Abstract

This article introduces a potential three-dimensional framework for political analysis designed to differentiate between the core components of a political system to better understand its overall structure. The framework's analytical utility is then demonstrated through its application to historical case examples that illustrate the utility of the framework.

It's goal is to improve the ability of a citizen to evaluate a political system. It must be emphasized that this framework is a macro-tool designed to provide a snapshot of a political system at a given point in time. Its purpose is not to conduct a micro-level analysis of the individual.

This framework is designed to deconstruct a political system into its core components: Ideology (Purpose), Governance Structure (Function), and Social Order (Status). Its primary utility is mapping the frictions, causal relationships, and dynamic feedback loops between these three dimensions in an accessible manner.

The article builds upon the first work "Social cohesion and observed trajectory of the western worldview".

Introduction

Let us again begin with some historical context, dear reader. The left-right political spectrum, was born from the seating arrangements of the French National Assembly in 1789, and has become the default framework for all political thought. Originally it was a simple description for the seating between revolutionaries and monarchists, but by now it has been stretched and redefined over two centuries to cover every conceivable political stance, from economics to cultural identity. This is not only an oversimplification but a fundamental error.

It forces disparate, often unrelated, concepts onto a single line, creating analytical paradoxes and fueling a tribalism that impoverishes political discourse. Politics encompasses a multitude of distinct issues, yet a one-dimensional spectrum presumes they can all be measured along a single axis. This encourages individuals to anchor into a tribe based on a single or few issues and then adopt the entire "bundle of unrelated positions" associated with that tribe, reverse-engineering a principle to justify the collection. This promotes false associations and hostility, hindering rather than improving our understanding and discourse.

The 3D Thesis The proposed framework consists of the following dimensions:

Ideology:

The set of shared foundational axioms and the collective narrative that provide the basis for a society's legal structures, moral coherence, and ultimate purpose.

Governance Structure:

The practical institutions, legal frameworks, and mechanics of state power. "How does the state function and implement?"

Social Order:

The arrangement of society and the basis upon which status, influence, and resources are distributed.

Ideology

To dive into more detail. Like mentioned an ideology is the set of shared foundational axioms on which a society is built on. It is the collective narrative and order of core beliefs that provide thebasis for a society's legal structures, moral coherence, and its ultimate purpose.

The historical record affirms ideology over material necessity as the initial catalyst for large-scale human coordination. Monumental structures like Göbekli Tepe, for example, were constructed by pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers, demonstrating that a shared narrative was the catalyst for organizing society for a massive, non-utilitarian purpose. This suggests that a ideological narrative is not a consequence of complex society, but its necessary precondition.

It provides the shared assumptions about reality that make a society stable and intelligible to its members. This also extends to how new innovation or social change is perceived. Without a "filter" through which to perceive reality, shifts in material conditions or the rise of new technology would remain incoherent and could not be channeled into a stable political form. An innovation, a resource discovery, or a demographic shift only gains political meaning once it is interpreted through the lens of a societys core beliefs. (for more on this see "Social cohesion and observed trajectory of the western worldview")

In short: Define Core Axioms. Observe the dominant narrative the state and its ruling class use to justify the existing Governance Structure and Social Order. In addition to that, analyse the Dominant Political Landscape of the citizens, to highlight potential shifts or frictions.

Governance Structure

Distinct from the state's Ideology is its Governance Structure. The practical structure of power. This dimension is not concerned with the moral purpose of the state, but with its operational mechanics. Such a structure is of course never neutral; it is the institutional expression of a society's ideological commitments.

The French philosopher Montesquieu, in The Spirit of the Laws, for example provided a model for a governance structure designed to achieve a specific ideological goal: liberty. His principle of the Separation of Powers dividing government into legislative, executive, and judicial functions is not an ideology itself, but a structural design engineered to serve the "why" of protecting liberty by preventing the concentration of power.

Modern sociology further clarified that a Governance Structure encompasses not just the formal text of a constitution but the entire system of norms, bureaucracies, and power dynamics that constitute the operational reality of the state. The Governance Structure will often seek to define the Social Order.

This includes the codified laws that try to define the social order, or the de jure hierarchy. Approval ratings for current administrations per polls are also useful to include, when trying to get an understanding of the populations sentiments and the administrations legitimacy. Sub categories will be introduced further below.

Social Order

The third dimension of political reality is the Social Order. It is not focused on the states ideology and its mechanics in so far as focusing instead on the arrangements and being of its people. History and formation of day to day culture is of importance here. This dimension should answer the question: "Who factually has status, influence, and access to resources, and on what basis?"

A society may be highly liquid in its economic hierarchy (allowing for rapid changes in wealth) but simultaneously rigid in its political hierarchy (where access to power is fixed). A complete analysis must therefore differentiate between permeability in the economic, political, and cultural domain.

The Social Order, therefore, is measured using a collection of metrics to capture the lived reality. Living Standards, the de facto distribution of wealth, intergenerational wealth mobility, relative purchasing-power, the de facto paths to power, and status of different social groups, independent of law or wealth have to be analyzed here. In addition to that, Geography and Population will be introduced as special sub categories further below.

The Overlap

While this paper's thesis posits three main categories, it is crucial to acknowledge they influence each other and there is significant overlap between them in practical areas.

Governance Structure and Social Order constantly influence each other. It is a fundamental, symbiotic, and often violent feedback loop. Often Governance Structure will try to control the Social Order and the historical case studies will highlight this. This does not negate the fact that all three categories are needed to get a more accurate picture of a state. Purpose (Ideology), function (Governance) and status (Social Order) are still distinctly observed. Otherwise possible contradictions and frictions or processes could get overlooked.

Ideology forms the basis.Without shared assumptions about reality that make a society stable and intelligible to its members and through which the members perceive reality, shifts in material conditions or the rise of new technology would remain incoherent and there would be no lens to process it through.

