“Civil society organizations raise important issues and advocate for citizens’ interests. The advocacy initiatives implemented within the Polet Movement have shown that it was not just a program, but a process that brought about lasting changes in communities and laid the foundation for their future development. The most important results are visible through a strengthened network of organizations that demonstrated their ability to influence policies, generations of young people who learned how to apply their knowledge in practice, and concrete examples of local initiatives that turned into public policies, improving people’s lives,” said Milica Kezić Marčić, Program Manager for Advocacy Initiatives at the Trag Foundation, on the occasion of the conclusion of the Polet Movement program.
1. The Polet Movement program concluded after three years of intensive work. What do you consider to be its greatest achievement?
The greatest achievement of the Polet Movement are the positive changes that citizens now experience in their everyday lives. When in Sombor we see adapted sidewalks and institutional access thanks to the work of the Council for Persons with Disabilities, when in Preševo elderly people receive support through a new home care service, or when in Požega people with developmental disabilities have their own Club as a place of gathering and support – that is the real trace left in the community. These are the kinds of changes that transform lives and create a fairer environment for all.
Another major accomplishment is that civil society and young researchers joined forces, launched initiatives, and proved that they have the capacity to influence policy and legislation. Equally important is that some of these initiatives were translated into national policies – such as amendments to laws or new measures that improved the position of vulnerable groups. However, the true meaning of these changes is recognized only when they are reflected in practice and when people begin to feel them in their everyday lives. It is precisely in this connection between the local and the national level that we see the greatest strength of the Polet Movement.
2. Can you highlight initiatives that, in your opinion, are examples of successful public advocacy?
One example I would emphasize is in Kragujevac, where a Commission for the Development of Social Entrepreneurship was established. What makes this case special is the fact that representatives of a wide range of actors were included in the Commission’s work – from local government and regional institutions, to civil society organizations, academia, and social enterprises. This combination of knowledge, resources, and perspectives created space for social entrepreneurship to be seen not as an isolated initiative, but as part of the city’s broader development strategy. It is an example of how joint work and open dialogue can lead to systemic solutions at the local level.
Another example is the amendment of the Rulebook of the Business Registers Agency, which enabled refugees and persons under temporary protection to establish their own businesses. The Belgrade Centre for Human Rights identified what seemed like a small, bureaucratic, but crucial issue: the identification documents issued to these persons were not recognized in the existing Rulebook, which practically meant they were prevented from starting their own businesses. Through cooperation and good communication with institutions, the Rulebook was amended and this option now exists. This example clearly shows that even the smallest change in the interpretation of an administrative document can have an immediate positive effect on an entire marginalized group, opening space for them to become economically independent and socially included.
3. What obstacles did you most often encounter in the work of the civil sector, and how did you overcome them?
The biggest obstacle we faced was the unstable political context and frequent elections. During the three years of the Polet Movement program, presidential elections, regular and extraordinary parliamentary elections, regular and extraordinary local elections, and in some cases repeated elections were held. All this meant that national authorities were often working in technical mandates, while on average, a large number of towns and municipalities spent 98 days without the ability to make strategic decisions.
In addition, since the beginning of this year, pressures on the civil sector have become increasingly evident, further complicating its work and reducing the space for action.
This situation required civil society organizations to react quickly and constantly adapt planned activities to circumstances. Discussions in trainings and workshops were often conducted through the prism of “burning issues” that were current at that moment, and mentors played a crucial role in guiding organizations and researchers on how to continue advocacy processes despite instability.
Obstacles, of course, also came from the institutions themselves—through lack of political will, bureaucratic inertia, or open resistance. Nevertheless, it turned out that persistence, clear evidence-based argumentation, connection with citizens, and constant insistence on dialogue were the best ways to overcome obstacles and bring processes to results, even under the most difficult circumstances.
4. Can you share an example of cooperation with decision-makers that demonstrates dialogue is possible and productive?
Šabac is an excellent example of how dialogue between civil society and institutions can be productive. When the Association DUGA (now operating under the name Primus) launched the initiative to introduce the service of a “field associate,” it was not a simple process. It required a lot of conversations, explanations, and joint work. The local government was open from the beginning to hearing proposals, while representatives of health and social institutions, together with the civil sector, actively participated in shaping the solution.
It was precisely this willingness to sit down together, exchange experiences, and find common ground that showed how powerful dialogue can be. The city did not see the organization as someone who criticizes, but as a partner who brings knowledge and community connections. The joint effort of all actors led to the service of the field associate being officially introduced and becoming part of the social protection system. This is the best proof that when openness and trust exist, civil society initiatives can grow into public policies that transform people’s everyday lives.
5. How important is the role of the media in supporting public advocacy, and how did you cooperate with them?
The media play a huge role in public advocacy because they carry the voice of citizens, bring topics closer to a wider audience, and highlight problems that are often invisible. All organizations that were part of the Polet Movement worked to increase the visibility of socio-economic issues in their communities, from local media to public events and campaigns. At the same time, we continuously promoted the program and made efforts to ensure that stories about initiatives and achieved results reached the public at the national level.
