EURASIAN REVIEW
HiGHLiGHTs
Promotion of Eurasian integration
by political parties and nGOs
Andrei Yeliseyeu
The signiicance of the choice in favor of the integration project for the foreign policy strategy and internal
political evolution of the post-soviet states is hard to overestimate. in established democracies Eurasian integration would naturally be at the top of the agenda for political forces and a crucial topic for broad public
discussions. But what about the promotion of Eurasian integration in the Eurasian Economic union (EEu),
where civil society and democratic institutions are obviously immature?3 according to public opinion polls,
the level of support for Eurasian integration in the EEu member states is rather high (from 64% in armenia
to 84% in Kazakhstan) 4. is this sentiment a result of more plausible reasoning by pro-Eurasian political
forces compared with the arguments deployed by their opponents? Below is a brief review of the positions
of the most signiicant EEu political forces on Eurasian integration and speciic aspects of the way nGOs5
in these countries promote the Eurasian project.
stance of the main political forces in the EEu member states on Eurasian
integration
Belarus and Kazakhstan are two perfect examples of electoral authoritarianism. The political opposition
has no representation in the Belarusian parliament, whereas in Kazakhstan’s Majilis (the lower house of
parliament) two parties are only conditionally in opposition to the ruling party nurOtan 6, and both support
the Eurasian integration project. The parliaments of russia and armenia play a more prominent role in the
political systems of their countries than those in Belarus and Kazakhstan. However, in both russia and
armenia the pro-presidential parties gained a majority at the latest parliamentary elections and are capable
of ensuring the stability of the governments single-handedly. Furthermore, the ruling united russia and
three more parties represented in the state Duma of the russian Federation support a closer integration
of russia with the post-soviet countries. in the armenian parliament, which has a more active and diverse
life compared with the three other EEu countries, only one of the ive opposition parties (with the least
mandates) is a vigorous opponent of further approximation to russia and Eurasian integration. as a result,
neither in russia nor in armenia the integration process has become a key point, on which the leading
political forces differ.
armenia. The pro-presidential republican Party of armenia has 69 seats in the 131-member parliament.
The other political parties have the following number of seats as a result of the 2011 parliamentary election: Prosperous armenia — 37, the armenian national Congress — seven, rule of Law — six, the armenian
revolutionary Federation Dashnaktsutyun — ive, Heritage — ive 7.
3 according to international rankings, none of the four EEu member states can be designated as electoral democracies, and the level
of protection of political and civil freedoms in armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and russia remains quite low. in the Freedom House’s
Freedom in the world 2015 country rankings, the overall free status of Belarus, russia, and Kazakhstan (the arithmetic average of
political and civil rights) stands at 6.5, 6, and 5.5, respectively. according to Freedom House’s methodology, scores are measured on a
scale from 1 (most free) to 7 (least free). The three EEu states are not Free, while armenia, with a score of 4.5, is Partly Free.
4 see more details in “Public support for Eurasian integration in the Eurasian Economic union member states, Kyrgyzstan, and
ukraine” in the previous issue of Eurasian review, http://belinstitute.eu/sites/biss.newmediahost.info/iles/attached-iles/Biss_
Er_03_2014ru.pdf
5 Focus is placed on the most important political movements/organizations, including based on their membership, or the level of
participants represented at respective public events. Quite often such organizations are only formally considered to be nGOs and are
de facto under the control of the incumbent executive authorities, or are directly associated with them.
6 in the previous Majilis, nurOtan members won all of the seats, and in 2012, two more parties were introduced to the parliament, apparently with a view to weakening the administrative leverage and adding a democratic look to the political system.