But an ideology can crumble; and when it collapses, the Governance Structure and Social Order may persist through inertia, but as shown by history they will increasingly be seen as arbitrary, and unjust or plain wrong, leading to systemic instability and conflict. And eventually the formation of a new state or reformations.

Multi-Dimensional Analysis in Political Science

The proposition that political reality requires more than a single dimension for accurate analysis is not a new one. While the one-dimensional left-right spectrum has maintained a powerful hold on popular and media discourse, political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists have long recognized its limitations and have developed more sophisticated, multi-dimensional models.

This section places the new three-dimensional framework within this existing scholarly tradition, surveying several influential multi-dimensional models to demonstrate both the historical precedent for this approach and the unique contribution of the proposed framework. Influential attempts to move beyond the single axis include Hans Eysenck's two-axis psychometric model from the 1950s, which added a "Tender-Minded vs Tough-Minded" axis to the traditional left-right spectrum to measure authoritarian disposition.

This elegantly explained how ideologically opposed regimes like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union could share a tough-minded, or authoritarian, style. In 1969, David Nolan developed the Nolan Chart, which plotted political positions along two axes of Economic Freedom and Personal Freedom, deconstructing the monolithic concepts of "left" and "right" and carving out a distinct space for libertarianism. More recently, the Inglehart Welzel cultural map of the world charts entire societies on a two-dimensional grid based on their aggregate cultural values (Traditional vs. Secular-Rational and Survival vs. Self-Expression), revealing deep cultural patterns and shifts over time.

The most significant model, which spans a variety of aspects, may be the "Varieties of Capitalism" framework developed by Peter A. Hall and David Soskice. The VoC model is a foundational model of political economy that is about state architecture as well. It analyzes how institutional frameworks such as corporate governance, social policy, and labor markets, create different types of state structures. And it explores how institutional frameworks shape coordination between firms and other actors. The VoC framework provides a very detailed analysis of how institutional aspects such as industrial relations, corporate governance, social policy, and labor markets, interact and complement each other. It is a very good, complex and sophisticated tool.

After surveying these influential models, the contribution of the presented three- dimensional framework Ideology, Governance Structure, and Social Order, can be more clearly adressed.

This framework, in comparison, is an attempt at analysis of a state from a unbiased macro angle, in a relatively easy and accessible manner. It is not concerned with evaluating or predicting, but with deconstructing the fundamental components of any political system and identify points of tension. This aims to enable users of this framework to make nuanced snapshots of any political system.

While established state architecture models like the Varieties of Capitalism provide powerful, sophisticated insights into the realm of political economy, they often over-emphasize economic coordination and institutional complementarity. This framework offers a more holistic and accessible model. Its unique contribution is its ability to deconstruct the state by separating its function (Governance Structure) from its purpose (Ideology) and its de facto societal status (Social Order), allowing for a high-resolution analysis of the frictions between these dimensions.

The primary advantage of the framework against two-dimensional ones, is its ability to analytically separate the Governance Structure from the Social Order. Most two-dimensional models effectively fuse these two concepts. They measure the degree of state control over personal and economic life, which is a function of the governing body's ideology and structure, but they fail to capture the separate reality of how society itself is organized and how individuals move within it.

The case of modern China provides a powerful illustration of this limitation. Two- dimensional models are incapable of capturing the a state that combines a highly authoritarian Governance Structure with allowing a surprisingly fluid and mobile Social Order.

By conflating state control with social rigidity, they would paint a monolithic picture. The proposed three-dimensional framework, by contrast, can precisely describe this reality, highlighting the differences between states where Social Order and Governance are not identical or perfectly correlated, while also capturing those states where this is the case. If the Governance Structure imposes itself as absolute on the Social Order for example, both are strongly correlating with each other. On the other hand, if there is no clear Social Order, or coherent and accepted Governance Structure, this typically can be categorised as a failing or failed state.

Definitions and Historical Case Studies as Examples

This section introduces a set of easy to track, snappy metrics, designed to present a way to begin a "filling out" of the presented framework for any given state, allowing for a replicable analysis of every states core components. The details and facettes mentioned above for each of the three categories should still be taken into account.

Ideology

The analysis of the ideology should focus on identifying the axioms as revealed in foundational texts and the public justifications the state now provides for its authority. The task is not to validate, but to identify them and rigorously trace their structural consequences across the other two dimensions.

a. Foundational Axioms: The civilization's average core assumptions about reality, the set of shared foundational axioms and the collective narrative that provide the basis for a society's legal structures, moral coherence, and ultimate purpose.

b. Official Ideology: For the purpose of having a clear set of metrics to analyse a state and enable decent replication, here we will go with the dominant ideology the state uses to justify the existing Governance Structure and Social Order.

c. Dominant Ideological Landscape: The average Dominant Ideological Landscape of the citizens. A useful indicator for social cohesion and perceived legitimacy of the state. For data integrity sake, multiple polls from different sources should be aggregated. Alike sources, for example values surveys, religious surveys, media demand statistics... can be used to go further into detail.

Governance Structure

a. Define Governance Structure: Identify the state's institutional structure.

b. Formal ways of Governance: Mapping the formal systems that dictate how decisions are made and power is exercised.

c. Informal ways of Governance: Mapping the informal systems that dictate how decisions are made and power is exercised.

d. Military Force and Spending: Additionally find data concerning the military spending and military force and how vital they are for the states functioning.

e. Legal Frameworks of Hierarchy: codified in constitutions, laws, and organizational charts.

Social Order

The arrangements and being of the states people. History and formation of day to day culture is of importance here. This dimension should answer the question: "Who factually has status, influence, and access to resources, and on what basis?"

