Center for Strategic Assessment and forecasts

Autonomous non-profit organization

Home / Science and Society / Analytical work: the experience of Russian and foreign experts / Other
How decisions are made in hybrid modes
Material posted: Publication date: 19-11-2018
The political scientist about the process of making and adjusting decisions while reducing the influence of legal political institutions.

It's complicated in a hybrid mode, but the most difficult thing is the decision-making process. It seems that the less democracy, the less restrictions and approvals, the faster the steel Supreme arrow will reach the hearts of the contractor. The reality is exactly the opposite: the lower the influence of legal political institutions, the more complicated the mechanism of development and adoption of any decisions and the lower percentage of their works underway.

There is the classic image of the political system by David Easton (American political theorist). The system is a black box, which includes a variety of vectors of public queries. Inside is the decision-making process and out comes a vector - political solution, often in the form of a legal act. In the opposite direction from the solution to the query - there is a vector feedback, which, in turn, forms a new query.

In hybrid mode, it gets trickier. No entrance for the public query in the box is not provided, but individual interest groups got in there and closed. Imagine that your computer has all USB ports smeared with clay, but it takes radio signals through surface-mounted headdress of foil. Out from it comes not one vector, but several different "signals." The process of turning the many wills into a single solution that needs to take place within the system, occurs most often after the fact. As some insects is external digestion, in hybrid mode it is something like the external adjustment decisions. You need it because no way to know in advance what people want, how they react, what will be the consequences of the decision, is workable if it does not exist.

How it looks in practice? August 6, comes the President's decree on the application of certain special economic measures to ensure security of the Russian Federation. It is very General: it does not specify any sanctioned countries-producers, no forbidden foods, nor the rigor of the ban ("ban or restrict"). You specify only the date (year), product group (food) and the object (the countries that have adopted the decision on introduction of sanctions). Later we will see that one of these conditions has not been met. All the details should be determined by the government in its decision. This is the first step in the process a "political solution", or rather "a political signal". Then it will decrypt on the lower rungs of the power pyramid.

Why is it done? Oddly enough, in order to bring the first person from the responsibility. Totalitarian regimes are usually personalized - that is, autocratic type. The same führer-principle by analogy and is credited with authoritarian and hybrid formations. Meanwhile, it is not so. In hybrids occurs as a delegation of responsibility to the top (the head will be, will be) and spray it down on all the lower levels of the Executive branch (if anything, we are innocent, acted according to the instructions). Contrary to popular belief, the Russian political regime is much less personalized than, for example, our country-sisters of Venezuela. Almost completely missing the fact that in the early 90's called "compliance with law" - when a significant portion of legal acts comes from the first person. We have the decrees of the framework, and laws are largely a framework, and most important of the departmental manual.

7 Aug out the interpretive decision of the government. It lists prohibited products by the customs codes and countries, fell under the ban. One of them is Norway at that time any sanctions against Russia was not administered, she will join him later. There is great reason to believe that Norway, the largest supplier of fresh and frozen fish to Russia, wrote in the interests of a Russian fish holding close to the center of decision-making owners. I would like to call it the civilized term "lobbying", but this is not lobbying, but a parody of it. And here's why.

When the decision is made and comes to light, starts the third stage of the process. Starts public reaction is one that is a healthy mechanism precedes a decision and it is the reason that society demands something, the power does something. Hybrids the opposite: it adopted a certain decision, then promptly gets him a propaganda justification. It is clear that neither the concept of free trade (the flagship of which is the WTO), or the concept of protectionism (which to some extent done by many States, including WTO members) randomly ban randomly selected products for the year does not fit. And economic globalization, and protectionism respectable economic theory and practice, in favour and the other has something to say. But the measure, as they say, about it, so was put forward public arguments, annihilating each other: on the one hand, it was stated that the measure will support the domestic manufacturer, on the other - that prohibits foreign suppliers will be quickly replaced by other foreign suppliers.

The decision comes out of the black box and in contact with reality - they want to do. Simultaneously with the white noise of the propaganda machine starts to sound and the actual public reaction: the reaction of consumers, experts and interest groups. It is clear that the decision should be made quickly and secretly, because any openness to admit to the sacred center of power of the enemies and pests. The flip side of this speed and mystery is that it is impossible to know the opinions of experts or industry specialists. It turns out that the ban covers, for example, fish fry, without which the domestic manufacturer, who, it would seem that lobbied for the prohibition of hostile fish, he can not live and reproduce. Nobody thought that gluten free and lactose required for patients with celiac disease and autism, as well as sports nutrition and supplements are now also prohibited. The representatives of patient and parent groups included, for example, the public Council under the Ministry of health and make noise. The sports lobby.

There comes the fourth stage: erosion of the decision just taken. In fact, it is the work that needs to be done before its adoption. 20 August, the government adopts a new regulation, which excludes from the list of prohibited foods of lactose free milk, vitamins, dietary Supplements, fish fry and seeds. At the same time the Prime Minister expressed hope that the food sanctions "won't last", and a week later Deputy Prime Minister Dvorkovich said that they will be abolished by no longer a "threat to national security."

So, when acceptance of the decision were not consulted, apparently, even with the economic Ministers, but after its adoption even listened to the traditionally despised instrument - petitions on the Internet (the treatment group members "Celiac disease" the abolition of the ban on gluten-free and lactose-free products gained almost 50,000 signatures in three weeks). Whether the government listens to the experts and public opinion? Whether the government corrects the mistakes? Seems to be Yes, but not fully, not immediately, not in time and never to end. In the absence of a working feedback mechanisms to develop competent solutions impossible, but and isolate decision-makers from society - incomplete. In their own way they are trying to catch the public mood on the basis of often distorted, random, ill-understood signals falling inside the black box plastered with curved mirrors.

We have described, the overall price is relatively low, the consequences of the "grocery sanctions" will be reduced to a General increase in the price of food that hurt primarily the poor, but will not reduce their consumption level to critical. But the same distorted mechanisms work and when making decisions about war and security. Outside observer it seems that the economic Ministers are not allowed to discuss economic solutions, because they are suspicious of liberals, and the military experts and chiefs all the way. Alas, the decision-making mechanism cannot be in the same place is broken, and the other suddenly effective: it is the same for all, it differs only in price decisions. The system is strong only as its weakest link.

Ekaterina Shulman


RELATED MATERIALS: Science and Society
Возрастное ограничение