5. Healthcare

The healthcare system is one of the areas where the political control of state institutions can have the most direct consequences on the daily lives of citizens. Unlike other public services, healthcare is connected to the fundamental issues of human health and life. Dependence on medical care, employment in healthcare institutions, and decisions made by their administrators create a particularly sensitive environment for political pressure and abuse of institutional authority.

In Serbia, there are public and private health sectors. The public network of health centers, hospitals, and clinical centers forms the basis of healthcare for the population. Health centers provide primary healthcare, while hospitals and clinical centers offer specialized and more complex treatment. Unlike in the United States, where the healthcare system includes various forms of private insurance and public programs, healthcare in Serbia primarily relies on mandatory health insurance and centralized state management.

For citizens of Serbia, the journey through the public healthcare system generally begins with a primary care physician, who provides basic healthcare and refers the patient for further examinations and treatment. The private sector represents an additional option for those who can afford healthcare services. However, for citizens with limited incomes, the costs of consultations, treatment, medications, and travel often represent a serious barrier. A shortage of healthcare professionals and long waiting lists for certain procedures further increase patients' dependence on public healthcare institutions.

The Ministry of Health plays a key role in the organization, supervision, and development of the healthcare system. Serbia's National Health Insurance Fund finances contracted healthcare services primarily from mandatory contributions, with additional funds from the state budget. The Ministry and other competent state authorities have a significant influence on the management of healthcare institutions, staffing decisions, financing, investments, and the working conditions of employees. Such a concentration of authority allows for the implementation of a unified health policy, but at the same time creates room for political influence on the management and functioning of public health institutions.

Zlatibor Lončar holds a particularly influential position within this system. He is a longtime close political associate of Aleksandar Vučić and a senior official of the Serbian Progressive Party. After the SNS came to power in 2012, Lončar was appointed head of the Emergency Center of the Clinical Center of Serbia, and in 2014, he became Minister of Health. He held that position until 2022, before returning to it in 2024. His long tenure links the management of one of the country's most important healthcare institutions with the political leadership of the entire healthcare system.

Lončar's professional and political career has been marked by serious controversies linked to organized crime. During court proceedings against members of the Zemun clan, a criminal organization linked to the 2003 assassination of Prime Minister Zoran Đinđić, two cooperating witnesses alleged that Lončar, while working as a doctor at the Emergency Center, participated in the killing of a wounded man who had survived an assassination attempt. The witnesses also claimed that he received an apartment for this. Subsequently obtained documentation confirmed that Lončar entered into a contract to buy an apartment with a family member of one of the clan's members shortly after the incident. Lončar denied involvement in the murder, and his criminal liability was not established.

Despite these serious allegations and their long-standing public presence, during Aleksandar Vučić's tenure, Lončar held the highest leadership positions in Serbian healthcare. His political career raises questions about the criteria for appointment and the accountability of those in the highest public offices. The central question is whether Serbia's institutions can place professional accountability, the rule of law, and the public interest above political loyalty.

Political influence on the healthcare system is exerted through two interconnected mechanisms. The first concerns employees, whose employment status, career advancement, access to medical specialty training, or contract renewals can become subject to political pressure. The second concerns patients, whose need for medical examinations, surgery, or treatment can create opportunities for political intervention and a sense of personal obligation toward influential party figures.

In such circumstances, a healthcare institution can also become a tool for political mobilization. The authority of healthcare administrators allows them to pass party demands on to employees, while intervention in treatment can create political dependency for patients and their families. At the same time, the space of healthcare institutions, medical personnel, and the public's trust in the medical profession can be used for party promotion and gathering electoral support.

The particular weight of these mechanisms stems from the fact that political pressure is linked to basic human needs. When people believe that refusing a political party's request could jeopardize their employment, treatment, or a family member's healthcare, the freedom of political choice acquires an immediate personal cost. The ruling party's electoral advantage is then based not only on the voluntary support of voters, but also on their professional and health dependency. Such a relationship can influence citizens' political behavior long before an election campaign begins.