Like mentioned a society may be highly liquid in its economic hierarchy, but simultaneously rigid in its political hierarchy. A complete analysis must therefore differentiate between permeability in the economic, political, and cultural domain. Additionally, Geography and Population of the state are included here, as they shape the day to day live and economy in a society and are essential to get to a more complete and informed overview.

a. Short Cultural Analysis: Short description of the culture and observed, proven basis of the social order and the social hierarchy (hierarchy of birth, merit, party loyalty, race,...).

A rigid order would be a society where status is primarily ascriptive (for example fixed by birthplace, lineage, caste, genetics...) and social mobility is low. A society where status is primarily achieved (for example earned through merit, talent, education, wealth, loyalty...) and social mobility is high, is liquid.

b. Economic Permeability and Living Standards: The de facto distribution of wealth and mobility, intergenerational wealth mobility, purchasing-power.

c. Political Permeability: The de facto paths to power

d. Cultural Permeability: The de facto status of different social groups, independent of law or wealth.

e. Geography: Special sub category together with population; Analyse the geography of the country and it's implications for the state.

f. Population: Analyse the population size and it's implications.

Now onto the case studies. I picked a few to highlight how flexible the framework is in it's application.

Skip the states you are not interested in, if you want to shorten the read.

Case Study: Napoleon Bonaparte

Perhaps the single best case against the left-right spectrum. Napoleon's reign is impossible to classify on a single line because his political system was a deliberate and historically unique combination of elements.

Ideology

a. Foundational Axioms (Mythos): On the axis of Ideology, Napoleon was an heir and an exporter of the French Revolution. The foundational axiom of this revolutionary ideology was a belief in a universal, accessible reason as the ultimate source of authority, replacing divine right. This Enlightenment posited that society could be rationally reengineered according to universal principles of liberty and equality.

b. Official Ideology: The regime's official ideology was codified through the Napoleonic Code (Code Civil) of 1804, a foundational legal text that systematically dismantled feudalism. This document enshrined the Revolutions core principles: civil liberty, the secular character of the state, the protection of property rights, and equality before the law for all male citizens.

This ideology was not confined to France's borders. Napoleon actively exported the Code to conquered territories across Europe, from Italy to Poland, where its implementation marked a definitive end to feudal structures and the liberation of serfs. This process reveals that the official ideology was not merely a set of domestic legal principles but a potent instrument of foreign policy and conquest. By imposing a rational, unified legal system that benefited the bourgeoisie and property-owning classes, Napoleon's regime could undermine the legitimacy of the aristocratic and monarchical orders of its rivals. In this sense, the Napoleonic Code functioned as a weapon of war, a form of "soft power" that complemented the "hard power" of the Grande Armée by creating constituencies within conquered lands that had a vested interest in the continuation of French rule.

However, the ideology contained a significant internal contradiction. While championing legal equality, the Code simultaneously reinforced traditional patriarchal authority. It established the legal supremacy of the husband over the wife and the father over his children, severely limiting the civil rights in matters of property and divorce.

c. Dominant Ideological Landscape: The dominant ideological landscape among the French populace was a carefully managed, designed to provide a base of popular legitimacy for an autocratic regime. Public opinion was not a spontaneous force but the target of a sophisticated apparatus of manipulation and propaganda. Napoleon's claim to power rested on three pillars that resonated with a population exhausted by a decade of revolutionary turmoil: his unparalleled military victories, the restoration of domestic order after the chaos of the Directory, and a pragmatic reconciliation with the Catholic Church through the Concordat of 1801.

These pillars were reinforced through a pervasive propaganda campaign that portrayed him as a military genius and the singular political figure capable of saving France from itself.

A key mechanism for manufacturing this legitimacy was the plebiscite. The votes held in 1800, 1802, and 1804, which confirmed his ascent from First Consul to Emperor, were not genuine exercises in democratic participation. Their simple, yes or no character and the public nature of the voting process ensured overwhelmingly positive results. The French people, having endured the hyperinflation of their currency and the political instability of the 1790s, were largely receptive to this arrangement, valuing the stability and order he provided.

Governance Structure

a. Define Governance Structure: He constructed a highly centralized, autocratic state, first as First Consul and later as Emperor, where all effective power was concentrated in his hands. Memoirs and his own voluminous correspondence over 70000 letters reveal that he micro-managed pretty much everything.

b. Formal ways of Governance: Formally, the Napoleonic state was governed by a rational, codified legal system and a structured, professional bureaucracy that extended from Paris to the prefectures of every department. This formal apparatus was the instrument for implementing his modernizing ideology.

c. Informal ways of Governance: Informally, however, the structure was a system of personalistic rule. The legislative bodies had little real power, and the entire administrative and military machine was ultimately answerable to the will of the Emperor. Napoleon's governance was characterized like mentioned by intense micromanagement, with his 70000 letters directing everything from grand military strategy to the minute details of public works. The formal institutions of the state, therefore, did not function as checks on power but as efficient tools for the execution of his personal commands.

d. Military Force and Spending: The Grande Armée was the central institution of the state and the primary object of its expenditures. At its zenith in 1812, on the eve of the Russian campaign, the army numbered over 600000 men, with its core French component fed by a system of mass conscription that enlisted over 2.1 million Frenchmen between 1805 and 1813. This colossal military machine was organized into a flexible and innovative corps system, with self-contained combined-arms units of 30000 men capable of operating independently, which enabled the rapid marches and decisive encirclements that characterized his greatest victories.

The funding of this force was a defining feature of the Governance Structure. France's public credit had been destroyed during the Revolution, making it impossible to finance war through large-scale public debt, a method masterfully employed by its chief rival, Great Britain, with its market for government bonds. Napoleon's regime decided to adopt a predatory financial model.

