No, the idea is that "political decision" is used in opposition to a decision based on rational tradeoffs.

If there isn't enough usage of a feature to justify prioritizing engineering hours to it instead of other features, so it's removed, that's just a regular business-as-usual decision. Nothing "political" about it. It's straightforward cost-benefit.

However, if the decision is based on factors beyond simple cost-benefit -- maintaining or removing a feature because it makes some influential group happy, because it's part of a larger strategic plan to help or harm something else, then we call that a political decision.

That's how the term "political decision" in this kind of context is used, what it means.