Information impasses of post-Soviet integration

The general trends, including natural integration, trade intensification, friendship of peoples, etc. can not be considered universal.

An analysis of the available information, forming around the problems of integration, indicates the presence of a whole complex of problems which may play in the long-run a negative role in terms of dynamics and quality of interaction between the CIS countries.

First of all, there is no unified and distinct picture of the idea of integration. What is it for, what positive changes are brought about by this idea (or will be brought in the future) for ordinary people? However, the most important thing is that no clear picture of the
prospects for the foundations of integration is taking shape.

The lack of "speakers" on integration subjects is quite perceptible. Excluding heads of states and officials of the Eurasian Economic Community and the Collective Security Treaty Organization, a relatively small circle of non-media figures speak on these subjects.
Many statements made by public officers are far from being balanced and optimistic. In some cases, the negative, problematic aspects of cooperation in the network of integration structures are publicly emphasized.

Despite the participation of top officials in the public promotion of integration projects (in connection with the signing of basic documents, which occurs quite infrequently), their rhetoric is based on repeating rather conventional and generalized phrases concerning
the integration of the post-Soviet territories and intensification of trade, etc. This fact shapes the trend, characterized by lack of the necessary profoundness of public functionaries’ rhetoric aimed at various target groups.

The general trend of "natural integration, intensification of trade, friendship of peoples, etc" can not be considered either universal or an efficient answer to the numerous requests for information made by the people. Meanwhile, the quantity of these requests is increasing
constantly.

If we evaluate the general picture, it is possible to get the impression that ordinary people are virtually untouched by the process, (that "it’s the czar’s business”), and an individual’s life won’t be affected at all by the establishment of a Custom Union. This fact is used by opponents of integration, who point out the "negative aspects of the project" both from the tactical aspect and in terms of strategic consequences. There are practically no signs of systematic work on the promotion of the integration idea on TV. Among certain experts’ speeches can be singled out a relatively convincing and considered, in terms of media, position of Tair Mansurov. However, such speeches are situational and do not determine the nature and general orientation of the whole media picture. Such an efficient way of promoting the integration idea as the use of "opinion leaders" is used quite scarcely.

And so, we can note the existence of the trends stated below. There are no systematic efforts made by state authorities in order to provide the informational promotion of the idea of integration. There is no distinct picture of the development of post-Soviet integration. The project is interpreted as a bureaucratic initiative. It undoubtedly lacks the component of wide public support. A distinct and clear answer to the questions "Why? What for?  What
next?" has not been given yet. Moreover, the ongoing information battles concerning a number of trade problems between Russia and Belarus damage the pubic image of cooperation substantially and whittle the integration rhetoric away. Kazakhstan, closest Russia’s ally, gets poor representation in the Russian media. Information given about Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan is not always authentic.

Passivity in the media promotion of the Customs Union may lead to the fact that in an environment characterized by active media opposition, advocates of integration will lose their zeal.


To be continued.

Alexei Vlasov, exclusively for VK