While some revenue came from domestic taxation, the vast majority of military spending was covered by external extraction, direct plunder of enemy treasuries, art, and resources, etc. In addition to that financial levies on conquered and allied states. This system, where war paid for itself, meant that military expenditure, estimated by some to be as high as 50% of the total budget, was not merely a state expense but the state's primary source of revenue. So the state's survival depended on continuous, successful warfare to secure the funds necessary to maintain the army, which in turn was needed to wage more war.

Peace was fiscally untenable, as it would cut off the flow of external revenue and lead to an immediate financial crisis.

e. Legal Frameworks of Hierarchy: The primary legal instrument that defined the Napoleonic social order was the Napoleonic Code itself. By abolishing all feudal privileges and the custom of primogeniture, and by establishing equality before the law and protecting property rights, the Code served as the de jure framework for a more liquid, merit-based society. It legally dismantled the old order of birthright and established the formal basis for the new hierarchy of talent and property.

Social Order

a. Short cultural analysis: On the axis of Social Order, Napoleon was also a revolutionary. He destroyed the old order based on birth and created a new one based on merit and service to the state.

b. Economic Permeability and Living Standards: The Napoleonic era brought a measure of economic stability that had been absent for over a decade. In stark contrast to the hyperinflation of previous years, Napoleon's government balanced the budget, honored the restructured national debt, and established the Bank of France, ensuring the currency (franc) remained convertible and stable. This monetary stability, combined with the rule of law established by the Code, created a more predictable economic environment. For the peasantry and bourgeoisie, the abolition of feudal dues and internal tariffs represented a significant improvement over the pre-revolutionary economy. But the overall standard of living for the common person remained low. The economy was heavily agrarian and was fundamentally oriented towards supplying the needs of the military, not promoting consumer prosperity. While purchasing power was stabilized, it did not dramatically increase for the lower classes. The primary economic achievement of the regime was not the creation of widespread wealth but the restoration of order. By removing food shortages and currency collapse, the regime secured the passive consent of the majority of the population, which allowed it to pursue its vast military ambitions without facing significant internal challenges.

c. Political Permeability: It was described as a "career open to talent". This principle was most purely realized in the officer corps of the Grande Armée, where promotion was based on ability and battlefield performance. This created a new, loyal elite of marshals, administrators, and notables who owed their status and wealth directly to the Emperor and the system he had created.

d. Cultural Permeability: A dramatic increase in social liquidity compared to the previous regime took place. But permeability was not equal to nowadays western standards. In practice the system was not a pure meritocracy; it was heavily influenced by corruption, the family hierarchy and personal loyalty to Napoleon.

e. Geography: France under Napoleon possessed a large, contiguous, and resource-rich territory. Its varied climate zones, from the oceanic northwest to the Mediterranean south, supported diverse and productive agriculture. The land was endowed with key resources like coal and iron ore, and its extensive coastlines on both the Atlantic and Mediterranean provided strategic and commercial advantages.

f. Population: At the turn of the 19th century, France was the most populous nation in Europe. Its population of approximately 29.3 million in 1801 was significantly larger than that of its rivals, providing a deep reservoir of manpower. By 1812, the expanded French Empire directly controlled a population of 44 million people across an area of 2.1 million square kilometers.This was another permissive factor for the Napoleonic political structure. The system's liquid Social Order (meritocracy) and centralised Governance Structure were fueled by the ability to field and sustain massive armies. Only a nation with demographic depth could absorb the staggering losses of the Napoleonic Wars without crippling society (over 1.7 million French military and civilian deaths). And continue to fight on a continental scale for over a decade. A state with a small population could not have sustained such a prolonged conflict.

The framework can classify the Napoleonic system with ease. Using the three- dimensional framework, the Napoleonic system can be precisely defined as the synthesis of a liquid Social Order based on merit with an autocratic Governance Structure, justified by a modernizing Ideology of legal equality.

Case Study: The Roman Republic

The Roman Republic, which endured for nearly 500 years, is another political system that can hardly be placed on a one-dimensional spectrum. This case study only analyses the Roman Republic, not the Roman Empires, its successors.

Ideology

a. Foundational Axioms: The foundational axiom of the Republic was the mos maiorum, or "the way of the ancestors". This was not a written, fixed constitution or a formal philosophical doctrine but a powerful, unwritten code of conduct derived from accumulated tradition and precedent. It permeated every aspect of Roman life, providing the foundational axioms for social norms and political legitimacy. This profoundly conservative worldview acted as the cultural adhesive that held the state together through centuries of internal dualistic class conflict and external expansion.

b. Official Ideology: The mos maiorum was not static, but its interpretation and enforcement were controlled by the ruling elite. These elites served as the custodians of tradition, and they could invoke the "way of the ancestors" to legitimize their own authority and to label political opponents as dangerous radicals who were deviating from Roman practice. By controlling the definition of tradition, the aristocracy could shape public discourse and resist reforms that threatened their privileged position, transforming a set of shared cultural values into a flexible instrument of elite power.

c. Dominant Ideological Landscape: While the mos maiorum provided the official ideological framework, the operative political landscape was shaped by the patron-client system (patrocinium). This was a pervasive network of hierarchical but reciprocal relationships built on the value of fides. A patronus would provide legal protection, financial assistance, and political support to his clients, who in return owed him deference, loyalty, and, crucially, their votes. This web of personal obligations, formed another pillar of social cohesion and political mobilization.

The system was extending from the plebeian to the most powerful senator (who might be a client to an even more powerful figure) and eventually to entire cities and provinces, which became the collective "clients" of their conquering general or governor. The official ideology of the mos maiorum demanded honour for the ancestors and selfless duty to the abstract state, the Republic. However, the operative ideology of the patron-client system demanded absolute personal loyalty to a powerful individual. For centuries, these two systems coexisted, but as Rome's empire grew, the scale of patronage grew with it. Generals like Marius, Sulla, Pompey, and Caesar became patrons to vast, professional armies composed of landless citizens. These soldiers' loyalty was not to the distant Senate but to the commander who paid them, fed them, and promised them land upon retirement. The civil wars of the late Republic represent the violent resolution of this conflict.

