Statement of NKEU read during the meeting at National Assembly
The National Convention on the EU, as the largest platform of civil society organizations in Serbia, has in recent months made a difficult decision – to suspend participation in political processes that have lost all substance of inclusivity and transformative power. We engage only when our participation meaningfully contributes to Serbia’s European transformation.
This decision was taken since our dialogue with institutions has, in many respects, been reduced to mere formality, as a symbolic gesture designed to satisfy procedural expectations while leaving the substance untouched. In some cases, these appearances have even served as a cover for substantial democratic backsliding. Our voice has been systematically ignored, while simultaneously, the illusion of “inclusive processes” has been projected internationally. The most recent example of this is the adoption of the Reform Agenda.
Today, we are present not out of confidence or a sense of respected partnership, but out of responsibility towards the citizens of Serbia and the European vision to which all members of the National Convention are genuinely committed. We are here to once again underscore the essential role of the public in the European integration process and to stress that in Serbia it is particularly important that the European project reflects the broadest possible societal consensus. Furthermore, we are here to reaffirm our belief that Serbia has the strength not merely to drift through the accession process, opening cluster by cluster solely to secure access to EU funds, but to become a full member of the European Union – not only geographically, but democratically, institutionally, and in terms of values.
We are also here because we are aware that our absence could be misused to frame a narrative of a “non-constructive” civil society, portrayed as an obstacle to Serbia’s European path. We are fully aware that some, present here today, are actively working to undermine financial support for civil society organizations in Serbia, supported by rhetoric alarmingly reminiscent of the 1990s. And it is precisely for these reasons that we chose to be here today.
However, we firmly believe that the conditions do not exist for a meaningful discussion today regarding the document titled “Plan for Fulfilling Key Obligations in the EU Accession Negotiation Process of the Republic of Serbia by the end of 2026”. We emphasize that there has been no change in the circumstances that unfortunately led the National Convention to suspend communication with political actors involved in the European integration process.
The first reason for this decision concerns the format and scope for civil society’s influence within the European integration framework. The lack of intent to improve these conditions is evident in the accelerated activities surrounding the Reform Agenda, in the implementation of which Serbia lags behind nearly every country in the region. Institutions are rushing to carry out certain obligations, including appointing members to the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media Council, adopting three media laws, and passing the Law on the Electoral Register – all without ensuring quality, transparency, or inclusiveness throughout the process.
This acceleration comes after the previously agreed deadlines, set by the Government of Serbia itself, were breached. There is no institutional or reform-based justification for rushing these processes now, without full transparency, inclusive participation of all relevant stakeholders, and acknowledgment of concerns some of them have expressed regarding specific provisions.
In response to these critiques, we have witnessed an intensified campaign painting critics of the current processes as opponents of European integration. The reality, however, is quite the opposite – it is not criticism that derails the European path, it is the absence of it that turns that path into a dead end. Serbian civil society has consistently played this role, holding every government since October 5, 2000 accountable. If calling out closed, simulated, and symbolic processes means being anti-EU, then we are no longer speaking of European integration, but of its imitation, using Russian methods and European funds.
Our concerns that institutions intend to continue simulating public participation are further confirmed by the format of today’s meeting – convened outside the National Assembly’s Rules of Procedure. This is neither a committee session nor a public hearing. It is a meeting convened by the Speaker of the Assembly, bringing together MPs, members of the government, civil society representatives, and international community, staged to create the appearance of dialogue on a document that was distributed to participants too late for proper reading or analysis.
In our view, the document discussed today was adopted by the previous Government operating in a technical mandate, thought a Conclusion, without following the legal procedures for developing planning documents, without any external review or input. It was never published on the government’s website, even though it is not classified. It was not discussed nor reviewed in a timely manner by the Committee on European Integration. All of this has significantly diminished the chances that the document can foster a wider societal consensus on priority reforms. Its stated objective, including full legal alignment with the EU acquis by the end of 2026, appears not only ambitious, but unrealistic, especially given the lack of timeline for the most complex chapters for Serbia: 23, 24, 31, and 35. Therefore, the only meaningful discussion about this document would be one that affect its content, following parliamentary acknowledgment that the government did not follow legal procedures in drafting it, and make a formal request that the document be submitted for public consultation.
The second reason for changing the mode of our communication with political actors, which regrettably remains relevant, concerns the recognition and respect of civil society’s role, not only in European integration, but in democratic life more broadly. Since the National Convention’s decision to suspend communication, the situation has only deteriorated further. It culminated in illegal break-ins into several civil society organizations’ premises and reached a new stage just last week – coinciding with the invitation to today’s meeting, when a propaganda film was released by the Center for Social Stability, an organization whose associates include the Minister for European Integration. This film was broadcast on national television and re-broadcast by a network of local stations aligned with or controlled by the ruling party. Among its participants are, for instance, the Speaker of the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia, Ana Brnabić, and the Minister of Finance, Siniša Mali.
Given this context, we are astounded that we have been invited to a joint meeting of the executive and legislative branches with civil society and international actors. We are alarmed not only because the film targets civil society members – which are also members of the National Convention – this, unfortunately, is no longer unusual, but because it also clearly targets representatives of the international community, including diplomats and staff from EU Member States, many of whom are present here today. This film systematically discredits the very concept of international support for civil society organizations – not just in Serbia, but globally.
The National Convention remains open to any dialogue that is genuine – not performative. We cannot accept invitations extended with one hand, while the other strikes at us, expecting that such theatrics will suffice to “verify” reforms required to unlock access to EU funds. In this regard, before any discussion of priority reforms, we must first agree on the final goal: is it the unlocking of European funds or Serbia’s full EU membership? If we agree on the latter, then the next prerequisite must be the clear definition of civil society’s role, not as a decorative presence, but as a genuine participant, whose critiques are recognized as part of democratic pluralism and constructive dialogue. And before all of that, state institutions must cease orchestrated campaigns and targeted attacks against civil society actors, funded by public resources.
Until these three conditions are met, we have no reason to alter our current position.
