The Aid Paradox in Belarus
Three decades and hundreds of millions of dollars later, why has Western support for Belarusian civil society produced so little democratic progress?[1]
The Challenge
After 30 years and substantial funding, Western support for Belarusian civil society has yielded limited democratic progress. The same authoritarian system remains in place, stronger than ever[2].
The Paradox
Foreign funding provides essential resources but actually reinforces regime narratives about civil society being "foreign agents" rather than authentic Belarusian organizations.
The uncomfortable truth: Western aid has created a dependency system that prevents authentic grassroots movements from forming[3], while funding priorities that most Belarusians don't support[4].
The Pseudo-Political Ecosystem
Foreign funding creates artificial political representation that undermines authentic democratic development
International democracy assistance has inadvertently created a pseudo-political ecosystem where foreign funding elevates specific political figures to positions of authority without subjecting them to authentic democratic accountability. This creates politicians who respond to donor preferences rather than domestic constituencies[5].
Sustained Elite Funding
Figures like Anatol Liabedzka (25+ years) and many others maintain political relevance through external funding, not electoral success
Media-Political Complex
Foreign-funded media outlets provide coverage based on shared funding dependencies, not journalistic merit or public interest[6]
Artificial Legitimacy
Creates appearance of political activity disconnected from actual Belarusian political dynamics
How This Distorts Democratic Competition
Crowding Out Effect
Externally-funded figures occupy political space, media attention, and international recognition that would otherwise allow authentic political entrepreneurs to emerge organically from domestic constituencies[7].
Donor Accountability vs. Democratic Accountability
Politicians optimize messaging for foreign funders rather than responding to Belarusian citizens' preferences, creating a parallel political universe disconnected from local realities[8].
Barriers to Authentic Entry
Creates artificial barriers for potential leaders with stronger domestic support but lacking access to international funding networks, distorting the political marketplace[9].
The Self-Reinforcing Bubble
Mutual Dependency
Media outlets cannot provide meaningful scrutiny when both they and political figures depend on the same funding sources, creating political theater rather than authentic democratic accountability.
Echo Chamber Effects
This creates a closed system where:
- 📺 Media coverage becomes promotional rather than investigative
- 🎭 Political figures perform for donors, not constituents
- 💰 Funding decisions drive political priorities
- 🔄 Self-reinforcing cycle prevents authentic accountability. Government-organized structures blur the lines further[10]
International efforts to support democratic opposition inadvertently create a political class that operates outside democratic accountability mechanisms, potentially hindering rather than advancing genuine democratic development in Belarus[11][12].
LGBTQ+ and Gender Equality: Global South Template Applied to Belarus
Funding strategies designed for criminalized contexts are mechanically applied to a fundamentally different society
International donors mechanically apply funding strategies designed for Global South contexts, where LGBTQ+ issues involve life-or-death criminalization, to Belarus, where the challenge is cultural acceptance, not legal survival[13] This misunderstanding wastes resources while reinforcing authoritarian narratives about foreign manipulation[14].
