Albania and Serbia have been experiencing a wave of protests sparked by growing frustration over corruption scandals. While sharing a common catalyst, the developments in each country have been shaped by structural differences and distinct leadership. In her article on the IDM Blog, Antonie Blumberg compares the protest movements and the fight against corruption in both countries.
Despite efforts towards EU integration, corruption remains a defining challenge in the Western Balkans. In 2024, mass protests erupted in Serbia and Albania, each exposing the different forms of corruption in these countries. While both movements reflect growing frustration, their distinct trajectories reveal how political structures shape anti-corruption efforts. Why did protests in Serbia take a grassroots form, while Albania’s were closely tied to opposition parties? And what do these differences tell us about corruption in the region?
Albanians and Serbians rising against corruption
In November 2024, the collapse of the Novi Sad train station canopy killed 15 people and injured two others, sparking a wave of anger across Serbia. Whistleblowers revealed that corruption and nepotism were responsible for the shoddy reconstruction work, part of a broader trend of non-transparent infrastructure projects tied to Chinese state companies. Students led the charge, mobilising in over 150 municipalities, including Belgrade, Novi Sad, Kragujevac, and Niš. Opposition leaders and civil society groups joined the protests, demanding the release of full documentation on the train station renovation and criminal accountability for those responsible. Despite violent attacks against protestors, the movement has grown into the largest student protest in Serbia since 1968.
In Albania, protests erupted in October 2024 following a corruption scandal involving Prime Minister Edi Rama’s Socialist Party (PS). Opposition parties accused the government of electoral fraud and judicial manipulation, demanding justice. Led by the conservative Democratic Party (DP) and its allies, demonstrators blocked roads in six towns, calling for a technocratic caretaker government until the 2025 parliamentary elections. In February 2025, protests flared up again following the arrest of Tirana’s mayor Erion Veliaj on corruption charges. Veliaj’s supporters gathered outside the Special Structure Against Corruption and Organised Crime (SPAK), denouncing what they saw as a politically motivated arrest. SPAK is an independent judicial institution responsible for investigating and prosecuting high-level corruption and organized crime cases.
Although both protest movements were sparked by frustration with widespread corruption, they have evolved in different directions. In Serbia, protests have been predominantly led by students and grassroots movements, making them independent of direct political influence. This lack of leadership entails both advantages and drawbacks: it prevents the government from easily targeting a specific opposition figure, but it also makes it difficult to translate the movement into concrete political change. In contrast, Albania’s demonstrations have been largely driven by opposition forces, making them inherently politicised. This association with opposition parties has led to reduced public mobilisation compared to Serbia, where protests have maintained broader societal support.
Serbia held hostage by corruption
The different trajectories of the protests can be attributed to the structural differences in corruption itself. While the Western Balkans are often viewed as a single entity, corruption manifests in distinct ways across the region, highlighting that not all corruption is the same.
Serbia represents a consolidated form of state capture, where corruption is highly centralised under the dominant Serbian Progressive Party (SNS). The SNS has solidified control over key state institutions, transforming corruption into a tool for political dominance rather than just personal enrichment. State institutions, including the judiciary, law enforcement, and regulatory bodies, function under the firm grip of the ruling party. Prosecutorial independence remains weak, with judicial appointments and promotions being influenced by political considerations. High-profile corruption cases involving government figures rarely see legal consequences, while opposition leaders and critics often face selective prosecution. The telecommunications sector is particularly vulnerable to monopolisation as state actors exert influence over licensing to benefit politically connected firms. Serbia’s public procurement law on linear infrastructure projects further enables corruption. The government can classify projects as being of “special importance”, exempting them from standard procurement rules and bypassing competitive bidding, increasing the risk of favouritism.
The means of fighting corruption are also limited. Asset confiscation mechanisms, a key tool in fighting corruption, remain ineffective, allowing illicit wealth to remain untouched. Serbia’s political leadership also tends to ignore the Anti-Corruption Council, displaying that anticorruption efforts remain largely symbolic.
External actors like Russia and China further cement corruption by providing political and financial backing to the ruling elite. Infrastructure projects funded by Chinese companies, often labelled as FDIs, are in reality loans binding Serbia to hire Chinese firms, technology and materials. These deals bypass procurement laws through interstate agreements, limiting oversight while creating environmental and economic risks that deepen state capture.
The incident in Novi Sad epitomises Serbia’s systemic corruption issues. As a Chinese-backed project, it was marked by opaque documentation, favouritism, and a judiciary too weak to ensure proper prosecution. Surprisingly, Radio Television Serbia, known for its close ties to President Vučić, began reporting on the protests without denouncing them, signalling the growing public pressure. The question remains whether telecommunications will remain under Vučić’s control, as the reach of corruption may continue to limit institutional change.
Albania’s corruption battle
In contrast to Serbia’s centralised state capture, corruption in Albania is more fragmented. The ruling PS under Prime Minister Edi Rama has been implicated in various corruption scandals, particularly regarding public procurement and the misuse of state resources. However, opposition figures like Sali Berisha also face corruption charges. While this has led to greater scrutiny, enforcement remains inconsistent.
Albania has seen a larger number of corruption investigations than Serbia, primarily due to SPAK, which has led to several high-profile arrests. However, convictions remain low due to political interference and operational limitations. Despite some progress made in judicial reforms through vetting processes, enforcement against powerful figures is inconsistent. The political polarisation further weakens institutional accountability, with ruling and opposition elites engaging in mutual accusations rather than pursuing systemic reforms. It remains to be seen whether the increase in convictions becomes a wider trend in Albania.
Unlike Serbia, where geopolitical alliances reinforce corruption, Albania faces challenges from regional and criminal influences. The country’s role as a transit point for illicit trade has allowed corruption and organised crime to become deeply intertwined. Bribery within law enforcement allows drug trafficking networks to operate with impunity, further eroding public trust in state institutions.
In Albania, the politicisation of corruption prosecutions is mirrored in the politicisation of protests. Independent bodies like SPAK are accused of bias, as corruption cases are often perceived as tools for political battles rather than impartial justice. This dynamic fuels distrust against legitimate anti-corruption bodies and limits broad-based mobilisation. Protests become closely tied to party affiliations rather than unifying in the fight against corruption.
Can democracy emerge in Southeastern Europe?
Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index further highlights these contrasting realities: public perception of corruption in Serbia is worsening as the government’s deep control over state institutions has effectively closed off avenues for meaningful anti-corruption reforms, fostering widespread disillusionment. Albania, on the other hand, despite current protests, has shown slight improvement, which can be attributed to the efforts of SPAK and the fact that each political side is seeing corruption-related arrests on the countering side. However, this progress remains fragile. The public’s perception of corruption in Albania is deeply polarised, with many viewing anti-corruption efforts through a partisan lens.
Ultimately, the protests offer a counter-narrative to the widespread portrayal of Southeastern Europe as a region plagued by illiberalism and democratic backsliding. They show that even in environments where corruption runs deep, there is the potential for democracy to emerge from below. Whether this will lead to lasting reform is uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the pace of EU integration for both Serbia and Albania hinges on the continued effectiveness of anti-corruption measures. Progress in the accession negotiations will depend on whether these countries can establish genuine, independent institutions capable of tackling corruption at all levels.
Antonie Blumberg is currently completing her Master’s in Eastern European Studies at the University of Hamburg. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Liberal Arts and Sciences from University College Maastricht and spent two months as a trainee at the IDM.
Edited by Malwina Talik and Rebecca Thorne.
The opinions expressed in this article represent the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDM.
