12. Conclusion

The political and institutional relationships examined in the preceding chapters represent only part of a far more complex system of political power and social influence in Serbia. The analysis does not separately examine the influence of major international actors, the social and political role of the Serbian Orthodox Church, the broader relationship between foreign capital and state authorities, or the full range of activities carried out by informal centers of power. Some of these phenomena are addressed through specific cases, but a comprehensive examination would require separate research. The exclusion of these areas does not diminish the significance of the mechanisms examined, but defines the scope of this analysis.

The significance of the cases examined lies not only in the individual irregularities they reveal, but also in the connections between them. When institutions responsible for overseeing those in power become dependent on political interests, while public resources and social relationships are used to create political advantage, the problem extends beyond individual abuses. Such abuses call into question the ability of state institutions to perform their statutory duties independently of the political interests of those who manage them. The absence of effective accountability allows political gains obtained through alleged abuses to persist even after those abuses are uncovered. This allows the same mechanisms to recur and be adapted, while the institutions responsible for preventing them remain under political influence. The gap between the formal existence of institutions and how they actually function lies at the heart of the author's assessment of Serbia as a hijacked and captured state.