5.1. Political Control of Management and Healthcare Workers

Managers of public health institutions decide or significantly influence the work schedule, distribution of responsibilities, and the professional position of employees. For physicians, access to specialized medical training is particularly important for their professional development. For employees on temporary contracts, contract renewal or the opportunity to secure permanent employment can be crucial.

When these decisions are linked to the demands of the ruling party, professional dependence becomes a means of political pressure. An employee may assess that refusing a party-related task jeopardizes their job, income, or opportunities for advancement.

Management as the link between the party and the institution

Politically dependent administrators can use an institution's chain of command to pass party demands down to employees. An invitation to a political rally or a request for support reaches the employee through the person who simultaneously influences their daily work and professional future.

Acting directors are particularly vulnerable to political pressure because their continued appointment depends on decisions made by the relevant authorities. When staying in office is linked to political support, the manager has an additional reason to accept the demands of those who decide on their appointment. The pressure can then be passed on to doctors, nurses, technicians, drivers, and other employees.

The work hierarchy thus becomes a channel for political mobilization. A political request that someone could freely refuse outside the workplace can effectively become an order when it comes from a supervisor.

Removals and professional punishment of healthcare workers

Since late 2024, experienced doctors have been removed from leadership positions at several healthcare institutions in Serbia, in circumstances involving their public opposition to the government or support for student protests. Among them were university professors, heads of specialist departments, and clinic directors. Their dismissals prompted reactions from colleagues and unions, who pointed to the possibility of political influence on staffing decisions. Some cases have also proceeded to court.

In December 2024, Professor Vladimir Dugalić, a prominent liver surgeon, was removed as head of a department at the First Surgical Clinic at the University Clinical Center of Serbia after publicly criticizing Health Minister Zlatibor Lončar and supporting student protests. He was transferred to another department, and by the end of 2025, he lost his job. A court issued an interim order requiring his reinstatement, but the Clinical Center's management failed to comply. As a result, financial penalties were imposed on the institution and its director, Jelena Drulović, during 2026. Thus, the dispute over one surgeon's professional status escalated into a question of the leadership of Serbia's largest healthcare institution failing to comply with court decisions.

In June 2025, Professor Dragan Nikolić, the head of the Emergency Center at the Clinical Center of Vojvodina in Novi Sad, was also dismissed. As a vascular surgeon, he helped operate on patients seriously injured in the collapse of the Novi Sad railway station canopy, and had previously publicly supported student protests. Sources from the health institution linked his dismissal to that support, while publicly available documentation did not confirm that a political motive was formally established.

At the end of the same month, Professor Tatjana Adžić Vukićević, the long-time head of the Department of Pulmonology in Belgrade and former director of the COVID hospital in Batajnica, was dismissed. During the pandemic, she was one of the most prominent doctors in Serbia and was decorated for her professional contribution. Medical faculty students claimed that her removal followed her support for their protests and her refusal to sign a public statement of support for Aleksandar Vučić and the Serbian Progressive Party. The case is particularly significant because she had previously been entrusted with major medical and leadership responsibilities.

In Kragujevac, Professor Vladimir Zdravković was dismissed from his position as head of the Cardiology Clinic in December 2025 after publicly supporting student protests and disagreeing with certain decisions by the administration. Zdravković challenged the dismissal in court, and in May 2026, the Basic Court in Kragujevac issued a first-instance ruling finding his dismissal unlawful. According to information published in June, the institution's management did not return him to his previous position but challenged the ruling with an appeal. The court decision confirms the illegality of the personnel action in the first-instance proceedings, but does not separately establish a political motive for the removal.

Similar dismissals have been recorded outside the largest clinical centers. In Kraljevo, in September 2025, Slađana Petrović Ćika, the head of anesthesia at the Studenica Health Center, was dismissed immediately after a warning strike by employees. Union representatives claimed that two previous hospital directors, Milan Maksimović and Miroslav Milenković, had also suffered consequences for refusing to punish employees who supported the protests or to comply with expectations regarding party mobilization.

