How each model solves the same problems
Instead of “democracy versus anarchism”, compare the concrete ways collective problems get solved.
| Question | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| How are decisions made? | The president and a narrow circle of security and military officials decide; the Duma, Federation Council and Security Council ratify. | Collective leadership in the Politburo Standing Committee; party control of personnel through the Organization Department; local governments ran economies and piloted policies under central veto.Term limits and rotation of office | A stratified random sample of 523 voters deliberated in moderated groups and plenaries and answered questionnaires before and after; no decisions were taken.Sortition / citizens' assembly | |
| How are conflicts resolved? | Courts that follow the authorities in political cases; elite conflicts resolved by the president, sometimes violently; no independent arbiter. | Party discipline commissions, courts under party leadership, petition offices; mass protest met with repression, most lethally in June 1989. | Balanced briefing materials, trained neutral moderators and competing experts structured disagreement. | |
| How are public goods funded? | Military spending and payments to soldiers and their families have priority; pensions and services financed by oil and gas revenue under sanctions. | Fiscal decentralisation with local land revenues; infrastructure and education expanded rapidly; health and pension coverage rebuilt in the 2000s. | Privately funded; produced published results, media coverage and a peer-reviewed study. | |
| How is AI used? | No algorithmic governance; facial recognition and online surveillance are used against protesters and draft evaders. | None at system level; digital government grew late in the period. | No AI role. | |
| What are the main risks? | Open-ended war, elite fragmentation (shown by the 2023 mutiny), economic strain from sanctions and war spending, and a succession with no agreed rules.CLM-1124 | Corruption, local debt and land seizures driven by growth targets, environmental damage, factionalism, and rules on succession without independent enforcement.CLM-1089CLM-1091 | Self-selection into attendance; artificial setting; analysis by the method's designers; no institutional uptake. |
This illustrates differences in design; it is not a universal claim about outcomes. Each cell links to mechanisms and the claims behind them.