Governance Structure

a. Define Governance Structure: Rome's government was a famed "mixed constitution," a complex institutional arrangement designed to prevent the concentration of power by blending elements of monarchy (the two annually elected Consuls who commanded the armies), aristocracy (the Senate, which controlled finances and foreign policy), and democracy (the various popular Assemblies which passed laws).

b. Formal ways of Governance: Formally, the Republican constitution was a sophisticated system of checks and balances. Magistrates served for limited one-year terms and could veto the actions of their colleagues, while institutions of the plebians held veto power over the entire state to protect the interests of the common people (not including slaves from the north, east or south).

c. Informal ways of Governance: Informally power was concentrated in the hands of a small number of aristocratic families who dominated the Senate and monopolized the highest ranks. The patron-client system was the primary mechanism of this informal oligarchic rule, allowing these elite families to mobilize vast networks of dependents to secure elections and control the political process. This created a constant tension between the formal, more democratic elements of the constitution and the informal, oligarchic reality of its operation.

d. Military Force and Spending: The military was the primary function and, by far, the largest expenditure of the Roman state. In the mid-Republic, the army, a citizen levy, could mobilize approximately 150,000 men. State income in the late Republic grew significantly with conquests, from an estimated 50 million denarii annually before eastern campaigns to 135 million denarii after the expansions. Military expenses, including soldier pay, equipment, and logistics, consumed the vast majority of this budget, with estimates suggesting a share of 60% to 75%.

e. Legal Frameworks of Hierarchy: The early Republican social order was legally codified through the stark division between patricians and plebeians. This legally enshrined hierarchy, based on birth, dictated access to political office, religious rites, and even the legality of marriage. This legal distinction remained a foundational element of the Governance Structure for centuries. The third class, Slaves largely sourced from Britain, Gaul, Carthaginians and North Africa and the Germanic tribes, had no legal rights.

Social Order

a. Short Cultural Analysis: The defining feature of Roman society was the legally enshrined division between the patricians (a hereditary aristocracy) and the plebeians (the common people), creating a deeply hierarchical and rigid society, especially in its early history. Slaves, taken from conquered territories or gruesome ancient slave trade, as mentioned, had no rights. It is worth mentioning that any slave could be declared freed. When a slave was formally recognised as free, they did not just become free. They became a Roman citizen (plebian).

b. Economic Permeability and Living Standards: The late Republic was a period of profound and growing economic disparity. The immense wealth generated by imperial conquest was concentrated in the hands of the senatorial elite. They invested this capital in enormous agricultural estates, the latifundia, which were worked by vast numbers of slaves captured in war. This slave-based agribusiness model drove small, independent farmers off their land, as they could not compete. These displaced citizens flocked to Rome, creating a massive urban underclass, the proletariat, who had lost their property and possessed only their children. For this urban, poor population, life was one of extreme precarity. It created a vast pool of desperate men, disconnected from the land and the traditional structures of society, who were willing to enlist in the professional armies of any general who could offer them a steady wage and the hope of a better future. The economic structure of the Social Order therefore directly precipitated the transformation of the military and the subsequent fall of the Republic Governance Strucure.

c. Political Permeability: Very low. But the ringing between plebians and aristocracy, a multi-century political struggle, gradually opened pathways for wealthy plebeians to access high office, leading to the formation of a new, blended senatorial aristocracy known as the nobiles.

d. Cultural Permeability: Despite this, for the vast majority of the population, social mobility was exceptionally low. Status was largely ascriptive, determined by birth and wealth, with few opportunities for advancement. Permeability was pretty low compared to modern western states, but higher then in many previous civilizations.

e. Geography: The geography of the Italian peninsula was a fundamental strategic asset for Rome. The Alps in the north formed a natural barrier against invasion, while the Apennine Mountains running down its spine made the peninsula difficult for an enemy to control entirely. Its central location in the Mediterranean, with long, accessible coastlines, was ideal for projecting naval and military power in every direction, facilitating its expansion. The region's temperate climate and fertile plains, especially in Latium and Campania, supported a large and dense population.

f. Population: By the end of the second century BCE, the population of Roman citizens and their Italian allies was approximately 4 million people. By 100 BCE, as the Republic's territory expanded to nearly 2 million square kilometers, its total population may have reached between 4 and 5 million. The city of Rome itself was a burgeoning metropolis, with a population likely between 500,000 and 750,000 inhabitants. This demographic scale was perhaps Rome's single greatest advantage. It provided a vast and seemingly inexhaustible reservoir of military manpower. This demographic resilience allowed Rome to absorb catastrophic defeats and still raise new armies to continue the fight. Ancient attrition so to speak. The combination of defensible and productive geography with a large, organized population, formed the material foundation for its unique ability to wage, survive and win wars of attrition.

The Roman Republic is a multi-century ideological and socially dualist system based on a conservative core axiom with a mixed governance structure, that provided institutional avenues for the disadvantaged plebians to challenge the dominant hierarchy. It layed the foundation for modern republic and democratic institutional structures in governance, while also being a very ruthless culture with a clear hierarchy reaching from patrician (basis for aristocracy), plebian (regular citizen) to slave (no rights).