In Sombor, Snežana Holcer Vukelić, the long-time head of the emergency department, who had publicly supported the student movement and provided medical aid to protest participants, was removed from her leadership position. Her removal sparked protests from her colleagues and citizens. At the local Institute of Public Health, Vojka Perović, a health worker with nearly four decades of experience, was reassigned from her position as chief technician to a lower-paid role. She linked the decision to her participation in paying tribute to the victims of the Novi Sad tragedy and claimed she had previously been subjected to threats from management.

The pressure was not limited to formal dismissals. In April 2025, employees of the Aleksinac Health Center reported that director Goran Vidić had criticized doctors and nurses who supported the student protests at a meeting of managers. Employees interpreted his remarks as threats of professional sanctions. The director denied the allegations, saying he had only reminded staff of their legal obligations and professional duties.

These cases differ in their circumstances, professional consequences, and degree of institutional endorsement. What these cases have in common is that the personnel decisions or reported pressures followed employees' public disagreements with the government. When managers decide on dismissals, transfers, and professional advancement, the consequences of such actions do not only affect the workers immediately involved. They can also impact their colleagues, who begin to assess whether publicly expressing a political opinion could jeopardize their own professional future.

Party Events and Job Security

Political pressure on healthcare workers becomes particularly visible during party rallies and election campaigns. Employees may be required to attend political events, gather support, and participate in activities unrelated to their professional duties. Such demands particularly affect employees whose employment status depends on contract extensions or the decisions of their immediate supervisors.

At the Emergency Medical Services Institute in Belgrade, employees in October 2026 described pressure to attend a rally for the Serbian Progressive Party at the Belgrade Arena. The demands particularly affected temporary workers. Alongside demands to attend the rally, employees were also told about upcoming opportunities for permanent employment, and some workers also described warnings about possible transfers to other work locations.

Similar pressures were reported by employees at the Kraljevo hospital. In August 2026, two unions publicly warned the institution's management about demands for employees to attend political rallies. Union representatives said the pressure fell particularly on temporary employees, who were transported to rallies by bus and whose attendance was recorded. The warning was addressed to the hospital's management, which, through an administration representative, denied the claims of politically coercing employees.

Employees' attendance at such gatherings contributes to a public image of support for the authorities, while the professional dependence that led them to the event can remain invisible. In this way, the party organization gains the ability to secure attendees through the authority of the public employer.

When an employee is also expected to recruit additional supporters, the pressure shifts to their family, friends, and acquaintances. A single job becomes a starting point for mobilizing multiple voters, and their support is tied to the security of the person who invited them.

The Pasteur Institute and the Consequences of Refusing Party Demands

A particularly serious case was recorded at the Pasteur Institute in Novi Sad, a public health institution with a significant role in rabies protection. Nemanja Obradović, who holds a doctorate in veterinary sciences and is a specialist in microbiology, was fired in September 2025 after approximately twelve years of work at the institution. According to his public testimony, the conflict with management began when he refused to attend events for the Serbian Progressive Party, after which he and other employees who refused such requests were denied financial incentives, while workers who participated in party activities continued to receive them. Obradović also described pressure from superiors, individual conversations, and threats of job loss. He was fired while on sick leave, which, according to him, forced him to discontinue his medical treatment, while the loss of income threatened his family's economic security. The official reason for the dismissal was an irregularity in the official documentation, which Obradović disputed, while the director of the Institute dismissed his accusations and claimed that the institution had acted in accordance with the law. After Obradović filed a labor lawsuit, the Basic Court in Novi Sad issued an interim order in October 2025 allowing him to return to work while the case was pending. The court measure did not determine that the dismissal was politically motivated, but it provided the employee with protection during the legal proceedings. The case shows how reported demands for partisan mobilization can be linked to the denial of income, professional pressures, and job loss, while the employer's formal decision is justified on non-political grounds.

