances and reject the foundations of democratic governance.”

Kacper Rekawek, Senior Research Fellow at the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, described rising extremism across Europe, focusing on the Netherlands. “What we see is extreme populism — a revolt against the elite,” he said. While longstanding, social media and the COVID-19 pandemic significantly accelerated these dynamics. He outlined several Dutch factions- from conspiracy believers to radicalised farmers, emphasising their adaptability: “They are constantly searching for new topics that allow them to remain relevant.”

From Sweden, Morgan Finnsiö, researcher and investigative journalist at the Expo Foundation, argued that Nordic extremism mirrors broader transnational patterns. “Anti-establishment extremism looks remarkably similar across countries,” he explained. He highlighted the growing involvement of youth: “Extremists are getting younger, sometimes teenagers.” The 2022 Gotland killing, carried out by a former neo-Nazi influenced by U.S. conspiracy narratives, illustrated how extremist beliefs have entered the mainstream. “Right-wing extremism in Sweden continues to export neo-Nazi ideology across the region,” he added.

Turning to Serbia, Isidora Stakić, Senior Researcher at BCSP, outlined how extremist discourse intersects with state power. While fringe groups persist, she argued that the ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) increasingly employs anti-systemic rhetoric. “The ruling party is becoming an extremist force,” she said. “Institutions violate basic human rights, loyalist groups attack protesters, and officials use hateful language to delegitimise the opposition.” She described this dynamic as transactional authoritarianism, where political loyalty is rewarded with impunity.

Aleksandra Bulatović, senior research fellow at the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory and a well-known activist, stressed that extremism in Serbia is defined politically, not analytically. “Labels are imposed on activists, not on those who undermine institutions,” she said, highlighting the government’s “eco-terrorist list” targeting peaceful environmental protesters. “According to the authorities, an extremist is simply someone who refuses to be afraid.”
Bulatović argued for distinguishing extremism from legitimate radical activism: “Civil disobedience is democratic at its core. The misuse of these terms threatens civic space and undermines democratic capacity.”

Addressing a question about student protests, Stakić emphasised that criticizing an increasingly anti-systemic government is not extremism. “If the system produces extreme outcomes -inequality, erosion of rights – questioning it is legitimate,” she said.

The conversation also turned to foreign influences. Asked about Russia, Rękawek explained that pro-Kremlin narratives resonate with anti-establishment groups because “Putin is seen as someone who ‘breaks the system’.” Finnsiö added that foreign actors often only amplify existing domestic grievances: “It runs almost on autopilot. These movements look to each other across borders.”

Audience questions focused on the use of “family values” rhetoric, homophobia, and the merging of COVID-era radicals with traditional far-right actors. Finnsiö noted that European security agencies still lack consistent terminology: “Definitions matter – because loose definitions risk harming civil liberties.”

As the panel concluded, speakers agreed that anti-establishment extremism is evolving across borders and platforms, increasingly influencing mainstream politics. Democracy, they warned, is being undermined not only by fringe actors but also by political leaders who normalize conspiratorial and exclusionary narratives. Strengthening democratic resilience, they argued, will require clearer definitions, accountable institutions, and the protection of legitimate civic activism from politically motivated repression.

The post Democracy Under Siege: The Rise of Anti-Establishment Extremism in Europe and Serbia appeared first on BELGRADE SECURITY CONFERENCE 2024.

The third panel of the second BSC day, moderated by Goran Buldioski, Senior Fellow, Hertie School, University of Governance in Berlin addressed key questions shaping the future of democratic governance amid steadily intensifying global authoritarian pressure and the erosion of institutional resilience caused by internal liberal trends.

With democracies facing simultaneous external coercion and internal decay – from judicial erosion and media capture to disinformation and declining public trust – the panel examined whether the democratic model requires restoration, reinvention, or both.

Stephen B. Heintz, President and CEO of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, argued that American democracy is undeniably in crisis, but the root causes predate the 2016 and 2024 elections. He noted that the U.S. has been experiencing democratic backsliding for roughly 40 years, driven by reinforcing trends such as the growing influence of money in politics, the rise of social media, increasing inequality, and a general decline in public trust in democratic institutions and processes. Heintz emphasized that reversing this trajectory will not happen within a single election cycle; rather, it requires long-term institutional reforms and cultural shifts – without which democratic renewal remains impossible. He concluded by stating that democracies must rethink the relationship between capitalism and governance. In his words, capitalism must serve democracy, not the other way around.