Case Study: The Totalitarians

Just as a fitting mention, lets go through the Horseshoe Theory real quick. The Horseshoe Theory posits that the far-left and far-right, rather then always being polar opposites, bend towards each other in their extremism. This framework resolves this by specifying the precise dimension on which these regimes converge and the dimensions on which they remain polar opposites. To highlight this here the classic examples:

Stalin's Soviet Union (c. 1939)

Ideology

a. Foundational Axioms: The foundational axiom of the Soviet state was dialectical materialism; a "scientific" belief in the historical inevitability of class struggle.

b. Official Ideology: The official ideology of Marxism-Leninism, as defined and interpreted by Stalin himself, was the application of this axiom. A central pillar of this ideology was the concept of "Socialism in One Country," a departure from classical Marxist internationalism. This doctrine argued that, given the failure of communist revolutions elsewhere in Europe, the USSR should focus on strengthening itself internally to build a socialist society in isolation. The ideology justified the absolute power of the vanguard Communist Party, the establishment of a one-party state, and total state dominance over the economy. Its stated ultimate goal was the creation of a modern, industrialized, and classless society. This was to be achieved through the violent liquidation of perceived "exploiting classes," such as the landowning peasants, and the rapid transformation of the economy and culture via forced industrialization and the "collectivization" of agriculture, media and power. Stalin presented these brutal policies as a creative and necessary application of Marxist-Leninist theory to the specific historical conditions of the Soviet Union.

c. Dominant Ideological Landscape: The ideological landscape was ruthlessly controlled through a combination of pervasive propaganda and systematic terror. The state's propaganda apparatus cultivated an intense cult of personality around Stalin, portraying him as an infallible, all-wise leader. The official narrative depicted a triumphant society marching confidently towards a communist future. However, evidence from secret NKVD (secret police) reports, intercepted letters, and diaries reveals that a significant undercurrent of dissent, criticism, and grumbling persisted among the population. Ordinary citizens frequently complained about chronic food shortages, abysmal living conditions, the brutality of collectivization, and the terror itself. This highlights a profound disconnect between the state- sanctioned ideology and the lived experience of the majority, an ideological gap that could only be solved by state violence.

Governance Structure

a. Define Governance Structure: The Soviet Governance Structure was a totalitarian, single-party state under the absolute personal dictatorship of Stalin. He exercised complete and unquestioned control over both the Communist Party and the state apparatus. The other pillar was the highly hierarchical, and vast state bureaucracy.

b. Formal ways of Governance: Formally, the Soviet Union was a federation of republics with a constitution (the 1936 "Stalin Constitution") that, on paper, guaranteed a range of democratic rights.

c. Informal ways of Governance: Informally, all power was centralized in Stalin and his inner circle within the Politburo. The formal institutions of the state and party served to execute their commands, which then was extended through the state bureaucracy, the nomenklatura. The primary mechanism of informal governance was violence and espionage. The "Great Terror" of 1936-1938 and the wider system of purges, show trials, and the Gulag were not aberrations but integral components of the governing system, used to eliminate any potential rivals, enforce obedience, and atomize society to prevent organized opposition.

d. Military Force and Spending: Military spending was a paramount priority of the Stalinist state, reflecting the ideology of "Socialism in One Country" which necessitated a powerful military to defend against "capitalist encirclement." While official budget figures were often deliberately misleading, with much military expenditure hidden under civilian line items, it is clear that defense consumed a massive and growing share of the national income. credible estimates place military spending at over 8% of GDP, and possibly as high as 10-20%. This investment, made possible by the state's total control over the command economy, funded the rapid modernization and expansion of the Red Army.

e. Legal Frameworks of Hierarchy: The de jure framework was the 1936 "Stalin Constitution," which nominally guaranteed extensive rights. This, however, was a fiction. The true operative framework was based on the Communist Party statutes and secret decrees of the NKVD.

Social Order

a. Short Cultural Analysis: The Bolshevik Revolution and Stalin's subsequent policies violently destroyed the old social order of Tsarist Christian Russia. In its place, a new, rigid hierarchy was imposed, based not on birth or wealth but on one's position within the Communist Party and loyalty to the regime.

b. Economic Permeability and Living Standards: Stalin's policies of forced industrialization and collectivization resulted in a radical transformation of the Soviet economy. The state's Five-Year Plans succeeded in rapidly building a massive heavy industrial base, turning an agrarian society into a major industrial power in a single decade. This achievement, however, came at a catastrophic human cost. Living standards for the average person collapsed. The forced collectivization of agriculture destroyed agricultural productivity and led to a devastating famine in 1932/33 that killed millions. In the rapidly growing industrial cities, workers were crowded into barracks. The command economy prioritized military and industrial production above all else, leading to chronic shortages of basic consumer goods. As a result, while the Soviet Union became an industrial and military giant, its population endured a standard of living far below that of the West. One comparative study estimated that in 1985, Soviet per capita consumption was merely 28.6% of the level in the United States. It has to be noted that costs for averge goods were very low.

c. Political Permeability: At the apex of this new order was the nomenklatura, a privileged elite of high-ranking party and state officials who enjoyed access to special stores, housing, and healthcare denied to the general population. For ordinary citizens, social mobility was theoretically possible through dedicated service to the party, but it was a precarious path, as any perceived deviation could lead to demotion, imprisonment, or execution.

d. Cultural Permeability: The social permeability was heavily dependent on absolute loyalty to the state, corruption and the limiting factors of a plan economy.

e. Geography: The Soviet Union's geography was a defining element. It was, by a vast margin, the largest country on Earth, covering over 22 million square kilometers and spanning eleven time zones. This immense territory provided two crucial assets: an extraordinary endowment of natural resources (oil, coal, iron ore, etc.) that fueled its industrialization, and immense "strategic depth," the ability to retreat and trade space for time in the event of an invasion, a factor that would prove decisive in World War II.

f. Population: Demographically, the USSR was also a giant, with a population of approximately 170.6 million in 1939. This provided a massive pool of labor for the factories and collective farms, and a vast reservoir of manpower for the Red Army. The population was heavily concentrated in the European part of the country, with major urban centers like Moscow (4.1 million) and Leningrad (3.4 million) serving as the hubs of political and industrial power.