Attempt to control voting

Political pressure can also extend directly to how employees cast their ballots. Before the June 2024 local elections, hospital employees in Vršac reported being given numbers they were instructed to write on their ballots. According to their testimonies, some requests also involved employees' family members. Workers described fear of repercussions for their jobs and contract extensions.

Marking a ballot with a unique identifier is an attempt to link that ballot to a particular voter. The employee is sent the message that their choice can be verified. Even when such verification is not reliable, the belief that it exists can influence the voter's decision and undermine the protective role of the secret ballot.

In this way, the pressure that begins in the workplace can become a means of controlling the political choices of the employee and their family members. It is not necessary for the supervisor to actually be able to determine how a particular worker voted. It is enough for employees to believe that their votes can be identified and that refusing the demand could put their jobs or careers at risk.

Political accountability for managing the health system

These cases are not confined to one healthcare institution, medical specialty, or category of employees. They include university professors, directors of specialist clinics, doctors, nurses, technicians, and other healthcare workers. Although the circumstances and legal outcomes differ, these cases raise questions about how effectively professional autonomy and employees' rights are protected from political interference.

Institutional responsibility does not end with the management of an individual hospital. The Ministry of Health has a significant role in organizing and supervising the public health system, while the directors of health institutions are responsible for the legality of their work. Minister Zlatibor Lončar, a long-time close associate of Aleksandar Vučić and a functionary of the Serbian Progressive Party, is at the top of the political leadership of the health system. His position carries responsibility for implementing healthcare policy, ensuring effective institutional oversight, and addressing reported abuses of managerial authority.

Of particular significance is the fact that among the dismissed doctors were experts who had publicly criticized the health minister himself. Their dismissals, legal disputes, and reported pressure on employees call for an examination of the responsibilities of healthcare facility management and the relevant state authorities. Individual cases do not prove that the minister personally ordered the disputed actions, but his institutional responsibility includes ensuring lawful management and effective oversight of the healthcare system.

The political dependence of employees takes on immediate electoral significance when their employment or career prospects are tied to demands to attend party rallies, identify reliable supporters, or demonstrate political loyalty. The relationship between the manager and the employee, established for the purpose of providing healthcare services, is then used to achieve the goals of a political party.

This creates an electoral advantage by turning employees' professional dependence into a political obligation. The healthcare worker retains the formal right to a free choice, but exercises it under the burden of possible consequences for their employment and career. When this dependency is transmitted through the healthcare system, party mobilization can encompass not only the employees but also their families, friends, and acquaintances. Institutions whose primary task is to protect the health and lives of citizens can thus become instruments of political pressure and the securing of electoral support.

5.2. Access to Treatment and Party Mediation

Waiting for medical examinations, surgery, or treatment can mean prolonged suffering, worsening health, and uncertainty. Patients have been documented waiting years for hip and knee surgeries, including one who waited four years and seven months. Such waiting also affects a family's ability to work, income, and daily life.

Official data from Serbia's National Health Insurance Fund show that approximately 29,500 people were on medical waiting lists as of August 2026. The largest group consisted of patients waiting for artificial hip and knee replacements. Research has shown that some patients waited for these procedures for years, despite a significant deterioration in their health. For citizens who cannot afford private treatment, such a wait represents a serious health, economic, and family hardship.

Under these circumstances, the promise of faster access to treatment can become a powerful means of influence. A patient who cannot afford private treatment or cannot bear further delays is particularly vulnerable to a person who claims they can speed up the process. When access to healthcare is linked to political support, the need for treatment can become a means of pressure on the citizen and their family.

