Assessing Multilateral Parliamentarism in Eurasian Regional Integration

Introduction: The ups and downs of regional integration and the factors affecting it in the field of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries, like any other region of the world, have been considered by regional and trans-regional researchers. However, in the 1990s, the CIS project failed to meet expectations and generated widespread cooperation. Despite this situation, the leaders of the CIS, inspired by the existing mechanisms of regional integration in other parts of the world, have followed their own integration trend. Accordingly, the focus of the present article is to analyze the extent to which multilateral parliamentarism is being mapped within the framework of the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly in the Eurasian regional integration process.  In this regard, by stating the background and background of the research, the place of multilateral parliamentarism in the process of regional convergence, the relationship between the political system and multilateral parliamentarism, one of the special functions of the Interparliamentary Assembly of the CIS is to formulate model laws to facilitate the regional convergence process of the CIS is described. In addition, the lack of a parliamentary mechanism in the Eurasian Economic Union is explained.
Research Question: Accordingly, the question arises that what effect does multilateral parliamentarism in the CIS have on regional integration in the region?
Research Hypothesis: In this context, using the method of comparative analysis and using library and documentary data, it is argued in the field of Eurasia that if regional integration mechanisms such as multilateral parliamentarism in addition to greater economic prosperity in the region, to ensure the political stability of the member states, is supported by the CIS to facilitate regional integration.
Methodology (and Theoretical Framework if there are): Therefore, the study of the functions of the inter-parliamentary organizations of the CIS as a complex issue requires the use of comparative methods and analysis using library and documentary data. Comparison is a useful way to identify the distinct functions of multilateral parliamentarism in regional integration in independent states, given the characteristics of political systems and the experiences of different regions of the world. In the context of the cognition obtained from this comparison, the expectations of multilateral parliamentarism in regional integration in different regions are adjusted or limited.
Results and discussion: According to what was said, although the CIS utilizes all regional mechanisms -such as the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly- to consolidate its political systems, however, the process of influencing the inter-parliamentary assembly in the framework of multilateral parliamentarism on regional convergence is a positive but weak facilitator. Because the process of regional integration within the framework of the CIS and the Eurasian Economic Union has taken shape in different circumstances from regional integration in Europe as follows:
-Regional integration in Europe has evolved on the pervasive idea of interdependence, while in the CIS it is limited to individuals based on the economic and political interests of its members.
-The democratic component of political systems, which creates and develops regional integration in Europe, is a key factor. On the other hand, prioritizing the preservation of national sovereignty in the ruling presidential and authoritarian political systems in Eurasia undermines any mechanisms arising from regional integration, such as the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly.
-The success of regional integration is almost entirely possible in almost equal countries. In Eurasia, evidence suggests that repulsive power has acted as a slowing factor in advancing the regional integration process compared to the gravitational pull of the powerful Russian state in its interaction with other countries in the region.
-In addition, part of the manifestations of regional convergence, such as economic interactions seen in the CIS, are left over from the Soviet Union.
-Under these conditions, the modeling of Eurasia from Europe in the framework of the formation of various institutions has remained less effective in terms of form and more in terms of content and performance.
-Accordingly, to pursue a policy of balance based on the facts prevailing in Eurasia on the basis of institutionalism is a logical choice not only for those who agree, but also for those who oppose skepticism in the CIS.
Conclusion: Of course, the facts governing the institutional mechanisms of the CIS, including the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly, do not preclude some collective benefits for its members. They maintain a certain level of symbolic unity in the post-Soviet space, which has a significant psychological impact on the elites of each country. One of the main goals of the mentioned inter-parliamentary assemblies is the integration of the member states through the creation of a single legal space. The set of interactions is assessed by the development of model laws by the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of the CIS facilitating regional integration in the form of a common legal framework for economic activity, which ultimately contributed to the formation of the Eurasian Economic Union.