Hitler's Nazi Germany (c. 1939)

Ideology

a. Foundational Axioms: The foundational axiom of the Third Reich was a pseudo-scientific racial doctrine centered on the concept of an "Aryan master race" (Herrenrasse).

b. Official Ideology: The official ideology of National Socialism (Nazism) was the political expression of this core assumption. Its core tenets were fanatical nationalism and this racial doctrine, which posited a rigid racial hierarchy with Nordic Germans at the apex. Other Germanic peoples like the English and Scandinavians were considered valuable Aryans, while Latins were tolerated. At the bottom of this hierarchy were peoples deemed Untermenschen ("sub-humans"), most notably Slavs (Poles, Russians, etc.), who were considered a non-Aryan race destined for enslavement, expulsion, and eventual extermination. The Jews were identified as the absolute antithesis of the Aryan race, a parasitic and destructive force whose complete elimination was a central and non-negotiable ideological objective. A key component of this worldview was the concept of Lebensraum ("living space"), which asserted Germany's right to conquer and colonize Eastern Europe to acquire the land and resources necessary for the Aryan race to thrive.

c. Dominant Ideological Landscape: The dominant ideological landscape in Germany was meticulously crafted and controlled by Joseph Goebbels's Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. The Nazi regime was a pioneer in its use of modern mass media and marketing techniques to shape public opinion. Propaganda targeted specific demographic groups with tailored messages, portraying Hitler as a savior-like figure who would restore Germany's national pride, reverse the humiliation of the Treaty of Versailles, and solve the economic crisis of the Great Depression. This propaganda was highly effective at disguising the regime's aggressive and genocidal intentions. While not every German became a fanatical Nazi, the combination of a powerful propaganda narrative, the tangible economic recovery, and the suppression of all dissent secured the active or passive consent of the vast majority of the population for the regime's policies, including war and persecution.

Governance Structure

a. Define Governance Structure: The Governance Structure of Nazi Germany was a totalitarian, single-party state under the personal dictatorship of Adolf Hitler. The entire political system was based on the Führerprinzip ("leader principle"), which posited that the Führer's will was the ultimate source of all law and authority. Some describe it as "private empires" whose members derived power personally from their relationship to the Führerprinzip, by being as close as possible to the inner circle and ultimately the leader.

b. Formal ways of Governance: Formally, many institutions of the preceding Weimar Republic, such as ministries and courts, were kept in place. However, they were stripped of their independent authority and subordinated to the will of the Nazi Party.

c. Informal ways of Governance: Informally, the regime was a chaotic web of overlapping and competing party organizations, state agencies, and special persons of interest, all vying for Hitler's favor. Power was not institutional but personal and charismatic, flowing directly from the Führer. The SS, Gestapo, and the concentration camp system functioned as key instruments of governance, using terror to eliminate all political opposition and enforce ideological conformity.

d. Military Force and Spending: The Nazi economy was fundamentally oriented toward rapid and massive rearmament in preparation for a war of conquest. From 1933 onwards, military spending exploded, rising from a negligible amount under the restrictions of the Versailles Treaty to consume over 20% of Germany's GDP by 1938. Between 1933 and 1939, rearmament costs accounted for an astonishing 60% of all government expenditure. This colossal investment fueled the dramatic expansion of the Wehrmacht from a 100,000-man defensive force to a formidable offensive military machine of over 3.1 million soldiers by the invasion of Poland in September 1939. This military buildup was the primary driver of Germany's economic recovery from the Great Depression, effectively eliminating unemployment by absorbing millions into the army and defense-related industries.

e. Legal Frameworks of Hierarchy: The Governance Structure was legally defined by two key instruments. First, the 1933 Enabling Act, which formally transferred all legislative power to Hitler, providing the legal basis for the dictatorship. Second, and most critically for the social order, the 1935 Nuremberg Laws. These laws institutionalized the foundational racial axiom, formally stripping Jews and other "non-Aryans" of their citizenship and legal rights, and codifying the racial hierarchy into state law.

Social Order

a. Short Cultural Analysis: The Nazis sought to violently reconstruct German society according to their rigid racial ideology. A millennia of culture was abolished, a new social order was imposed, with "Aryan" Germans who were politically reliable and racially "pure" at the top.

b. Economic Permeability and Living Standards: For the "Aryan" German population, the Nazi regime delivered on its promise to end the mass unemployment of the Great Depression. Through massive public works programs like the construction of the Autobahn, the compulsory National Labor Service, and, most significantly, rearmament, unemployment fell from over 5 million to basically zero by 1939. For many Germans, this restoration of employment and economic stability represented a marked improvement in their standard of living. However, this "economic miracle" had a dark side. While weekly earnings increased, this was largely due to a massive increase in working hours; real hourly wages remained stagnant near Depression-era lows. The economy was a war economy, prioritizing "guns over butter." This led to shortages of consumer goods and, from 1939, the imposition of rationing. The living standards of those deemed "undesirable" were systematically destroyed and their wealth absorbed by the state.

c. Political Permeability: Within the "Aryan" community, conformity was brutally enforced, but social mobility was possible for those who demonstrated loyalty and unquestioning service to the Nazi Party and the state.

d. Cultural Permeability: All other groups were systematically marginalized, persecuted, and ultimately targeted for destruction. Jews, Roma, Slavs, homosexuals, priests, political enemies and the disabled were stripped of their rights, property, and eventually their lives. This effectively created one of the most rigid and brutal social orders ever seen.

e. Geography: Germany's geography presented a fundamental strategic vulnerability. Unlike the resource-rich Soviet Union, Nazi Germany was remarkably poor in most of the strategic raw materials and was located in the center of Europe, surrounded by other big powers. It had abundant coal, but it lacked domestic sources of crude oil and rubber and had to import the vast majority of its iron ore, copper, cobalt, etc. This resource deficiency was another obsession of the Nazi leadership.

f. Population: In 1939, following the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland, the German Reich had a population of nearly 80 million people in an area of approximately 633,786 square kilometers. It was a highly industrialized and urbanized nation, with major cities like Berlin boasting a population of 4.3 million.

