Annual Research on Institutional Openness in the Western Balkans: Serbia at the Bottom
Democracies in the Western Balkans continue to face deep structural problems. Although they formally function as democratic systems, in practice they are burdened by “hybrid” tendencies, concentration of power, weakening of the rule of law, and high levels of corruption. In a political environment where democracy exists mostly on paper, transparency of public authorities remains low, both in Serbia and across the region.
The conducted studies, Openness of the Legislative Power in Serbia and the Region and Openness of the Executive Power in Serbia and the Region, measure institutional openness by examining a wide range of policies and practices that should contribute to more accountable, transparent, and efficient governance. Among the key indicators of open government is transparency, the availability of information and data necessary for democratic oversight of public authorities. Alongside transparency, the core principles of open government include accessibility, effectiveness, and integrity.
Guided by these principles, Partners Serbia, together with civil society organizations from the region, developed an openness index containing more than 100 indicators.
The latest Openness Index (2024/2025) shows persistent differences in parliamentary openness across the region. Montenegro and North Macedonia continue to lead, while Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia are at the bottom in providing information on parliamentary work and activities.
According to the research findings:
- The Parliament of Montenegro ranks first, meeting 83.24% of openness indicators, though this is its lowest score in the past four years.
- The Parliament of North Macedonia, in second place with 76.04%, is the only one showing consistent progress for three consecutive years.
- The Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina achieved 59.87%.
- The National Assembly of Serbia ranks last among the national parliaments, with 59.6%.
Results for the executive branch show similar trends. Among governments in the region, the Government of North Macedonia ranks first in openness with 77.32%, followed by the Council of Ministers of BiH with 73.72%. The Government of Montenegro is third with 67.25%, and the Government of Serbia ranks last with 54.74%.
When looking at ministries, those in Serbia achieved the highest average score (58.19%), but not due to real progress- instead, this reflects declining performance in other countries.
Public administration bodies are most open in North Macedonia (57.79%), while Serbia scores only 42.02%.
The overall openness index for all executive bodies of the Republic of Serbia for 2024 is 49.36%, a minimal improvement compared to previous years and still far below the required level. For the second consecutive year, the Serbian Government has not published its work plan; decisions are increasingly made outside institutional frameworks, often in the President’s Cabinet, while the public remains deprived of essential insight into strategic projects, budget expenditures, and public procurement processes.
The research reveals a consistent pattern: parliaments and governments in the region maintain only the appearance of transparency by publishing basic information, while citizens and civil society are denied access to crucial data on institutional work, decision-making processes, project planning, and public spending. The absence of a strategic approach and political will remains the main barrier to progress.
Without systemic reforms and the consistent application of openness principles, institutions in the Western Balkans will remain closed and insufficiently accountable. This will further deepen the gap between citizens and public authorities, while EU integration and the strengthening of the rule of law continue to be postponed indefinitely.
The research was conducted within the project “Leveraging Technology to Promote Institutional Accountability and Transparency,” supported by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Its content does not necessarily reflect the views of the donor.