The Dynamics of the Four Political Systems

It may come as a surprise, but the four systems of power in our world may actually all deliver the same results. All it takes is for the decision makers of whatever system to make the same decisions. That sounds awefully nice, of course, but in the real world this happens only to the extent of nations being dependent on the other nations and all trying to follow the most beneficial path. The remaining differences can to a large extent be explained by the different dynamics inherent to the systems themselves. In a dictatorial nation with just one governmental organization, for instance, several important societal issues may not reach the top. This stands in stark contrast with a system of ten parties — all vying for your vote — in which all vitally important issues are known, if not dealt with quickly, by the decision makers.

The two systems on the left side of the four displayed above have large sets of the population unrepresented, while the two versions that have a close to completely represented population are placed to the right. Notice how the left two versions are strongly directed by a top that is removed from the center, and that the two versions to the right are more center-based.

The dictatorship shows a top center that is in full control — the visual on the left. Even though the population at large supports this single center, and which can even move that single top when the population as a whole is driven to move (for instance, during severe food shortages or extreme price changes), the population at large is itself not represented in that center. The decision makers do not have to take advice from anyone but themselves.

The two party system — second to the left — shows how two parties competing for single full control move each other up to their maximum capabilities. Yet parts of the population are left unrepresented in their needs, while the majority of the population is enticed to go along with either one of the two. Often, spin becomes more important than the facts, for in the end it is the win that is more important than delivering full-representation; incumbants have an easy time getting re-elected. Some groups are severely under-represented or not represented at all. Meanwhile, one population group, the swinging center not all that much interested in politics, always decides the outcome.

The four party system — third in the picture row — has each party vie to represent a specific group of voters. In general, no party will gain single full control, even though it is possible. Each party tries to become as large as possible by attracting as many voters as possible. Though four parties may not fully cover all the population's political wishes, the competition from various sides makes each party stretch its boundaries to fit as many voters as possible, and therefore the population finds a better fit in four parties than in two parties. Also, the single top location as found in the one and two party systems does not exist anymore in this system. Instead there are multiple political 'tops,' because the perspective of what is the best, the most, and what is the highest differs for different groups of people. With mainly just two of the parties cooperating to form a government, more centered governments are established — especially when viewed over a longer period of time. Large nations can remain stable nations, while this system also gives political freedom by providing meaningful choice to the voters; its governments stay closely connected to the population.

The ten party system has the entire population represented, though a good number of the ten parties will never take part in a government. Still, by having many parties compete for seats, the three to five parties that have cooperated repeatedly in a variety of governments over the years will make sure not to let the smaller parties gain too many seats — otherwise they will certainly not be in the next government themselves. To remain more important, they must ever so slightly adjust their agendas over the years to remain attractive for the larger segments of the voting population. The governing parties tend to fulfill the wishes of more segments in society than just their own segments to keep attracting as many voters as possible. In general, smaller nations can provide full representation and true political freedom easier than large(r) nations.

Smaller nations, often forced to follow the (economic) decisions made by the larger economies find themselves naturally more encapsulated. Therefore, they can withstand the diverse pressures of the ten party system much better than a large nation, for all ten parties agree on certain national interests. Germany, as the example of a large nation with a ten party system going awry, did not function well during the interbellum, with the center-parties handing their political power to Hitler — even when Hitler did not have a majority of the votes. The current German four party (sometimes five party) system has more than shown its democratic success over more than half a century. The creation of the European Union, but possibly even more so the United States demanding the European powers give up their colonies, also contributed to eliminating the extremely competitive colonial race-to-the-bottom situation that existed before the world wars.

Prime-minister, President, One House or Two Houses of Representation

To complete the picture of these four versions of power, the leading person or persons taking in his, her or their highest position of power is one of two also paramount aspects of the political systems. National leaders such as prime-ministers remain ultimately bound to the overall outcome of elected representatives, whether they are prime-minister in a two party-, a four party-, or a ten party-system. As such, they do not need to be added as a separate form of dynamics to the visuals; they belong to these dynamics already.

Elected mayors, governors, and presidents, however, are separate political entities, the race in which they were selected showcasing itself the dynamics of the two party system — of one person winning (who is most often male), and of one (also most often male) runner-up losing. Though apparently more powerful, elected leaders are also more removed from what the population politically desires for they are chosen in the largest possible district: the nation. Not only does the selection procedure between just two people warp the outcome of who is the single representative of the entire nation, the additional layer of power means two levels of voter-expressions are set up simultaneously, sometimes undermining each other in important ways. These elected presidential leaders are empowered themselves for they have won a race, and they are shown in the three visuals above in their own separate visual next to two party-, four party- or ten party system.

The placement of the president is always higher, because this position can be most-directed and most-removed from the population. Still, the placement of the dynamics of the presidential seat is higher in the two party system than in the ten party system, because the same dynamics enforces the presendential dynamics, whereas the differing system may automatically reduce the dynamics of the president; after all, the President himself is then familiar with the four or ten party system.

The last not yet mentioned paramount aspect of political systems is the number of houses of representatives. Some nations are unicameral, others are bicameral. There are even some nations with two houses in which each house is elected using a different system. In most nations with two houses, one house is the most important house, while the other if more a law confirming institution. The result of one or two houses, and — when two houses — of both being as powerful or one house more so than the other, is an issue of no small potatoes. Italy, for instance, has two houses with equal amounts of power, both capable of letting a government fall. No other nation has as many cabinets fall over the years as Italy.

Several nations are shown here below with the visuals of their political dynamics; the white ovals portraying the non-representation of the population due to lack of materialized options. Some nations have not changed their political dynamics in centuries, others have done so more recently. New Zealand, for instance, has changed its two party system in 1996 to also incorporate proportionality.