Could Serbia’s New Prime Minister Come from America?

Speculation is rife regarding who might succeed Miloš Vučević as Prime Minister. According to daily newspaper Danas, Serbia may be looking abroad—specifically to the United States—for its next head of government. This would not be without precedent: during the tumultuous era of Slobodan Milošević, the solution was Milan Panić. Who are the current candidates, and what do they reveal about Serbia’s political trajectory?

Successful Resignation

Following nearly two months of uncertainty, the Serbian Parliament has officially acknowledged the fall of Miloš Vučević’s government.

This marks the beginning of a new chapter in Serbian domestic politics. President Aleksandar Vučić must decide by April 18 whether to nominate a new prime minister or dissolve the parliament and call for fresh elections.

According to Danas, “the option of new elections does not currently serve the interests of those in power.” Particularly—one might add—because popular student organizations could undermine the elections by exposing the Serbian Progressive Party’s fraud-based electoral practices.

It is therefore increasingly likely that Vučić will opt to form a new government, replacing several of the less popular ministers, including Vučević, who hails from a radical background and whose tenure has been widely regarded as a failure.

The biggest challenge, however, lies in finding a prime minister who is cooperative, unburdened by political baggage, and publicly palatable. Danas reports that the search has extended to the diaspora: all leading candidates have ties to the United States.

Three Names in the Hat

Three names are being floated: Desko Nikitović, Branko Milanović, and Ivan Trifunović—all prominent figures in the Serbian diaspora.

Desko Nikitović, currently Executive Chairman of East Point Metals Ltd., appears to be the frontrunner. Born in Arilje, Nikitović studied law in Belgrade before emigrating to the U.S. in 1990.

He became actively involved in the Serbian community in Chicago, organizing anti-war protests and promoting Serbian-American relations. In 2003, he was appointed Serbia’s Consul General in Chicago, and in 2005, he helped establish a sister city relationship between Belgrade and Chicago.

Nikitović remains engaged in several economic and cultural projects and, as a dual citizen, spends a significant portion of his time in Serbia.

The second candidate is Branko Milanović, a globally renowned economist and expert on globalization and economic inequality. He began his career at the World Bank and has taught at prestigious American universities, including Johns Hopkins.

Based on his academic background, Milanović could serve as a technocratic prime minister, though it remains uncertain how willing he would be to engage in political compromise.

The third name is Ivan Trifunović, representing the Pupin Initiative. With a background in chemistry, a PhD from UCLA, and an MBA from the Wharton School (University of Pennsylvania), Trifunović has held executive roles in the pharmaceutical and biotech sectors.

He holds multiple patents and formerly oversaw oncology products at Johnson & Johnson. Although he has substantial management experience, he has virtually no political history.

Strategic Choice – Tactic or Turning Point?

The idea of appointing a prime minister from abroad is not unusual in Serbia—Ana Brnabić’s appointment also carried an “American connection.” However, Brnabić has since become deeply embedded in domestic politics, and the appeal of her foreign credentials has faded.

While earlier speculation about Vučević’s successor focused on domestic politicians—such as Marko Đurić—the current pivot suggests how important it is for those in power to install someone detached from local party politics, yet with international credibility and economic ties—not to mention a possible “Trump factor.”

While the parliamentary opposition advocates for a transitional, expert-led government as a way out of the current crisis, the ruling powers appear to be turning toward the diaspora—perhaps to mask their political intentions behind a “technocratic” face.