7 a brief review of armenia’s political parties: armenia 2012: an introduction to the political party landscape. European Friends of
armenia, http://www.eufoa.org/uploads/armeniaPoliticalPartyGuide.pdf
Eurasian rEviEw — monitoring and analysis of the Eurasian
integration processes
7
EURASIAN REVIEW
Chart 1. Composition of the National Assembly of Armenia
although the party rule of Law in april 2014 withdrew from the ruling coalition, the republican Party
commands a majority on its own. Moreover, despite serious differences between the ruling party and the
opposition parties on domestic issues, only one party — Heritage — is fundamentally opposed to Eurasian
integration. Only seven members of parliament voted against the ratiication of the Treaty on armenia’s
membership in the EEu on 4 December 2014, including the Heritage members.
nevertheless, the political discussion of the country’s policy on Eurasian integration was a lot livelier in
armenia than in the other EEu member states. Even the opposition parties that agreed to armenia’s proEurasian course (Prosperous armenia, the armenian national Congress) used some aspects associated
with the Eurasian integration of the country (especially the vague status of nagorno-Karabakh) to criticize
the ruling elite. Further, the opposition armenian parties staged massive rallies on both the day President
sargsyan announced the plans to join the EEu (3 september 2013) and the day the Treaty on the accession
to the EEu was signed (10 september 2014)8 .
Belarus. Formally, 105 members of the 110-seat parliament are non-partisan, and the remaining ive are
members of the less popular (based on their rating) pro-Lukashenka political parties — the Communist
Party of Belarus, the agrarian Party, and the republican Party of Labor and Justice. The unilateral ratiication of the EEu Treaty by both chambers of the Belarusian parliament and the adoption of a special declaration similar to the one that aliaksandr Lukashenka made when signing the EEu Treaty attest to the fact
that members of parliament fully support the policy of the executive branch. at the same time, the proLukashenka political parties were never keen on arranging any public activities — social events, awareness
campaigns — when it came to Eurasian integration.
The opposition parties and movements that oppose Eurasian integration also appear to be quite passive
when articulating and promoting their ideas, and only made occasional statements and passed sporadic
resolutions (see, for example, a resolution by the BPF Party)9 . There were neither massive anti-Eurasian
protests, like the ones armenia staged, nor attempts to hold a large-scale anti-EEu Pr campaign, like the
one in Kazakhstan (see below) by the Belarusian opposition forces.
Kazakhstan. The pro-presidential political party NurOtan, which won 80.99% of seats at the 2012 parliamentary election, dominates the parliament, whereas the Democratic Party of Kazakhstan Ak Zhol, with 7.47%
of seats and eight MPs, and the Communist People’s Party of Kazakhstan, with 7.19% of seats and seven
MPs, cannot shape the legislative process. it is only natural that in its election platform, the pro-presidential nurOtan endorsed a “deeper integration within the framework of the Customs union and the single
Economic space.”
8 see more details of armenia’s Eurasian integration, its main challenges, beneits and costs for the country in the article “armenia
in the EEu: the thorny path is behind, but problems still remain” in the previous issue of Eurasian review, http://belinstitute.eu/sites/
biss.newmediahost.info/iles/attached-iles/Biss_Er_03_2014ru.pdf
9 The Eurasian union runs counter to Belarus’s national interests. The resolution of the Xvi Congress of BPF Party, 12.10.2014, http://
narodny.org/?p=6840?mobile=on
Eurasian rEviEw — monitoring and analysis of the Eurasian
integration processes
8
EURASIAN REVIEW
incidentally, even the conditionally opposition parties ak Zhol and the CPPK fully support the oicial state
policy on Eurasian integration. CPPK Chairman vladislav Kosarev’s statement is in phase with the rhetoric
of nursultan nazarbayev: “The integration processes taking place between Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus are
indispensable… However, we need to understand that the integration processes that we observe today are not a
step back into our past, not a revival of the Soviet Union.”10 The two parties considered the Eurasian integration issue a done deal; therefore, neither ak Zhol, nor the CPPK outlined their Eurasian integration positions
in their election programs. it is also indicative that the lower chamber of Kazakhstan’s parliament ratiied
the EEu Treaty unanimously, whereas in the upper chamber, only one voter abstained.
