Describing the project of the Eurasian Union Vladimir Putin referred to the successful integration experience of the EU. It is not about feasibility of the EAU what I am concerned with. Putin's project has indeed close resemblance to the European one, but do we need a blueprint? In my opinion, contemporary political science - both theory and practice - has a set of capacities that would allow to enhance pursued policies as well as to render the EAU more recognizable in Eurasian public space. In fact, Eurasian integration is not what ordinary people familiar with. It is instead left to politicians, experts, pundits, students of international relations and sympathetic journalists. Cross-national solidarity might be crucial for the success of integration. Be that as it may, the mantra of "Eurasian values" hardly can bring about an EU-like organisation.

To begin with, the transnational parliamental system (EU is in fact the only one worth to be talked about) has a number of flaws - both instrumental and intrinsic. First of all, the connection between vote and consequence is extremely tenuous. In fact, voting in European elections does not yield a government. [1] The power of the European Parliament is shared with other EU institutions and national governments. It is one thing to elect a national governemt responsible for taxation policy, infrastructure, education etc., which are of great interest for population. The other thing is supranational institutions providing norms and issuing directives.

The second problem is intimately related to the first. Since transnational voters generally have no idea what is at stake they frequently tend to 'expressive voting'. It means that voters pass judgement on their national government. [2]

For example, if the citizens of, say, Slovenia aren't happy with their national government they tend to 'punish' a ruling party or coalition in the European election. But not that the EU policy they aren't pleased with. The message is simple: 'Doesn't matter what your EU policy is, we vote for other parties in the European Parliament because you failed at home.' It doesn't seem very logical. So, 'expressive'. That is one of the main reasons why populist parties generally fare better at EU elections, not at home.

Finally, democratic character of transnational bodies and commanding heights is contested, even in the EU. Though European citizens can elect their representatives to the parliament, its authority is limited compared to national parliaments of the 28 EU members. Hence, democracy deficit looms large.

Okay, democracy, you say. Maybe it is not what Eurasian integration needs. In fact, there is even no such a thing as Eurasian Union. First and foremost, it should come into being. Besides, looking at the domestic institutional designs of Russia, Belarus und Kazakhstan one can come to conclusion that democracy is not what the leaders of these three states concerned with. There is therefore no hope that EAU would be any more democratic than European Union.

There is, however, one thing worth an experiment called deliberative democracy. Deliberation is commonly referred to as "a form of government in which free and equal citizens (and their representatives), justify decisions in a process in which they give one another reasons that are mutually acceptable" [3].

Political prefernces are not merely aggregated and voted for. They are instead formed and refined in the process of deliberation. It can result in a common good or at least make deep moral conflicts more tractable. There is a number of examples how deliberation can be applied in large scale political systems.

To be honest, it is a tough issue since one can hardly imagine how some 10 millions Greeks can effectively talk to each other, present their opinions and give each other reasons. But it is nevertheless possible "to improve the character of public opinion." [4]

One of this examples is called Deliberative Polling. Basically, it means that randomly chosen citizens get a survey. Then, they are invited to come to a single place to engage in a weekend of discussions in small groups. They can consult experts, exchange competing points of view and come to some judgement.

Finally, the participants are given the same questionnaire as before deliberation. The changes of opinions are frequently significant. [5] The advantage of such fora is that people of very different backrounds (age, ethnicity, education etc.) are taking part.

Since the EAU is a transnational project, we should be more interested in how cross-national deliberation can be possible. In fact, there is a successful example of cross-national deliberative polling taken place in Brussels. In 2009, EuroPolis assembled EU-citizens from 27 countries. The procedures were the same and the result was that the participants in the EuroPolis experiment were "more pro-emmigration, pro-European and more likely to vote in the European parliamentary election." [6]

So why not take a chance? You may say that there are in fact some projects (like dimplomatic seminar of Gorchakov Fund) that bring citizens of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia and experts together. I was a participant once. But I think it is not enough since Gorchakov Fund invites students and activists supposed to be already educated and interested in Eurasian integration.

The participants are not selected randomly. Instead, it is self-motivation that counts. The same is true for the so called Eurasian Youth Parliament. I am not argue that it's bad. I just want to ask: what about school teachers, farmers, hairdressers, doctors, pensioners and other people who just don't care much if at all?

Let's imagine a EurasianPolis where Russians, Belarusians and Kazakhs of different ages and backgrounds come together. There may be even advantages compared to the European experience. There would be no multilingual communication problem since almost all of potential participants understand Russian. Even if some Kazakhs or (what I don't believe) Belarusians couldn't, the problem would still be easily manageable if one thinks that the EU has some 20 official languages.

A Eurasian deliberative polling could occur prior to the political union, the result can be an engaged citizenry really interested in three nations coming closer. If such polls proved successful, they could result in some sort of "ordinanry citizens" representation bodies which could be advisory or supervisory.

But if we want to be realists, there are still advantages. First, as already noted, an engaged citizenry, not a desinterested one. Second, even if such polls can convene 200 to maximum 500 people, participants can share their experience in their neighbourhood or at work or encourage others to participate. Third, it is a great possibility for changing or forming public opinion on a number of issues like immigration - to which many Russians are deeply hostile - or common market. You may raise an objection that forming public opinion is a task of media. That is true. Nevertheless, media coverage is rather sensationalist and seriously, how many people, do you think, do read newspapers?

[1] Dryzek, John / Niemeyer, Simon / Milewicz, Karolina (2011): Toward a Deliberative Global Citizens' Assembly. In: Global Policy. 2 (1). P. 35.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Gutmann, Amy / Thompson, Dennis (2004): Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press. P. 7.

[4] Ackerman, Bruce / Fishkin, James (2002): Deliberation Day. In: Journal of Political Philosophy. 10 (2). P. 133.

[5] Ibid. P. 134.

[6] Isernia, Pierangelo / Fishkin, James (2014): The EuroPolis deliberative poll. In: European Union Politics. 15 (3). P. 322.