The Fundamental Mismatch
Global South Context (Appropriate)
- 🚫 Homosexuality criminalized
- ⚖️ No legal protections exist
- 💀 Life-or-death situations
- 🏗️ Need basic institutional support
- 💰 Extreme poverty contexts
Belarus Context (Mismatched)
- ✅ Legal since 1990s
- 📋 Legal framework exists
- 🤝 Cultural acceptance challenge
- 🏛️ Established institutions
- 💼 Middle-income living condition
The Democracy-Undermining Result
Wrong Template
Global South criminalization strategies applied to cultural acceptance contexts
Public Rejection
Public Rejection
72% reject or uncertain about gender programming[4]
Legitimacy Crisis
Entire civil society ecosystem undermined
The NGO-ization Problem
Foreign funding transforms authentic grassroots movements into professionalized organizations disconnected from their communities[15][16]
Grassroots Voluntary Movements
Community-Driven
Emerge organically from local needs and concerns, prioritizing whose reality counts in development[17]
Volunteer-Based
Rely on unpaid volunteers motivated by shared values
Local Ownership
Decisions made by community members through authentic leadership, membership, and voice mechanisms[18]
Issue-Focused
Address specific local problems with concrete solutions, representing genuine community interests
Flexible & Adaptive
Can quickly change approach based on community feedback
Professionalized NGOs
Donor-Driven
Priorities set by international funders, not local communities, creating external dependencies
Staff-Dependent
Rely on paid professionals who need salaries to survive, creating organizational constraints
External Control
Accountability to foreign donors creates restrictions and implications for organizational autonomy[19]
Project-Focused
Chase funding opportunities rather than solve problems, creating organizational ambivalence[20]
Bureaucratic & Rigid
Bound by donor requirements and reporting procedures, limiting organizational pragmatism
The Democracy-Killing Mechanism
The transformation from grassroots movements to professionalized NGOs undermines democratic development
Dependency Creation
Organizations become addicted to foreign funding, losing connection to local constituencies who cannot provide equivalent resources. This demonstrates the power and limits of NGOs in building democracy.[21]
Elite Capture
Professional activists form a separate class with different interests from ordinary citizens, creating hierarchy instead of horizontal participation.
Legitimacy Crisis
As organizations pursue donor priorities over local needs, they lose credibility with the very people they claim to represent.
Regime Ammunition
Authoritarian governments can easily portray NGOs as "foreign agents," undermining the entire civil society ecosystem. This exemplifies how authoritarian regimes preempt democracy.[22]
International efforts to promote democracy through NGO funding actually prevent the development of authentic democratic institutions by creating dependency relationships that mirror the very authoritarianism they seek to combat[23].
What The Data Reveals
84% Urban, 53% Female, Median Age 41 — The Ideal Profile for Progressive Values?
Belarus has the demographic characteristics typically associated with support for liberal causes[24]. Yet present comprehensive research reveals surprising patterns that challenge fundamental assumptions about international democracy assistance[4].
Challenging Demographic Assumptions
Even among the demographic groups most receptive to progressive values, our data reveals significant dissatisfaction with current international funding priorities. This challenges modernization assumptions about how cultural values evolve in developing societies[27]:
🎯 The Female Majority Paradox
616,000 more women than men (53.4% female population), yet female respondents show -27% net support for gender equality funding[4]
Even in a female-majority society, Western gender programming faces rejection
🏙️ The Urban Democracy Disconnect
84.35% urban population (among world's highest), yet democracy funding achieves only 21% support[4]
Even in Minsk: 26% support in the cosmopolitan capital
Urban vs rural dynamics show complex patterns under authoritarian contexts[28]. Even urban education doesn't guarantee support for donor priorities
Three Distinct Patterns
Analysis of 20 international programs and 800 survey responses shows three distinct funding-support relationships[36]:
🚫 Pure NGO-ization
High funding, low support
Pattern: Donor-driven priorities completely disconnected from public demand
⚖️ Balanced Legitimacy
Funding ≈ Support
Pattern: International funding aligned with genuine public resonance
💚 Grassroots Neglect
High support, minimal funding
Pattern: Massive missed opportunities for authentic democratic organizing
The Shocking Reality: Four Key Findings
Even the most progressive demographics reject donor priorities, creating massive gaps between international funding and authentic public support
Success is possible — human rights programming (60% funding, 59% support) proves donors and Belarusians can align[4]. Redirecting resources from unpopular political training toward high-support sectors like health (75% support, 20% funding) or technology (70% support, 15% funding) could transform civil society effectiveness[30].
Contentious Areas
The systematic rejection spans all demographic groups, creating perfect conditions for authoritarian narratives about foreign interference
Gender Equality & LGBTQ+ Rights
Net negative support across all demographics
Political Training
Essentially zero support even among educated urban youth
Migration & Refugee Support
Minimal support despite humanitarian framing
Democracy & Governance
Low support despite targeting "natural" urban constituencies
These negative attitudes span across all demographic groups — urban/rural, young/old, male/female, educated/less educated.