The main opposition party of Kazakhstan, which had a chance of winning seats in the parliament and had
a critical stance on Eurasian integration, was the Nationwide Social Democratic Party (NSDP). The party
believes that further integration with russia threatens the national sovereignty of Kazakhstan. in 2012–
2013, Kazakhstan’s opposition sought to initiate a nationwide referendum on a series of internal policy
issues, including the withdrawal of Kazakhstan from the Customs union and the single Economic space.
nsDP Leader Bulat abilov had announced plans to collect up to a million signatures instead of the 200,000
signatures that need to be collected in order to hold a nationwide referendum. However, because of the
resistance of the authorities and weak public support, the opposition failed to have a quorum (the required
number of representatives from various regions of the country) at the meeting of the initiative group.
ahead of the signing of the EEu Treaty in april 2014, some of Kazakhstan’s nGOs, primarily the youth movement rukh Pen Til, organized the anti-Eurasian Forum, attended by approximately 500 people. Following
the event, where the participants referred, among other things, to russia’s actions that infringe on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of ukraine, a resolution was passed, in which Kazakhstan’s authorities were
recommended to postpone the signing of the EEu Treaty for ten years. However, the massive protest rallies
that activists promised in case the authorities failed to comply and signed the document, never took place
in Kazakhstan. One of the key reasons is the very high level of support for Eurasian integration in Kazakhstan’s society. according to the integration Barometer of the Eurasian Development Bank, in May 2014, 84%
of the citizens of Kazakhstan had a favorable view of the Customs union and the single Economic space,
which was even higher than in russia as of that time (79%).
Russia. Four parties are represented in the state Duma of the russian Federation, the lower house of parliament, based on the inal results of the 2011 election, where MPs were elected by party lists11 — United
Russia, with 52.9% of seats, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, with 20.44% of seats, a Just
Russia, with 14.22% of seats, and the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, with 12.44% of seats. During the
election campaign of 2011, Eurasian integration was neither a very popular, nor a very debatable issue on
the agenda. On the contrary, there is a consensus among the leading political forces in the russian Federation about the need for a closer integration in the former soviet union. There are certain ideological and
practical differences in the parties’ vision of the format of this process; however, they never became an
important topic for discussion during the parliamentary campaign. Only one MP abstained during the vote
on the ratiication of the EEu Treaty, whereas the rest of them — 441 MPs present at that time — supported
the bill.
The pro-presidential united russia fully supports President Putin and the government’s policy on Eurasian
integration and pledges in its election program that the integration project will open up “new opportunities
for development, for citizens, and for business.”12 There are no speciic provisions on the principles of Eurasian integration, though. The CPrF traditionally supports a close integration in the former soviet union and
considers the Belavezha accords, which put an end to the soviet union, “another move in the implantation of
capitalism and destruction of the country.” 13 in its election program, the party promises to promote accelerated integration in the former soviet union and remove “all barriers to the creation of a strong Union State of
Belarus and Russia. The claims of Russian oligarchy to Belarusian enterprises will be put an end to.” 14
10 Kazakhstan’s communist leader vladislav Kosarev supports integration and preservation of the russian language status. Today.
kz, 17.12.2011, http://today.kz/news/news/2011-12-17/56278/
11 starting 2016, a mixed parliamentary elections system will be used, with the election threshold for parties lowered from 7% currently to 5%.
12 http://er.ru/party/program/
13 http://kprf.ru/party/program
14 http://kprf.ru/crisis/offer/97653.html
Eurasian rEviEw — monitoring and analysis of the Eurasian
integration processes
9
EURASIAN REVIEW
The election program of a Just russia lacks provisions on Eurasian integration and the objectives of the
country’s foreign policy as a whole. However, the main party program reads: “We must ensure a prevailing
social, political, and economic influence of Russia in the CIS, but will not allow the integration process to encourage a welfare mentality towards Russia. A key to expanding integration processes in the former Soviet Union is, in
our opinion, the continued development of the single state with Belarus.” 15 Finally, the LDPr’s program for the 4
December 2011 election lacked any provisions on Eurasian integration as well; however, the party traditionally supports a deeper integration and stronger inluence of russia in the former soviet union.
activities of pro-Eurasian nGOs
Civil society is quite immature in all of the EEu member states, and the media are tightly controlled by the
executive authorities. in this context, government-organized non-governmental organizations, or GOnGOs,
predictably became the most active champions of Eurasian integration. Most of the landmark public events
concerning Eurasian integration that took place over the last few years and received a lot of media coverage were either organized or held under the auspices of the state institutions of the EEu member states or
pro-government civil society organizations and foundations.