Treatment Conditional on Political Support

A particularly serious case was publicly presented in December 2023, during the campaign for the parliamentary elections in Serbia. A representative of CRTA, an independent election monitoring organization, described the case of a woman with cancer who was allegedly asked to sign a party membership application and commit to voting for that party in order to be moved up a few places on the treatment waiting list. The reported demand directly linked access to medical treatment with political support. A woman facing a serious illness was expected to subordinate her political affiliation to the possibility of receiving a much-needed medical service sooner. The organization presented the case as an example of pressure on citizens during the election campaign. The patient's identity and the healthcare facility have not been publicly disclosed, and the available information does not allow for determining the individual responsibility of the people who allegedly made the request. Nevertheless, the reported case shows a particularly serious form of possible political conditioning, in which a health need is used to gain electoral support.

In such circumstances, the patient is placed before a decision whose consequences can be health-related and even life-threatening. Accepting the political demand may not represent an expression of his or her actual beliefs, but an attempt to receive timely medical assistance. When a person fears that refusing party support will further delay treatment, political freedom becomes directly linked to their health.

Such conditionality undermines equal access to treatment. Medical need should determine priority, while political mediation introduces the criterion of party affiliation and willingness to support it. The position of other patients is also called into question, as their treatment order should not depend on political relationships or the willingness of individuals to meet party demands.

Timely treatment as a political debt

Political dependency can also arise without an explicit request before treatment. When a party representative intervenes with healthcare administrators and takes credit for arranging earlier medical care, patients and their families may feel personally indebted to that individual.

When the outcome of a patient's illness depends on timely treatment, the sense of gratitude can be especially strong. A healthcare service that patients are legally entitled to receive is presented as a personal favor from a politically influential individual. The citizen may then get the impression that healthcare depends not primarily on medical criteria and legally guaranteed rights, but on the ability to find a person with political influence.

Such a sense of obligation can be activated before elections. The intermediary contacts the family again, now with an expectation of political support. The request may involve voting, attending a political rally, or providing the names and contact information of relatives, friends, godparents, and neighbors.

Helping one patient can thus become the basis for mobilizing an entire circle of people. The pressure works through gratitude, a sense of obligation, and the fear that the family might need the same help again. Support for the authorities can then be the result of medical dependency, rather than a free political choice.

This mechanism differs from direct threats to employees of healthcare institutions. The patient does not have to be exposed to open blackmail, nor must they be explicitly asked for their vote. It is enough for patients to believe that their families are receiving medical assistance sooner because of a political intermediary, and that maintaining that relationship will determine their ability to receive help again. In this way, the right to healthcare is transformed into a relationship of personal and political dependence.

Institutional Responsibility and Electoral Significance

Waiting lists, a shortage of healthcare workers, and organizational problems are not in themselves proof of political abuse. However, when there are serious difficulties in accessing healthcare, the importance of individuals who can influence access to medical services increases. Healthcare institutions must therefore apply consistent and verifiable criteria, regardless of patients' political affiliations or their families' political connections.

The responsibility of the healthcare system does not end with the provision of a medical service. It also includes preventing political interference that presents legally guaranteed rights as privileges individuals receive thanks to the ruling party. The management of healthcare institutions and the competent state authorities have an obligation to ensure that treatment decisions are based on medical needs, not on political interests.

The electoral significance of such conduct is particularly serious because political influence is exerted at a time when citizens and their families are most vulnerable. When access to treatment is linked to support for a political party, a formally free vote can become an expression of fear, dependency, or a sense of obligation. The resulting electoral advantage is built not through direct campaign contact with voters, but through their everyday dependence on healthcare.

5.3. Healthcare Institutions and Party Voter Records

A healthcare institution exercises authority over its employees and holds considerable influence over patients who depend on it for treatment. Bringing party demands and voter records into a healthcare setting ties political activity to an institution on which employees and patients depend.