How Belarus Civil Society is Currently Funded
The funding architecture that creates dependency relationships and shapes civil society priorities in ways that may undermine authentic democratic development. This complex web of international donors, implementing organizations, and final recipients operates with limited transparency, making it difficult to track actual resource allocation and impact[4][35].
International Donors
European Commission
United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA)
Poland, Netherlands, Germany, Canada, Norway
Implementing Organizations
Final Outcomes
A New Framework for Support
It's time to stop doing the same things and expecting different results. Current aid creates clientelistic relationships that mirror authoritarian dependency patterns, undermining the very democratic values international donors seek to promote. Here's what needs to change to avoid perpetuating clientelism[34]:
1. Redirect Unpopular Programming
What: Reallocate funding from fake politicians, LGBTQ+, gender advocacy, and political training toward health, cultural preservation, technology, and innovation — areas with 70%+ Belarusian support[4]
Why: Build authentic public support base instead of reinforcing "foreign agent" narratives[31]
Impact: Transform civil society from regime liability into genuine community asset with universal appeal
2. Establish Belarusian Civil Society Fund
What: Create a pooled fund governed by elected Belarusian council, not Western donors[32]
Why: Genuine local ownership and decision-making
Impact: Reduces dependency, increases legitimacy with Belarusian public
3. Develop Alternative Mechanisms
What: Bitcoin-based microgranting, smart funding algorithms, decentralized platforms that bypass traditional NGO bureaucracy and reduce administrative overhead
Why: Direct funding to authentic grassroots initiatives while eliminating professional grant-writing middlemen[33]
Impact: Maintain civic space during severe repression while dramatically increasing funding efficiency
The Time for Change is Now
The current approach to supporting Belarusian civil society is neither sustainable nor effective. Bold action is required to develop more resilient, locally legitimate support mechanisms.
This research calls on international donors, implementing organizations, and Belarusian stakeholders to forge a new partnership model. Rather than imposing external priorities on aid recipients, successful democracy support must recognize Belarusians as equal partners and primary decision-makers in shaping their society's future.
References
[1] Nechyparenka, Y. (2011). Democratic Transition in Belarus: Cause(s) of Failure. Master's Thesis in International Relations, IBEI (Institut Barcelona d'Estudis Internacionals).
[2] Bedford, S., Pikulik, A. (2018). Aid Paradox. Strengthening Belarusian Non-democracy through Democracy Promotion. East European Politics and Societies and Cultures, 20(10), 1–22.
[3] Minchenia, A. (2020). Belarusian Professional Protesters in the Structure of Democracy Promotion.
[4] Markielau, P. (2024). Funding of Belarusian Civil Society in Crisis. Bachelor's thesis, CEVRO Univerzita. (source)
[5] Tvedt, T. (2006). The International Aid System and the Non-Governmental Organisations: A New Research Agenda.
[6] Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
[7] Ottaway, M., & Carothers, T. (2000). Funding Virtue: Civil Society Aid and Democracy Promotion.
[8] Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1996). Too Close for Comfort? The Impact of Official Aid on Non-Governmental Organizations.
[9] Glasius, M., & Ishkanian, A. (2014). Surreptitious Symbiosis: Engagement Between Activists and NGOs.
[10] Hasmath, R., Hildebrandt, T., & Hsu, J. (2019). Conceptualizing Government-Organized Non-Governmental Organizations.
[11] Fisher, W. (1997). Doing Good? The Politics and Antipolitics of NGO Practices. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, 439–464.
[12] Carothers, T. (1999). Aiding Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
[13] Burke, M. (2021). Weaponizing Anti-LGBTQ Bias: The Authoritarian's Approach to Dismantling a Democracy. Democratic Erosion Consortium, American University.
