The Linguistic Meaning of the Word “Decision”: In Mukhtar al-Sihah by Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr al-Razi, al-qarar (decision/stability) is defined as the settled or stable part of the land. Yawm al-qarr (with the letter qāf pronounced with a fatḥah) refers to the day following the Day of Sacrifice, as people remain in their homes. Al-qarar in a place means settling or residing there. One may say qarirtu bil-makān (with the letter qāf pronounced with a kasrah), meaning “I settled in the place,” and qarartu (with the qāf pronounced with a fatḥah), meaning the same. Qārahu muqāraratan means that he stayed with him and settled alongside him.^[1]In general, the Arabic word “decision” refers to settling on a matter, inclining toward it, and choosing it over other alternatives. It also refers to the conclusion reached in forming an opinion or ruling on a particular issue. The word “decision” can also mean “to cut off,” that is, to end the process of deliberation and proceed to action. This meaning appears in the Qur’an in the words of Bilqis, the Queen of Sheba: “She said, ‘O assembly, advise me concerning my affair. I would not decide upon a matter until you bear witness to me.’”^[2]) “. The Terminological Meaning of “Decision”: In terminological terms, the concept of a decision generally refers to “choosing the most likely or optimal alternative.”^[3]It also means “the conscious position adopted by a person who has the authority to make a final determination on a matter, after carefully considering the available options.”^[4]As for the political decision, the Encyclopedia of Political Science published by Kuwait University defines it as “the act of those who occupy positions of authority and responsibility, or those who possess the power and capacity, of selecting one of the alternative solutions proposed to address a particular problem. Accordingly, a decision is a ‘prescription’ or a commitment to act or operate in a specific manner by those who hold authority and influence.”^[5]Some define a political decision as a comprehensive or partial economic, social, or cultural planning process issued by the political leadership of a country. A political decision should possess the following characteristics:

• It must be issued by a person holding a political position or through one of the organs of political authority; in other words, it must originate from a legally authorized and recognized authority.
• Binding Force: It must carry coercive authority, requiring compliance and implementation.
• Generality: It concerns public affairs and collective needs. ^([6] ).

The decision-making process is broader than the decision itself, “because a decision is an expression of the outputs associated with a particular situation, whereas the decision-making process encompasses all inputs and outputs related to that situation, as well as the interactions between them.”^([7])  Although there are significant differences in how decision-making is conceptualized, three main approaches can generally be distinguished in this regard. These approaches are as follows: Approach First: Choice Of Among Alternatives: This approach holds that the essence of the decision-making process lies in making a conscious choice among a set of available alternatives, with the aim of maximizing gains and avoiding or minimizing losses. For example, some define the political decision-making process as “the manner in which a reasonable course of action can be reached among several competing alternatives. All decisions seek to achieve certain objectives or avoid undesirable outcomes.” ^([8]). According to Richard Snyder, the political decision-making process is “the social process through which a problem is selected to become the subject of a decision, resulting in a limited number of alternatives, one of which is selected for implementation and application.”^([9])Accordingly, the decision-making process aims to identify and assess all possible alternatives and options, enabling the decision-maker to choose among them with full awareness and insight, while understanding all aspects of the issue, being familiar with all possible scenarios, and being prepared to deal with them. This definition also indicates that there are several options and alternatives concerning decisions that could achieve the desired objective or address the issue that the decision-maker seeks to confront and make a decision about. However, these options and alternatives differ in their degree of feasibility and in their ability to address the circumstances that necessitated the decision-making process. Some alternatives may achieve the desired objective but at a high cost, while others may achieve the same objective at a lower cost. Therefore, the decision-maker’s objective is to reach a decision that achieves the desired goal at the lowest possible cost. To arrive at an objective decision that addresses the issue at hand with the least possible losses, the decision-maker needs comprehensive and accurate information about the issue. This enables them to understand the matter, identify the available alternatives, and assess those alternatives in order to determine the strengths and weaknesses of each one. In addition to comprehensive and accurate information about the issue, the decision-maker must possess strong analytical, deductive, and foresight capabilities that enable them to understand the environment in which the decision will be made. This allows them to formulate realistic alternatives supported by comprehensive and in-depth information about the advantages and risks of each alternative, the expected outcomes should it be selected, and specific proposals for measures that could mitigate its negative effects. The decision-maker can also advise the relevant authority and recommend one option over others based on their extensive knowledge of the issue and their ability to anticipate the outcomes and likely reactions resulting from the selection of each proposed alternative. Approach Second: The decision is An option Leadership Political: This approach views political leadership as the central factor in decision-making. It focuses on the nature of the political elite, as well as its values and preferences, on the grounds that this elite is responsible for making and implementing important and critical decisions in society. Every society is governed by a political elite whose interests and values shape its vision and influence its choices. Some argue that the role of political leadership is to “identify the objectives of the political community and rank them according to their priorities, select the appropriate means to achieve these objectives in accordance with the community’s actual capabilities, assess the dimensions of the situations confronting the community, and make the necessary decisions to address the problems and crises arising from these situations,” while doing so “within the framework of an interaction governed by the fundamental values and principles of society.” It is also important not to confuse the political leader as an individual with political leadership in the sense of the ruling elite. The political leader may be a single individual who exercises political authority and makes decisions concerning society independently. Alternatively, political leadership may constitute a ruling class consisting of two elements: the leader and the political elite. All of this is related to the nature of the political system, whether individualistic or aristocratic. ^([10] ). Approach Third: Reconciliation Among Interests: Proponents of this approach argue that the political system is the sum of institutional and behavioral interactions associated with political decision-making. A political decision is the outcome of a set of complex and interconnected procedures aimed at reconciling different interests, positions, and opinions within society. This process involves bargaining, negotiation, and compromise. Accordingly, a political decision is “the outcome of formal and informal interactions among political actors within the framework of the prevailing ideology and culture, and through the existing structures and institutions.” According to David Easton, the main function of the political system is the authoritative allocation of values in society, that is, the process of making binding decisions, which takes place through the following stages:

• Inputs: These are the pressures and influences exerted on the political system that drive it to act and respond. They are divided into two groups:
• Demands: They are articulated and formulated into simplified programs by interest groups, political parties, opinion leaders, and the media, enabling the political system to respond to them more effectively.
• Support: The continuity of the political system depends on securing a minimum level of loyalty and support. If support declines, the system becomes vulnerable to threats and instability from its surrounding environment.
• Transformation: It refers to the incorporation of demands into the legislative and executive structures of the system before they emerge in the form of outputs. Conversion is essentially a process of classifying demands and determining their importance.
• Outputs: They represent the system’s response to actual or anticipated demands. In other words, outputs are the policies and decisions concerning the authoritative allocation of resources.
• Feedback: It refers to the flow of information from the environment back to the political system, resulting from its actions—that is, from the effects produced by its decisions and policies. ^([11]).

However, the authoritative allocation of values in society, which takes place through the process of making binding decisions, cannot be carried out effectively without effective communication between the political system and its environment, a process known as political communication. Gabriel Almond likened the communication function to the circulatory system that nourishes all parts of the body. Therefore, Karl Deutsch introduced a new approach to political analysis based on communication and control theory (cybernetics), which is the systematic study of communication and control in organizations of all kinds. According to Deutsch, cybernetics essentially involves the transmission of messages and the understanding of control processes; it is a branch of communication engineering. Communication networks carry signals from various control centers to the units responsible for carrying out actions, and then transmit messages back from these units to the control centers. Scholars, including Deutsch, subsequently adopted this engineering concept in the social sciences in general and in political science in particular. Deutsch’s communication theory views government as a decision-making system based on the continuous flow of information. He argues that there is a receiving system that receives three types of information: information about the external world, historical information about the past, and information about the system and its components. There is also a continuous flow of information through a communication network that continuously adjusts itself. These communication networks represent any system that can be described in terms of a certain degree of organization, communication, and control, regardless of the specific processes involved in transmitting messages. The processing and representation of information constitute the fundamental point of similarity between political systems and all other communication systems. ^([12]) Deutsch argues that traditional theories of decision-making assume that international actors calculate all possible moves on their own part and on the part of their adversaries, without taking into account the costs of time, effort, and resources involved in decision-making. However, limited time and increasing burdens and costs prevent decision-makers from reaching the optimal decision or the best solution to a problem. Consequently, the decisions ultimately reached are the best among the available alternatives within the limits of the effort, time, and resources available to them.[13]Deutsch uses the concept of social communication to understand the process of foreign decision-making in any state, which is shaped by the state’s communication with other states. The greater the level of communication among states, the more they tend to pursue greater integration and move away from conflict. The importance of this approach lies in its ability to describe and explain the behavior of the political system. Communication is vital to the exercise and reinforcement of human control over the environment. This approach demonstrates that, through communication processes, inputs are received, decisions are made regarding them, and they are transformed into outputs. Through communication, the political system is connected to its surrounding environment and responds to its demands. The system continuously receives messages and must be capable of interpreting and responding to them. The Difference Between an Administrative Decision and a Political Decision: Despite the significant overlap between the political and administrative spheres, the difference between a political decision and an administrative decision can be understood in terms of their structural composition and organizational framework. An administrative decision is based on legitimacy (i.e., conformity with the law), hierarchy (i.e., the flow of authority from the top downward), and rationality (i.e., reliance on formal procedures in issuing a decision by the person legally authorized to do so). A political decision, on the other hand, is based on legitimacy (i.e., reliance on the values, expectations, and interests of the community as a basis for accepting the system of government), consensus (i.e., the possibility of reaching a compromise among different groups), and generality (i.e., the supremacy of the political decision over all individuals and institutions).^([14]) . (¹⁾  Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr ibn Abd al-Qadir al-Razi Mukhtar al-Sihah(Beirut: Lebanon Library Publishers, 2011), p. 221. (2) Surah An-Naml, verse 32. (3) Ali Al-Salmi, Professionalism in Management, Alam Al-Fikr (The World of Thought) Issue No. 2, Vol. 20, July 1989, pp. 15–16. (4) Muhammad Ali Al-Oweini, Principles of Political Science (Cairo: Alam Al-Kutub, 1981), p. 19. (5) Muhammad Mahmoud Rabie and Ismail Sabri Muqallad, Encyclopedia of Political Science (Kuwait: Kuwait University, 1994), p. 486. ⁽⁶⁾ Muhammad Abdel-Azim Al-Shimi, The Political Role of the Decision-Maker in Egyptian Foreign Policy (Cairo: Arab Bureau of Knowledge, n.d.), p. 25. ⁽⁷⁾  Yasin Muhammad Hamad Al-Aithawi and Anas Karam Muhammad Subhi, “American Political Decision-Making,” Midad Al-Adab Journal, Issue No. 7, p. 293. ⁽⁸⁾ Gamal Ali Zahran, The Theoretical Framework of Decision-Making: A Strategic Vision for Developmental Decision-Making in Egypt (Cairo: Suez Canal University, n.d.), quoted in: James Robinson and Richard Snyder.,Decision Making in International Politics.in : Herbert Kelman(ed.), International Behaviour,(Holt),Rinehart and Winston(,New York,1966) , p. 437. ⁽⁹⁾ Quoted in Muhammad Saad Abu Amoud, “Political Decision-Making During the Sadat Era,” Arab Future Journal, Centre for Arab Unity Studies, Beirut, Issue No. 112, Vol. 6, 1988, p. 112. (10) Jalal Muawad, The Relationship Between Leadership and the Development Phenomenon: A Study of the Arab Region, PhD Dissertation in Political Science, Cairo University, 1985, p. 10. (11) Adel Thabet, Modern Political Theory: A Study of the Models and Theories Developed to Understand and Explain the Political World(Cairo: Khawarizm Library, 2002), pp. 244–246. See also: Francis Fukuyama, State Building: Governance and World in the Twenty-First Century,( London PROFILE BOOKS LTD) , 2004.p.24. (12)Karl Deutsch, The Nerves of Government : Models of Political Communication and Control, (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1963, P. 316. (13) Adel Thabit, op. cit., pp. 366–368. (14) Muhammad 'Abd al-'Azim al-Shimi, op. cit., pp. 50–51.