Collecting Voter Commitments Inside a Healthcare Facility

In September 2026, a form apparently intended to identify reliable supporters and collect voter commitments through personal networks was found on the reception desk of the Clinic for Pediatric Surgery, Orthopedics, and Traumatology at the University Clinical Center in Niš. The document featured the logo of the Serbian Progressive Party, while the field identifying the person submitting the list contained the name of Milan Lazarević, the acting director of this healthcare institution. The form required the voter to enter their first and last name, date of birth, place of residence, address, and contact phone number. It has not been determined who left the document on the reception desk, nor whether it was actually used to collect citizens' data.

Lazarević, who was simultaneously a councilor for the Serbian Progressive Party and president of the Niš branch of the Movement for the People and State, denied any connection to the document. He maintained that the form had been fabricated and planted, that his name was not written as he normally writes it, and that he had never provided such a list to anyone at the clinic. The document's origin and any individual responsibility have not been publicly clarified.

This system expands a party's voter network by having individuals identify potential supporters and seek commitments from people in their personal and professional circles. When such an activity is brought into a public health institution, especially in circumstances where it is associated with the name of its director, the question of using institutional authority for party purposes arises.

The presence of a party form on the reception desk of a clinic where parents bring their children for treatment is particularly problematic due to the relationship of dependency that exists between the institution, its employees, and the patients. An employee may get the impression that they are expected to gather political support, while a patient or family member may conclude that such an activity is connected to the management of the institution from which they expect medical assistance.

Institutional Authority as an Electoral Advantage

Access to healthcare workers and patients can allow party networks to gather contact information through existing professional and personal relationships. Employees and patients may perceive such requests differently from ordinary appeals by party activists because they occur in an institution that controls employment decisions or access to medical care.

The situation is particularly concerning when healthcare administrators also hold public office and actively participate in party organizing. When a political position is linked to the authority to make decisions about employment, advancement, and the operation of a healthcare institution, it creates the possibility for party expectations to be presented as part of an employee's professional duties.

The incident at the University Clinical Center in Niš does not establish that patient information was used for party voter lists or that the director personally organized efforts to secure voter commitments. However, the fact that a form with party insignia and the name of the leader was found in the premises of a public health institution shows how directly partisan organizing can infiltrate an environment intended for the provision of healthcare.

The space of a public institution can thus become a base for party organizing. The political party gains access to people and can seek support through relationships established for medical care, while employees and patients may feel that their political loyalty is expected or being monitored.

The electoral significance of such a mechanism stems from the connection between institutional authority and the organized gathering of political support. When party records and demands appear inside an institution that employees depend on for their jobs and patients depend on for treatment, political support can become an expectation rather than a matter of free choice. A healthcare institution whose primary responsibility is to provide equal treatment to all patients can thus become part of a broader system of political mobilization designed to secure an electoral advantage.

5.4. Health Services and Medical Authority in Political Promotion

Medical examinations address people's healthcare needs and depend on their trust in medical professionals. When medical care is organized and promoted under a political party's symbols, patients' trust in healthcare professionals and gratitude for the care they receive can be redirected toward that party.

This form of political promotion is particularly significant in a public healthcare system, where a large portion of the population depends on state institutions. Healthcare services to which citizens are entitled through health insurance or public programs can be presented as a special contribution from the ruling party, thereby blurring the line between citizens' rights and political promotion.

Healthcare Presented as a Political Party Benefit

In April 2026, breast ultrasound examinations were conducted at Serbian Progressive Party offices in Čačak. Published photos showed medical equipment and patients during the examinations in a space with party insignia and a photograph of Aleksandar Vučić. Conducting medical examinations outside registered healthcare facilities raised serious questions about medical standards, required permits, staff qualifications, and the privacy of the women undergoing these examinations. It has not been publicly clarified who financed the equipment and medical staff, nor whether the competent authorities have determined responsibility for organizing these examinations.

A particular concern is that medical services requiring appropriate professional and healthcare standards were provided at a political party's offices. A preventive health check has an undeniable health value for a citizen. However, when it is conducted under party insignia and publicly presented as an activity of a political organization, a health need becomes an opportunity to win the favor of voters.