One of the main organizations of this kind is russia’s PiT-foundation16 . Founded in the city of Perm back
in 1996, it has operated, starting 2012, “Eurasian Dialogue” (ED), an institution with the russian parliamentary European Cub. The declared ED’s mission is to consolidate efforts of prominent politicians, experts,
public igures, and journalists around the Eurasian integration process. ED works in partnership with the
two chambers of the russian parliament and the Foreign Ministry of russia and is coordinated by andrey
Klimov, deputy chairman of the Committee on international affairs at the Council of Federation, the upper
house of the russian parliament. a number of public forums have been held under the aegis of Eurasian
Dialogue focusing on Eurasian integration17 .
another key advisory agency founded in 2012 at the upper house of the russian parliament is the Integration Club. Pursuant to an instruction by Chairwoman of the Council of Federation valentina Matviyenko,
the Club was established in order to ”prepare proposals on the improvement of the regulatory framework for
cooperation and deepening of integration processes within the Commonwealth of Independent States.” 18 The
board of directors of the integration Club comprises more than 20 members, including well-known russian
politicians and MPs, researchers and experts in international relations (presidential adviser sergey Glazyev,
director of the institute of Economics of the russian academy of sciences ruslan Grinberg, chairman of
the Committee on international affairs at the Council of Federation Konstantin Kosachev, etc.).
One of the key issues on the agenda for most of the pro-Eurasian institutions is an increase in media collaboration. The most recent session of the integration Club on 13 november 2014 centered on this problem, and its members admitted that the media coverage of Eurasian integration processes was insuicient,
and awareness-building efforts must be stepped up in order to effectively promote the Eurasian movement
among the population. Proposals were made to support foreign russian-language media, recognize the
degree certiicates of the ailiated network of higher educational institutions in the Eurasian space, and
pursue a concerted media policy of EEu and execution of an agreement to elaborate a strategy for joint
media activities19. Previously, during a session of the integration Club in June, valentina Matviyenko set the
Club a task to request the russian leadership to explore possibilities for the creation of a common television channel of the EEu member states.
some other nGOs came out with a similar initiative in June 2014 — they organized a conference entitled
“The Eurasian Economic Union: New Possibilities and Prospects.” The conference was originally initiated by
the Center for the Analysis of Terrorist Threats (CATU), headed by ramil Latypov, formerly the deputy head
of the working group for the assessment of terrorist threats and low-intensity conflicts at the Committee on International Affairs with the Council of Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. at the end of
the event, an address was issued to the media and expert communities, as well as authorized agencies of
15
16
17
18
19
http://www.spravedlivo.ru/5_47918.html
http://pitfond.ru/about/
http://pitfond.ru/dialog/sobytiya-ed/
http://council.gov.ru/structure/docs/51034/
http://council.gov.ru/structure/docs/25496/
Eurasian rEviEw — monitoring and analysis of the Eurasian
integration processes
10
EURASIAN REVIEW
the Eurasian Economic union and leadership of the Eurasian Economic Commission, with an appeal to create a Eurasian Media union 20. it was declared that the media holding EEP-Media (single Economic spaceMedia) would promote the idea of Eurasian integration among the citizens of the former soviet union.
The media holding was formally established at the start of 2014 as part of the CaTu-founded information
and analysis center institute of Eurasian Politics and the Eurasian Cooperation Development Fund (FRES),
another nGO focusing on the promotion of Eurasian integration. The Fund is the winner of the grant competition that was organized in 2013 in pursuance of the decree of the President of the russian Federation
“Concerning the provision of state support for non-proit non-governmental organizations implementing
socially signiicant projects and involved in the development of civil society institutions in 2013.” The FrEs
has already (co)organized a series of Eurasian integration-related public events involving top-ranking oficials and prominent public igures, including the so-called Eurasian Youth Forums.
it was at the First Eurasian Youth Forum entitled Young Eurasia (held in armenia’s Tsaghkadzor in august
2012), which brought together more than 600 participants from 14 countries, that the declaration “On the
Creation of the Eurasian Media League”21 was issued. The Belarusian participants in the forum that joined
the declaration included head of the Labor affairs staff at the Belarusian republican Youth union (BrYu)
arciom Masejčuk and observer at Bielaruskaja dumka magazine siarhiej Halaŭko. The declared objective
of the joint public project the Eurasian Media League was to organize a horizontal information network to
form the public opinion about the creation of the Eurasian union. The forum was supported by top-ranking
oicials — Chairman of the state Duma of the russian Federation sergey naryshkin sent a welcome address to the participants in the forum.