[14] Ayoub, P., Stoeckl, K. (2024). The Global Resistance to LGBTIQ Rights. Journal of Democracy, 35(1), 59–73.
[15] Heylen, F., Willems, E., & Beyers, J. (2020). Do Professionals Take Over? Professionalisation and Membership Influence in Civil Society Organisations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 31, 1226–1238.
[16] Sampson, S. (2002). Weak States, Uncivil Societies and Thousands of NGOs: Western Democracy Export as Benevolent Colonialism in the Balkans. Nordic Academic Press, The Balkans in Focus: Cultural Boundaries in Europe, 27–44.
[17] Chambers, R. (1997). Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. Intermediate Technology Publications.
[18] Andrews, K., Ganz, M., Baggetta, M., Han, H., Lim, C. (2010). Leadership, Membership, and Voice: Civic Associations That Work. American Journal of Sociology, 115(4), 1191–1242.
[19] Oleinikova, O. (2017). Foreign Funded NGOs in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine: Recent Restrictions and Implications. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: an Interdisciplinary Journal, 9(3), 85–94.
[20] Seibel, W. (2019). Pragmatism in Organizations: Ambivalence and Limits. The Production of Managerial Knowledge and Organizational Theory: New Approaches to Writing, Producing and Consuming Theory. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Emerald Publishing Limited, 43–55.
[21] Mendelson, S., Glenn, J. (2002). The Power and Limits of NGOs: A Critical Look at Building Democracy in Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Columbia University Press.
[22] Silitski, V. (2005). Preempting Democracy: The Case of Belarus. Journal of Democracy, 16(4), 83–97.
[23] Martens, B., Mummert U., Murrell, P., Seabright, P. (2002). The Institutional Economics of Foreign Aid. Cambridge University Press.
[24] Kamarck, E., Muchnick, J. (2024). The growing gender gap among young people. Brookings Institution.
[25] Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods. Fifth Edition. Oxford University Press.
[26] Markielau, P. (2024). Raw research data. (source)
[27] Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton University Press.
[28] Hervouet, R. (2019). A political ethnography of rural communities under an authoritarian regime: The case of Belarus. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology, 141(1), 85–112.
[29] Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster.
[30] Salamon, L., Anheier, H. (1996). Social Origins of Civil Society: Explaining the Nonprofit Sector Cross-Nationally. Working Papers of the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project.
[31] Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (2018). Examining Civil Society Legitimacy. (source)
[32] Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA). (2022). The 2021 OECD DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society. (source)
[33] Stimson Center. (2025). Aid That Works: Enhancing US Support for Civil Society Organizations. (source)
[34] Lavretski, D. (2024). Authoritarian Clientelism Under Conditions of Economic Instability: Case Study of Belarus in 2009-2024. CEVRO Institute. (source)
[35] Markielau, P. (2024). Belarus Civil Society Grant Programs Analysis. (source)
[36] Markielau, P. (2024). Belarus Civil Society Grant Programs Ranking by Public Support. (source)
About the Author
Piotr Markielau
Master's Researcher in Civil Society Studies
Piotr Markielau is pursuing a Master's degree in Management and Economics at ISM University of Management and Economics, Lithuania, specializing in civil society research and democratic assistance effectiveness. He holds a Bachelor's degree in Business, Politics, and Economics from CEVRO Institute, Prague. His research focuses on the effectiveness of Western democratic assistance programs, with particular emphasis on civil society development in authoritarian contexts. His work combines quantitative analysis with field research, examining the gap between donor priorities and local community needs in democracy promotion efforts. Extensive experience in civil society organizations and technology development: Founder and board member of BitCapsule Foundation, developing gandhi.camp digital management systems for non-profit organizations. Operates luka.zone, an investigative portal documenting political repressions in Belarus and war crimes in Ukraine. Co-founder, donor, and CTO of Zolak Micro Art Residence, supporting artists and activists in Vilnius. Founder of Legalize Belarus and co-founder of Youth Bloc liberal organization.