Adriana Zaharijević, Principal Fellow at the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory (University of Belgrade), focused on Serbia’s current situation, describing the country’s system as “transactional authoritarianism.” She defined this model as one where everything is negotiable, everything is for sale, and everything is up for grabs – a political environment where rules are fluid, institutions are hollowed out, and power operates through constant exchange rather than formal democratic procedures. On a more optimistic note, she highlighted the importance of the student movement, agreeing that Serbian students are reshaping civic culture by practicing democracy directly through plenums and collective decision-making. For her, this represents a rare emerging counter-narrative to the dominant political logic. Responding to a question from the audience, Zaharijević warned that the role of the European Union must also be approached critically. She argued that the EU cannot simply be viewed as a “democracy shield” or an inherently democratizing force, noting that the accession process itself often contains contradictions and limitations that should not be overlooked.

Soli Özel, Non-Resident Senior Fellow at Institut Montaigne, reflected on the democratization paradigm of the 1990s – a supposedly universal model that countries were expected to adopt or at least emulate, given that the post–World War II political economy left little ideological space outside liberal democracy. He criticized the EU’s approach to supporting democracy globally, suggesting that its efforts have often been inconsistent or insufficient. Despite his largely pessimistic diagnosis, Özel ended on a cautiously hopeful note, arguing that public mobilization is emerging across the region – in Serbia, Georgia, and Turkey.

Marika Mikiashvili, Foreign Secretary of the Georgian party Droa, focused on Georgia’s democratic crisis. She described the ruling party, Georgian Dream, as a pro-Russian regime that functions effectively as an extension of Moscow, despite the fact that pro-EU and anti-Russian sentiment are deeply embedded in Georgian national identity. Mikiashvili explained that the government is stuck in a stalemate: it has not fully consolidated authoritarian control, yet, similar to Serbia, the opposition lacks the material and organizational resources to generate a sufficiently powerful push to oust the ruling party. She criticized the limited international support for Georgian citizens, who have been protesting continuously for over a year in defense of democratic norms.

In conclusion, all speakers agreed that democratic decline is not a sudden event but a long-term process—one that requires sustained civic resilience, institutional reform, and international support.

The post Deconstructing Democracy: Back to Basics or Reinvention appeared first on BELGRADE SECURITY CONFERENCE 2024.

The opening panel began with a video documenting the large, student-led protests that have swept across Serbia over the past year. From there, the discussion moved to the broader political and social turmoil that followed the tragic collapse of the railway-station canopy in Novi Sad, as well as to potential pathways for overcoming the current deadlock.

The panelists agreed that elections represent the most realistic route forward, though they cautioned that in a deeply polarised society, elections may also intensify existing divisions. At the same time, they emphasised the importance of the civic awakening sparked by the student movement.

Ivanka Popović, former Rector of the University of Belgrade, argued that universities – which are under pressure not only in Serbia but globally – have played a crucial role in motivating citizens to demand change. Responding to moderator Milan Šarić’s question about the resilience of academic institutions, she stressed that no country can thrive without knowledge and education, and that universities possess the capacity to rebuild institutions when they are weakened.

Borko Stefanović, Member of the National Assembly and Vice-President of the Party of Freedom and Justice, described the peaceful, student-driven anti-corruption uprising as the culmination of a thirteen-year erosion of democratic standards. He noted that meaningful dialogue is nearly impossible in a climate where the government labels dissenting voices as terrorists or “filthy blockaders.”

Maja Stojanović, Executive Director of Civic Initiatives, spoke with admiration about the young people who managed to unite the country. She highlighted the role of civil society in providing legal support and underscored that the most effective strategy for cooperation among different actors is for each to contribute from their own strengths. She pointed to the recent elections for the REM Council as a tangible victory for democratic forces.

Radomir Lazović, Member of the National Assembly and Co-President of the Green Left Front, called for coordinated action among NGOs, independent media, the opposition, and students. Moving forward, he argued, requires stronger political articulation and clear positions from all sides. Asked about the possibility of a student electoral list, he stated that members of his party would not join it.

Aleksa Simić, a student at the Faculty of Political Science, described the movement as organically organised around the very principles students want to see reflected in their country – democracy, equality, and a space where every voice can be heard. He expressed his belief that the movement will leave a lasting legacy by helping to build a democratic political culture throughout society.

The post Serbia’s Moment of Truth: Can Justice Prevail? appeared first on BELGRADE SECURITY CONFERENCE 2024.