In the political debates that have been going on for the last few months, one topic arises almost by itself. If there is a simultaneous holding of presidential and parliamentary elections, how should the opposition and the student movement perform in order to achieve the best possible result?
The most frequently heard answer boils down to a simple formula: one column and one candidate. At first glance, that sounds logical. If the goal is to defeat the government, why would there be multiple candidates who would share votes with each other?
Different choices, different logic
The problem is that parliamentary and presidential elections are not the same type of election. They operate according to different rules and therefore require different strategies.
Parliamentary elections in Serbia are held according to the proportional system. Citizens do not elect one person but a list. The number of mandates that a list wins depends on the percentage of votes it receives. In such a system, a unique performance has a clear logic. Each vote contributes to the overall result, and the unification of various political actors increases the chances of winning as many parliamentary seats as possible.
Therefore, if the students decide to take political responsibility and go to the elections, the support of the widest possible range of opposition actors would make sense for such a performance. Citizens would receive a clear signal that the goal is to create the strongest possible front for the change of government and the formation of a new parliamentary majority.
Presidential elections, however, function according to a completely different logic.
A better result with more good candidates
The president is elected by majority system in two rounds. If no candidate wins more than half of the votes in the first round, the two best-placed candidates advance to the second round. It's not a technical detail. That is the essence of the whole system.
The first round exists so that voters can vote for the candidate closest to them. The second round exists in order for the various political groups to gather around the candidate who has the best chance of winning.
In other words, the election system itself assumes that there will be more candidates in the first round.
In such circumstances, the question arises whether it is really best for the opposition and the student movement to put everything on one man from the very beginning.
There is a strong argument that more quality candidates could produce a better result.
Turnout is key.
The reason is simple. People don't go to the polls just because someone tells them they should. They come out because they feel there is a candidate who represents them.
Someone will recognize himself in the university professor. Someone in the local leader. Someone in the candidate who insists on social justice. Someone in the candidate who talks about institutions, the judiciary or the economy. Each of these candidates can attract voters who might not have turned out if the offer had been reduced to just one name.
The presidential campaign then ceases to be a contest for existing votes and becomes a battle for new voters.
This is especially important in a country like Serbia, where election results often depend on turnout. Any additional percentage of citizens who decide to go to the polls can have a greater value than the redistribution of existing opposition votes.
A deal without vanity and trade
Of course, such a model makes sense only under one condition.
All candidates who see themselves as part of the front for democratic changes would have to publicly commit before the start of the campaign that they will support in the second round the opposition candidate who wins the best result in the first.
No negotiation. No vanity. No trade.
Thus, the voters would know in advance that the vote given to any of the candidates is not a lost vote. On the contrary. That would be a vote to expand the total voter pool in the first round and for a joint victory in the second.
Such a strategy would enable the parliamentary elections to be a place of gathering and unification of political energy, while the presidential elections would become a space for its expansion and mobilization.
Therefore, perhaps one should not ask how many candidates there should be in the first round of presidential elections.
The real question is how to give as many citizens as possible a reason to vote.
Because the change of government will not come thanks to one perfect candidate. Such candidates mostly exist only in political myths.
Change will come when enough people decide to participate in its creation.
We don't need a messiah. We need a win.
The author is the editor-in-chief of Revolt
Real journalism costs money, and we will not be bought by tycoons and corporations. Support us with a one-time or monthly donation. The time for it is now!
