Source: World Bank
Gaps indicate missing data from the original data source. (Accessed August 2013).

According to the 2013 Freedom House Nations in Transit Report on Belarus, the country exists under a consolidated authoritarian regime, which is repressive to independent civil society:

[...] National Democratic Governance

The defining features of President Lukashenka’s autocratic regime remained constant during the year with no genuine breakthrough in political liberalization. Belarus’s national democratic governance rating remains unchanged at 6.75.

Electoral Process

Elections in Belarus are largely an administrative formality, conducted to validate the selection of pro-government candidates. Legislation fails to protect such basic tenets of free and fair elections as equal campaigning opportunities, representation of all political parties in the country’s electoral commission, and transparent vote counting. Following a boycott by some major opposition parties, not a single opposition candidate was elected in September’s parliamentary elections, which were condemned by international observers as neither free nor fair. Belarus’s rating for electoral process remains unchanged at 7.00.

Civil Society

In 2012, Belarusian activists and civil society organizations endured heightened repression from the authorities. Nongovernmental organizations faced legal harassment, resulting in the closure of the offices of two prominent human rights organizations. During the parliamentary election campaign, authorities denied international election monitors entry visas. …  Belarusian activists involved in similar prodemocracy demonstrations faced fines and jail time. Owing to the regime’s growing intolerance for all forms of criticism, Belarus’s civil society rating deteriorates from 6.25 to 6.50. 

[...] Local Democratic Governance

Local officials have extensive responsibilities in carrying out government programs, especially in the areas of health, administration, and infrastructure. However, they are often underfunded due to the lack of local revenue sources. State authorities tend to be more attentive to local level initiatives than to national opposition movements, but engagement is usually limited to diffusing conflicts. Belarus’s local democratic governance rating remains at 6.75.

The RHRPA – Belarusian Helsinki Committee corroborates these findings about human rights in Belarus. The Situation of Human Rights in Belarus in 2012 - REVIEW-CHRONICLE prepared annually by the Human Rights Centre VIASNA in Minsk, confirms the gravity of this situation for independent civil society, especially independent youth organizations active in the democratic opposition:

[...] During the year, human rights organizations recorded numerous instances of pressure on public and political activists on the part of the security services. This pressure was consequent and personally oriented. The security services paid a special attention to representatives of youth associations and coordinators of social networks. Various methods of influence were used on them, starting from calls to «talk» to the KGB and ending with arbitrary and illegal detentions and administrative arrests, warrantless searches of private premises and the like. The arrests of youth activists Mikalai Dzemidzenka, Pavel Vinahradau and Uladzimir Yaromenak were notable in this regard. These activists were regularly charged with alleged disorderly conduct – the use of obscene language in public. The practice of isolation of dissidents became systemic. Representatives of Belarusian human rights organizations applied to the Prosecutor General and the head of the Supreme Court with a proposal to meet and discuss the situation, but were ignored.

The European Youth Partnership 2011 briefing, alludes to the implications of this situation for young people, for youth organizations and for youth policy, emphasizing the fact that all youth policy actions remain squarely the preserve of the State and under its control:

[...] Nowadays, the State is considered to be the main actor in the field of Youth Policy and has the largest resources for effective implementation of Youth Policy. Other actors of Youth Policy, such as NGO’s, are to act in the conditions, which are set by the State. […] From above mentioned information we can conclude the following: 1- No Financial support to NGOs from the State institutions. Only 2-3 organizations get support; 2- All grants received for projects have to be registered in the Department of Humanitarian Aid of the administration of the President. 3- The majority of donors in the country provide financial support mainly for very specific projects (work with disabled people, ecology, etc.). Practically, there is no foundation supporting actual youth participation and development of youth organizations.

From the National Human Development Report (2005):

The relatively high share of youth crime is a cause of great concern. In 2002, 8.9% of all convicted criminals were minors. … The growth of youth crime is facilitated by a deep crisis in the family unit, as many adults are failing to perform their parental duties. The growing inequality in wealth distribution is also a contributing factor. Some young people are motivated to commit crime by a perception that their economic «net worth» is inferior to that of their peers. Recidivism and gang crime remain common, reflecting the growing influence of anti-social and criminal groups. The penetration of criminal elements into youth groups contributes to the rising incidence of gang crime among minors. Some ninety per cent of young people report being members of some informal youth group, most of which have nothing to do with crime. However, when dominated by individuals with criminal backgrounds, some of these groups begin to encourage criminal activity among their members. Already, most youth offenders – especially at ages 14 – 15 – commit crimes in gangs. Anti-social youth groups also pro- mote heavy drinking, drug abuse and other deviant behaviours.