Serbia’s student-led opposition has scored a decisive victory in the country’s snap parliamentary election, drawing striking comparisons with Hungary’s political transformation in April 2026. Both countries have seen voters rally behind new political forces promising change after years of dominance by established leaders. However, the movements behind the two victories differ significantly in their leadership, political outlook and challenges ahead.

According to preliminary results announced by Serbia’s Republic Electoral Commission (RIK) on 26 October, the Student List secured 52.71% of the vote, translating into 140 seats in the 250-member National Assembly. The electoral list led by President Aleksandar Vučić received 39.17%, equivalent to 104 seats.

The results, based on votes processed from 8,187 polling stations, give the student-backed movement an absolute parliamentary majority. Vučić conceded defeat on election night.

Hungary and Serbia: voters demand change

The similarities with Hungary are hard to ignore. On 12 April 2026, Péter Magyar’s Tisza Party won Hungary’s parliamentary election with 141 of the 199 seats, ending Viktor Orbán’s 16 years as prime minister. Tisza secured more than 70% of parliamentary seats, while the Fidesz–KDNP alliance was reduced to 52.

In both countries, political newcomers capitalised on widespread dissatisfaction with the established political order. Anti-corruption promises, demands for accountability and calls to improve public institutions became central themes in their campaigns.

The two elections also took place against a backdrop of criticism over unequal campaign conditions, including concerns about media coverage and the use of state resources. These issues were particularly prominent in Serbia, where election observers have documented concerns about the fairness of the electoral environment.

Both countries also have complicated relationships with Russia. Orbán maintained close ties with Moscow during his time in office, while Vučić has pursued relations with Russia alongside Serbia’s stated ambition to join the European Union. Political change in either country therefore carries implications beyond its borders.

A student movement versus a single political leader

Perhaps the biggest difference lies in how the two challengers organised themselves. Hungary’s political transformation centred on Magyar, a former Fidesz insider who built Tisza into a major electoral force in a relatively short period. The party offered a recognisable political programme, combining a pro-European orientation with promises to tackle corruption and restore public trust.

Serbia’s Student List, by contrast, emerged from a grassroots protest movement and has no single, established leader. Its candidates include academics, professionals and public figures, while its supporters come from diverse political backgrounds. The movement’s decentralised structure helped it unite people around demands for accountability, but governing as a cohesive administration could prove considerably more difficult.

The Serbian protests began after a concrete canopy collapsed at Novi Sad railway station on 1 November 2024, killing 16 people. The disaster triggered demonstrations over alleged corruption, government accountability and the handling of major infrastructure projects.

The movement’s success at the ballot box now presents a new challenge: translating its broad anti-corruption message into a detailed programme and selecting leaders capable of implementing it.

Why Serbia’s future matters to the EU

The two countries also occupy very different positions in Europe. Hungary is an EU member, meaning its government directly influences decisions within the bloc. Magyar’s victory created expectations of a change in Budapest’s relationship with Brussels, particularly over the rule of law and European funding.

Serbia, meanwhile, remains an EU candidate country, with accession negotiations facing significant obstacles. The Student List has emphasised domestic reforms, but its foreign policy direction remains less clearly defined than Tisza’s. Its candidates have also expressed support for maintaining ties with Russia, while the question of EU membership remains politically sensitive.

International observers have already highlighted the scale of the challenge facing Serbia’s incoming political leadership. In their preliminary assessment of the 25 October vote, the OSCE’s election observation mission reported serious inequalities in campaign opportunities, including the misuse of state resources, pressure on voters and pronounced bias in media coverage favouring the incumbent camp.

The Student List must now demonstrate that it can improve the institutions it campaigned against.

Two victories, one message

Hungary and Serbia have not followed identical political paths. One elected a leader-centred, pro-European party in a regularly scheduled parliamentary election; the other backed a decentralised student-led movement in a snap poll following prolonged street protests.

Yet both results demonstrate how dissatisfaction with long-established political power can create opportunities for relatively new challengers.

For Hungary, the decisive question is how Magyar’s government delivers on its promises. For Serbia, it is whether a movement built around protest can transform its electoral mandate into stable, accountable government. The victories may look similar from a distance, but what happens next will determine whether they lead to equally lasting political change.

Sources: