Once upon a time there was a king...
In the Russian Empire after the death of the Peter the Great, the traditional throne inheritance system was broken. For several generations, the most influential court dignitaries (those who took part in the previous czar governance) decided who would be the next czar, their decisions enforced by the Imperial Guard. They couldn't nominate themselves, it had to be a Romanov. They sort of went along the familial relations, but an heir that didn't suit them didn't have a long lifespan, from a few years to few weeks even, and could have a sudden apoplectic stroke. By a snuffbox. To the head.
When an heir has been crowned, that same people did they best to follow his or her orders to the letter without question. And their children after them. So here you have your council, even if never formally proclaimed.
It resulted in several empresses doing their best to appease that very same top nobility, interleaved with short-lived unlucky emperors. Corruption spread like a wildfire. The luxury those courtiers lived in were beyond imagination (of that time). Any state reform that could threaten the status quo would be postponed.
Surprisingly to some (but it's actually typical), the state affairs didn't go completely bad during that time. Sometimes a capable empress found good people for the job, and things were good for the empire. Sometimes she didn't, and then it didn't work out. All in all, the country solved its problem, gained territory, had money for government to function and the bureaucrats to steal.
It ended after the war with Napoleon. Many young nobles that weren't part of the top bureaucracy decided, after visiting Europe, that reforms are needed. They tried a revolt. New czar Nicholas I won. Afraid for his life, he implemented harsh oppressive measures. The fun times ended, a simple absolute hereditary monarchy lasted some time after him, then it blew up in 1917.
Of the past let us make a clean slate
In USSR from Stalin rule and up to the december of 1991, a small group of people called Politburo was in charge. And its leader, usually titled General Secretary, ruled the country. Usually he made all the important decisions, and the rest of the members were happy to drop the responsibility onto him. It started even with Lenin actually, but was somewhat different at first.
There was a kinda democratic system of Soviets (councils) and Party Congresses that supposedly ruled. But it all was just a formality. All members of Soviets and Congresses were chosen in one-candidate votes with the candidates chosen by the Communist Party from its own members only. All the party members were obligated to obey decisions by Politburo. Members of Politburo itself were elected in a similar manner. The General Secretary was in effect chosen by Politburo after the death of the previous one.
So here again you have a system similar to yours, albeit in a formally democratic country.
This time, however, in addition to corruption, the system instilled fear of responsibility in everyone. Stalin ruled by cruelly manipulating Politburo members and periodically killing some of them. After his death, Khruschev stopped it, but tried to reform the country and pissed off the corrupt party members, so they got rid of him. After that, the Politburo turned into a swamp. Each member expected others to come with actual ideas and decisions to make country forward. No one wanted any responsibility. They spent time doing minutiae government bureaucracy and vying for a bit of more power instead.
The economy went into a heavy stagnation followed by a decline (it's been completely controlled by this people). From a new generation, a supposed reformer Gorbachev rose to a challenge to fix it. But educated by Politburo, he could only talk about reform, but not actually implement it. The system broke completely, and not a century has even passed from the establishment.
And does it all mean something?..
Hard to tell. The system is somewhat viable, but was proven inefficient. It's always corrupt, abhors reforms, turns them into some hollow imitation of improvement, and drives country into dangerous stagnation. On the other side, it's really stable, and can't be changed much without a serious breakdown.