Despite the focus of nGOs on the creation of popular Eurasian media, little progress has been made so far.
The web portal of the Eurasian Media League only posts content from its partner websites and has very
few visits, whereas the website of the institute of Eurasian Politics, which served as the foundation for EEPMedia, remained underdeveloped and contains outdated information22 . it appears that further, more active
development of the pro-Eurasian media is hampered by diiculties in the lobbying of the inancing of such
projects from the budget amid the economic meltdown.
The major youth organizations of the EEu member states are also actively involved in the promotion of the
Eurasian idea in line with the oicial policy. These include the Belarusian Republican Youth Union, which
accounts more than 90% of state expenditures on youth policy, the Young Guard of United Russia (united
russia) and Kazakhstan’s ZhasOtan (nurOtan). another important youth umbrella organization of russia
— the Russian Youth Union — acts as the operator of the open competition for the provision of presidential
grants for non-proit non-governmental organizations. in armenia, the Youth Foundation of Armenia, established in 2010, is the country’s chief implementer of youth policy.
The concern of pro-Eurasian organizations over the situation in the media sector is not surprising, given
the fact that the leading pro-Eurasian initiatives are associated with the russian government agencies. The
thing is that many representatives of the russian ruling elite consider the EEu to be not only an economic
integration project, but also a cultural and historical partnership with a crucial role of the russian language
as a traditional instrument of international communication. anatoly Torkunov, the rector of the Moscow
state institute of international relations (MGiMO) and member of the integration Club, said at a session
of the Club: “The political struggle for Eurasia looks increasingly like a cultural, axiological, and civilizational
antagonism, and the defeat in this struggle would mean a loss of not only sovereignty and control of a territory,
natural resources, but also, and most importantly, a loss of national identity, a disintegration of the system of
national values.” 23
20 http://catu.su/analytics/691-o-sozdanii-evrazijskogo-media-sojuza
21 http://fondres.ru/index.php/analitika/169-deklaratsiya-o-sozdanii-evrazijskoj-informatsionnoj-ligi
22 “Pulse of Eurasian”, pulsea.ru
23 a. Torkunov’s speech at a meeting of the integration Club, Moscow, 18 november 2013. annual report of the integration Club
under the Chair of the Council of Federation for the Year 2013, page 43, http://council.gov.ru/media/iles/41d4c37c0a18ab040e11.pdf
Eurasian rEviEw — monitoring and analysis of the Eurasian
integration processes
11
EURASIAN REVIEW
Conclusion
The weak civil society and peculiar patterns for the representation of political parties in the parliaments of
armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and russia are the main reasons why the public discussion of Eurasian integration in the EEu member states was so shallow and why the integration project is perceived exclusively
as a project implemented from top down. Debate over the 500-page EEu Treaty in the parliaments of the
four countries turned out to be restrained and lukewarm. in Belarus and Kazakhstan, the lower houses of
the local parliaments supported the ratiication of the Treaty unanimously, in the russian state Duma, only
one MP abstained, and only seven armenian MPs voted against the ratiication of the Treaty. De jure nongovernmental organizations that are de facto under the direct control of the executive branch are the main
implementers of the Eurasian integration idea in the EEu member states. By allocating funds to a number
of pro-government foundations and youth unions, the ruling elites of the Eurasian nations seek to legitimize
what is in reality the top-down Eurasian project. Many pro-Eurasian institutions and nGOs have recently
been increasingly centered on pursuing a more active and concerted media policy in the EEu countries in
order to popularize the Eurasian concept.
Eurasian rEviEw — monitoring and analysis of the Eurasian
integration processes
12