Forum

I live in Russia. I don't have a degree in political science (which is probably for the best), and I haven't read any specialized literature. For this reason, I don't bother refining terms or bringing them into line with scientific standards. The main thing is that the thought I want to convey is clear. I expect the same from my interlocutors. The decision-making system is roughly the same in any system and in any group – it's a vote, taking into account the "weight" of the vote. The weighting by individuals varies within a certain (rather small) range, depending on objective factors – the size of the group, the nature of the tasks being solved, and the personnel. If the tasks facing the group are not complex, there is a tendency towards hereditary succession and a focus on group affiliation. This is typical of prosperous, stagnant times. If the tasks are complex, this tendency weakens, and the objective merits of the participants gain more weight. This is typical of rapid development and overcoming external resistance. For example, most of Stalin's ministers came from humble backgrounds; they rose to the top thanks to their personal qualities and their ability to solve the very difficult tasks set before them. If a complete "reset" occurs, and the old elite can be thrown overboard (revolution), they are replaced by an elite from among the revolutionaries. I don't know if this was mentioned in your political science lectures. If not, then I may have missed something.