During September and October 2026, a similar practice was observed in the Smederevo area, where the City Committee of the Serbian Progressive Party organized a series of preventive health screenings in rural areas. Healthcare workers provided basic check-ups and advice, while public statements by the party committee presented these activities as a result of SNS's policy. The statements concluded with direct calls for citizens to vote for Aleksandar Vučić's electoral list in the upcoming parliamentary elections.

A particularly significant event was on October 15, 2026. The SNS City Committee announced that its Health Council organized preventive check-ups in the village of Binovac, with a public call for voters to support the party's electoral list. On the same day, the Smederevo Health Center announced that its medical staff had conducted preventive check-ups in the same village. The fact that both a public healthcare institution and a political party publicly reported medical activities in the same village on the same day raises questions about their respective organizational and financial roles during the election campaign.

These events do not in themselves prove that the health services were illegally funded or that patients were required to vote for the ruling party. However, they show how the provision of healthcare can be directly linked to partisan election promotion. This connection is particularly significant in smaller towns and rural communities, where access to certain healthcare services may be limited. The responsibility of the public health system is displaced by the presentation of a political organization as the direct provider of assistance.

Medical Space and Staff in Political Promotion

The use of healthcare facilities and medical personnel for political promotion extends beyond preventive medical screenings. During previous election campaigns, party promotional materials featured public healthcare facilities, medical personnel in official uniforms, medical equipment, and institutional logos. The use of an operating room and photos of patients during medical examinations has also been documented in party promotional materials.

During the 2020 parliamentary election campaign, the Serbian Progressive Party released a campaign video featuring the head of a clinic at Belgrade's Zvezdara Clinical Hospital Center wearing a medical uniform bearing the institution's logo. Serbia’s Anti-Corruption Agency found that the use of public resources violated the Law on Financing Political Activities and issued a formal warning to the party. The decision specifically emphasized the prohibition on using employees in uniforms with the insignia of healthcare institutions for party promotion during an election campaign.

A similar incident occurred during the 2024 local election campaign in Irig, where a campaign video was filmed outside the local health center and featured ambulances belonging to the public healthcare institution. The Agency for the Prevention of Corruption found a violation of the Law on Financing Political Activities, issued a warning, and ordered the removal of the controversial video from social media. This officially confirmed that using a health institution's premises and equipment to promote a political party can constitute an illegal use of public resources.

These cases demonstrate that using healthcare for political promotion does not necessarily require directly pressuring patients or healthcare workers. It is enough for the reputation of a healthcare institution, the authority of the medical profession, or funds intended for public healthcare to be used to create a more favorable image of a political party. When a citizen sees a doctor in an official uniform, a hospital, or an ambulance in partisan promotional content, the political message gains additional weight from the institutional authority.

Healthcare as a Tool for Political Promotion

Linking health services with political promotion represents a special form of electoral advantage. Unlike the direct buying of votes or open threats, here political influence is achieved by portraying public services as achievements of the ruling party, using trust in the medical profession, and creating a sense of gratitude among citizens.

It is particularly problematic when state investments in healthcare, the operation of public health institutions, preventive check-ups, and calls to support a particular electoral list are all linked in the same political message. Such a presentation makes it difficult for citizens to distinguish between what the healthcare system provides based on law and public funding and what a political party presents as its own contribution.

Healthcare institutions and their employees have an obligation to provide medical assistance based on professional criteria, regardless of citizens' political affiliation. Their premises, equipment, resources, and professional authority should not be used to gain a partisan advantage. When that boundary is crossed, the right to healthcare takes on a political meaning it should never have.

Political control of leadership, pressure on employees, interference in treatment, party voter records, and promotion through health services represent different but interconnected mechanisms. Their particular weight stems from exploiting people's need to protect their health, their jobs, and the lives of their loved ones. Citizens’ freedom to make political choices is undermined when they believe their medical treatment, professional future, or access to care for their families depends on their relationship with the ruling party.