That is interesting, how those opinions differ about government power in the Western Europe (not the USA) and Russia. In the Western Europe there was more historically developed a collective form of board where the Supreme governor of the state, carries out control functions more like a chairman, than autocratic management. In Russia (in my opinion the USA too) historically was issued and became stronger autocratic management. If to reject associations connected with the name of posts Presidential management is the form of a monarchy for the limited period, by transfer power from the monarch to the monarch by means of general election. For this reason, after disorder of Communistic board, Russia preferred Presidency. It was reflected in drama events of opposition between a parliament of Russia - "Supreme Assembly" and new (then) president Yeltsin in 1993. Everyone remembered these events by the "White House” tanks execution.
Whether were there in whole Russia history collective forms of management?
Strangely enough, yes and a lot of, but collective management always was replaced for autocratic.
Let's begin from moment of the state formation of Russ (in a consequence, after finding the state sovereignty from Mongols was named Russia). Two Swedish princes, Rurekovichy had introduced the Swedish model of management to Novgorod (it is translated as new city). The Legislature, and carrying out strategic management was by citizens assembly "Veche" (to translate from Old Slavonic is possible like word or call), princes could carry out only current management events. It looks now ridiculously, but the assembly of citizens could put prince for a month into prison because of offences.
That form of management as dominating existed not so long. From time of creation Kiev and carry there capital of Russ became to dominate an autocracy by an example of Byzantium.
However,Ivan Groznyj finished finally Novgorod freedom only in 16 century, by that finished collecting of Russian grounds.
The second historical experience of collective management was made by Bolsheviks from 1918 to (approximately) 1934. Lenin was the active supporter of collective management and created the mechanism excluding capture of authority by one person. And only Stalin put an end to this experiment.
The third case as it was told before, was from 1991 to 1993 on time of transition from communistic to "democratic" (actually “capitalist” because the level of democracy remained at the same level) power.
In all three historical experiments (and also when the monarch by young age could not still execute duties and for him it was made by a board of guardians) collective management did not meet broad support at the population and received a nickname by people as "semibarchina" (translated as seven owners (chiefs)). The reason not love by the population was banal, because of blossoming corruption, refusal by officials to carry out the duties and the most important, between the clan struggles which completely undermining, bases of the state.
Proceeding from above specified, it would be desirable to draw a conclusion:
The question “Does the Russia really need monarchy?” It was not put correctly because it always was in Russia. Names varied only: Grand duke, Tsar whole Russia, the Secretary general of the Central Committee of Communist party of Soviet Union, the President of the Russian Federation.
The question needs to be altered:
“Does the Russia really need the hereditary monarchy?”
