Ceteris paribus
In the economic field, the monopoly is much criticized and reprimanded by liberal economic thinkers. On the side of political writings, things seem to tilt in the same direction. Indeed, the concentration of capital behaves like the concentration of power (also because of the communicating vessels). On the other hand, the reign of the philosopher Planton and the pure and perfect competition only exist in our heads. Analyzes are becoming more nuanced for bipolarization (existing in some developed countries) and polypolarization / erosion, and the issue is slow to be resolved in words and in deeds …
In the event of an agreement, between the two dominant parties (duopoly), the latter would behave as one (like a monopoly in economics). The reasoning can be repeated for the case of a small number of parties with high barriers to entry into the political scene and also large barriers to exit as well.
Alliance or competition
In other words, for each party there would be two choices vis-à-vis the others:
- Alliance (soft shock)
- or competition (succession of elastic shocks)
Cheating and deception
The second decision is as follows:
- Should we comply with the rules, in the political case (the constitution, the customs of the political class, …)
- Or on the contrary, break them when the risk of punishment (by the electorate, the political class, etc.) is low or low probability.
In the case of large democracies, the number of terms is almost infinite, in other words the tendency towards despotism is relatively very small. In developing countries, the temptation towards despotism is greater because it is as explained above.
To analyze the question even more, let's try to describe:
- Barriers to entering the political arena
- The exit barriers to the political scene
- The rules
- How to break the rules
- Describe the situations of political contact (soft shock, explosive or energetic shock, elastic shock, etc.)
- And ultimately shape the behavior of the environment or "the rest of the world".
