The culture of each race is a function of that race's genetics, geography, and history. For example, a land with cold weather would naturally produce more thrifty people that planned ahead and practiced modesty in consumption. Those that did not would naturally die out due to food shortage.

Similarly, any nation's politics is a function of that nation's culture, genetics, history, and geography. Each nation has a bend towards a certain mode of governance. Slavs are prone to autocracy, and Norse are prone to democracy.

The western tabula rasa view in which every country on earth could be made into a parliamentary democracy like Belgium failed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and a dozen other countries.

Here is a small attempt at my part to classify the political structures ''inherent'' to various nations.

Slavic peoples

Autocracy. The Slavic races with perhaps the exception of Poland are geared towards autocracy. Democracy or oligarchy has never worked in Russia. Only autocracy has worked.

Slavic autocracy is not essentially dynastic in nature but it is rule of the strongest. Slavs will accept any autocrat so long as he or she rules well and with a firm fist. That's why Russia accepted Catherine I, a lowborn Polish slave woman as Empress after the death of Peter the Great.

Oligarchy and democracy have never worked for Russia or the slavs as these phases tended to cause these states to drift apart and crack due to centrifugal forces. Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus all returned to autocracy after brief dances with democracy after the fall of the USSR.

The same trend of strongmen has held with Romania and Bulgaria as well.

"Western Europeans*

The trend has generally been one of oligarchy. Western monarchs, even supposedly absolute ones like Napoleon and Friedrick the Great were rarely as despotic and totalitarian as Stalin or Ivan the Terrible.

The common mode of rule in the west has been rule by an oligarchy of elites and if a King or autocratic figure is present, typically he rules with the consent of the elite and is more of a first among equals rather than Dominus et Deus.

In the last century, this oligarchic trend has held and has functioned behind the facade of democracy. But in actuality, the western people are not ruled by themselves or by democratic will, but by elite consensus and a nexus of permanent politicians, bureaucrats, intel agencies, media outlets, academics, and business elites.

China

China seems to have a trend towards autocracy like Russia. It was always ruled by emperors and was prosperous when Emperors ruled with an iron fist. Whenever the emperor was lenient or lackadaisical, the Empire had a tendency to drift into warlordism and tear apart due to centrifugal forces.

After Sun yat sen's revolt, it soon veered back into autocracy under Kai-sek and then Mao. It had a brief respite after that but again returned to autocracy under Xi.

Indian subcontinent

Dynastic oligarchy. The trend in this region is family rule. Political parties are family franchises and have no identity or expression beyond a specific family. But families don't run parties and states in an autocratic manner but it is more of a joint family venture where the current leader shares power with other family members.

Greater Middle east

Dynastic autocracy. Families rule the middle east as well but there is autocracy within the family. Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, and all the other middle eastern monarchs and strongmen rule with an iron fist. They appoint their dynastic members to high positions and they hold various ministries like feudal fiefs but there is no equality among them.

The relatives bow to the chieftain so to speak and he dictates everything.

Africans

Autocracy. The Africans tend to have a bent towards autocracy.

I don't know much about Korea, Southeast Asia or Latin America. Though my impression of Latin America is one of oligarchic autocracy. There are strongmen but they abide by the wishes of the elite and rule with their consent.