I think people are kinda irrational about it. Let's be clear, Vucic is a prime example of a populist from a catch-all party hijacking all leavers of power, with corruption that's so bad it's criminal. But then to say Milosevic was better is a clear example of why Serbian ppl still have a long way ahead to try comprehend what choosing a good economy and stability means. I'd take Vucic' autocracy any day over Milosevic' wars, sanctions and abominable economy. Then again, I'd like Vucic to retire and even ban him from politics altogether. But this notion of Tito and Milosevic being great (even tho Tito was a way better politician, no doubt), and Vucic bad is a viscious circle Serbs are trapped in, reacting emotionally wthout thinking about real ways one could beat Vucic politically- we lack maturity and responsibility. In a sense, it's a symptom of history, but one needs to evaluate Vucic' regime carefully in order to understand what keeps him afloat. He built roads, skyscrapers, brought foreign investments never seen before since 2000, that's what ppl like. He also destroyed institutions, educational system (continued the destruction to be more precise), created a toxic polarizing atmosphere, that's what ppl hate. And so on...