Cooperation with the media enabled stories about innovative social services, initiatives that changed laws, as well as the everyday challenges of vulnerable groups, to be heard beyond the communities where they originated. In this way, the media helped create broader support for change and increase pressure on institutions to adopt them. That is why the role of the media is not secondary, but essential. They allow advocacy efforts of civil society to gain visibility and legitimacy, and therefore a greater chance of success.
6. In your opinion, what is the key to successful public advocacy?
The key to successful public advocacy lies in a combination of persistence and cooperation. Change does not happen overnight and often encounters resistance, so it is important that organizations and citizens remain persistent enough to stand by their demands and not give up when they face obstacles. Persistence, however, is not sufficient on its own—good arguments, based on facts and evidence, as well as the ability to convey those arguments in a way that is clear and understandable to both citizens and institutions, are also necessary.
Equally important is cooperation—with citizens, with other organizations, as well as with decision-makers. When a common language is found and citizens become involved and stand behind an initiative, it gains additional strength and becomes harder to ignore. That is why I would say that successful advocacy is the one that combines persistence and clear argumentation with openness to dialogue and collaboration—because only in this way can ideas grow into real change in practice.
7. How important is connecting local initiatives with national policies?
It is important to make a clear distinction between local and national policies, because they have different roles. Local policies arise from the specific needs of a community—a problem that exists in one place may not exist in another, so solutions also differ and must be adapted to the local context.
National policies, on the other hand, set the framework for the functioning of the entire country: they provide direction, priorities, and obligations, and in this way guide the development and content of local policies.
The key is that these policies must be aligned, because together they make up one network of laws, regulations, and acts that should work in synergy. We cannot have a local policy that contradicts national laws, nor a national framework that does not recognize the real needs of citizens. That is precisely why connecting these two levels is crucial—local initiatives provide evidence of what truly works on the ground, while national policies ensure that those solutions become accessible to everyone.
The Polet Movement showed in practice what this bridge can look like: ideas that originated in communities grew into national laws, while national frameworks only gained meaning once they were reflected in people’s lives. This two-way connection—between local experience and the national framework—is one of the most important preconditions for lasting and sustainable change.
8. The EU supported the program. What does that support mean in the context of public advocacy?
The support of the European Union was of key importance, not only because it provided financial stability to the program over three years, but also because it gave additional legitimacy and trust to the work of civil society organizations in Serbia. When you have the certainty that you can plan and implement activities without interruption, organizations and researchers have the space to develop quality initiatives and persevere in their advocacy processes.
That support also carried a clear message: that the work of civil society in Serbia is recognized as part of the broader European vision of democracy and development. In this way, the civil sector gained greater strength in dialogue with institutions, because decision-makers knew that behind the initiatives stood the backing of an important international partner. In the context of public advocacy, this is of particular importance: the support provides resources and credibility, but also serves as a reminder that the changes we advocate for are not isolated, but part of the European values to which our society also aspires.
9. How do you see the role of the civil sector in the coming years?
The role of the civil sector in Serbia remains the same as when it was founded: to be the voice of citizens and a driver of change. That has not changed and will not change, but what is different today is the socio-political context in which we work. Pressures on the civil sector and activists themselves are growing, not only in Serbia but globally. It is enough to recall recent events in Georgia to realize that the space for civil society organizations is shrinking everywhere.
That is why, in the coming years, the struggle will become increasingly difficult. Organizations will continue to raise important issues and advocate for citizens’ interests, but they will do so under conditions that require greater resilience, sustainability, and mutual solidarity. It will be crucial to work on ensuring that the civil sector survives and that space for free action is preserved, because without that there can be no social change that leads to better living conditions for all citizens.
10. If you could give one message to young people who want to engage in public advocacy, what would it be?
My message to young people is not to underestimate their own voice and the knowledge they possess. Many of our researchers said that this experience through the Polet Movement “opened their eyes”—they learned how data and insights can drive change, and that research only makes sense if it serves the community. Some discovered new topics they want to work on, others gained the confidence to stand before decision-makers and present their views with strong arguments, and still others realized that even small initiatives are enough to awaken solidarity and motivate the community.
That is why I would tell young people to start, to get involved without fear, and to believe that the knowledge and ideas they have can be transformed into real change. Public policies may seem complicated and distant, but when we look at them from the perspective of people’s lives, it becomes clear that it is precisely young people who can bring new energy and solutions that will shape the society they want to live in.
11. Finally, how would you define the legacy of the Polet Movement?
The legacy of the Polet Movement is not only the laws that were amended or the new services that were introduced, but the fact that communities felt that change is possible. What remains is a network of organizations that have grown stronger and shown that they can influence policies, generations of young people who learned how to apply their knowledge in practice, and concrete examples of local initiatives that were transformed into public policies.
All of this together shows that the Polet Movement was not just a program, but a process that left lasting consequences in communities and opened the door to future changes.
Author: Emina Ferizović, owner of the agency “Eminet Communications,” Master of Political Science, Marketing, and Communications, and a licensed lobbyist.