The analysis of these two regimes through the 3D framework confirms the original thesis of the "Horseshoe Theory": they converge on the axis of Governance Structure while remaining polar opposites on the axis of Ideology. While their Ideologies were polar opposites, both regimes had a totalitarian Governance Structure.

The USSR could, in theory, build its utopia in isolation, relying on its own resources. Its totalitarianism was therefore primarily inward-looking and consolidating in its purpose: the state's power was directed at forcibly transforming its own society to build and hold a socialist fortress.

Nazi Germany's was a material contradiction: A large, dense, and highly industrialized population situated on a geographically constrained and resource-poor territory. This geographic and resource deficit made its ideological goal of a self-sufficient, world controlling racial empire impossible to achieve within its 1938 borders.

Now these were all pretty long sections in a pretty long article. I promise to keep the last two shorter then the previous ones.

Modern Greece presents a fascinating case of a state with an ancient, deep-rooted national identity operating within a supranational, postmodern governance structure. This creates significant friction, particularly between its Ideology and its Governance Structure, which defines its modern political reality.

a. Foundational Axioms ("Mythos"): The Greek "Mythos" is a powerful dual-helix: Hellenism, a secular belief in a direct, unbroken cultural and historical lineage from Classical Greece (the birthplace of Logos, democracy, and Western philosophy) and Orthodoxia, the Greek Orthodox Christian faith, which is not merely a religion but the vessel that preserved the Hellenic language and identity through centuries of Roman and, critically, Ottoman rule. The core axiom is a Symphonia (harmony) of nation and faith, where to be truly Greek is to be Orthodox.

b. Official Ideology: The state's public narrative is that of a modern, stable, Western parliamentary republic. Its legitimacy is drawn from popular sovereignty (democracy) and its identity as a core member of the "European family" and the West. This narrative justifies the existing Governance Structure (including its EU membership) as the necessary path to security, stability, and prosperity, positioning Greece as a "pillar of stability" in the volatile Eastern Mediterranean.

c. Dominant Ideological Landscape: While the educated, urban elite (the de facto ruling class) is strongly aligned with the official Ideology of Europeanism, the dominant landscape among the populace is far more skeptical and nationalist. Having endured a decade of economic austerity mandated by external bodies, many citizens perceive the official Ideology as dishonest and the states Governance Structure subservient to foreign economic interests. This creates a deep ideological rift: the "national" citizens, which values Hellenic/Orthodox sovereignty, versus the pro-European citizens, which values economic integration in exchange for autonomy.

a. Define Governance Structure: The Hellenic Republic is a parliamentary republic. However, it is most accurately viewed as a dual-sovereignty system. It possesses its own domestic parliament (the Vouli) and constitution, which is vital of course, but this structure is embedded within and in some areas, subordinate to the overriding legal and economic framework of the European Union and, more specifically, the Eurozone. This could be changed however. Poland for example passed a law making national law take precedent over decisions coming from the EU.

b. Formal ways of Governance: The 1975 Constitution defines a separation of powers, with a President as head of state and a Prime Minister as head of government. The Vouli as the main legislature.

c. Informal ways of Governance: De facto power is more centralized and often personalistic. The political landscape is famously dominated by a few powerful families and their associated networks, creating an informal oligarchy of access, despite the formal democratic process. Critically, during the 2010-2018 debt crisis, the de facto Governance Structure for all economic policy was not the Greek cabinet but the European Commission, ECB, and IMF, which practically dictated policy via "Memorandums of Understanding." Public approval for the current administration is relatively high, but it rests entirely on its perceived competence in managing this complex informal relationship with the EU, primarily to ensure continued economic stability and capital inflows. General believe in the constitutions principles and the societies core axioms is very high.

d. Military Force and Spending: The Hellenic Armed Forces are a core institution of the state. Military spending is consistently one of the highest in NATO as a percentage of GDP (often 3.5-3.8%), driven a perceived existential threat from neighboring Turkey. The military serves as a standard NATO force and as a powerful symbol of national sovereignty, a bastion of the "Hellenic" Ideology.

e. Legal Frameworks of Hierarchy: The primary legal framework is Greek Law. However, the body of EU law has an impact.

a. Short cultural analysis: The hierarchy is based on a mix of wealth (especially "old money" from shipping and construction), political connections (access to the state through appointments or contracts), and education and merit (a university degree, etc.).

b. Economic Permeability and Living Standards: Medium to high by modern European standards, but with significant structural blocks. The 2010s crisis resulted in a lowering in living standards and a 25% contraction of GDP, from which the nation has not fully recovered. Purchasing Power compared to modern worldwide standards remains good, but is lower then some other EU countries. Established wealth is highly concentrated, while intergenerational mobility for the middle and lower classes is significantly hindered by a massive brain drain of talented youth. It has to be noted that previous decades brought immense growth and increase in average prosperity, starting from the 1980s.

c. Political Permeability: Elections are intact. But the political class is small. Access to power is less about revolutionary ideas and more about gaining entry into the established party networks, which are themselves tied to the powerful families and economic interests that finance them.

d. Cultural Permeability: High for the homogenous in-group. The vast majority of the population belongs to the dominant Greek-speaking, Orthodox Christian culture. However, for outsiders cultural and economic barriers are relatively high.

e. Geography: A "choke-point" and "maritime" state. Its geography as a peninsula with thousands of islands makes it a dominant force in shipping and a natural barrier/gateway between Europe and the Middle East. Its proximity and maritime disputes with Turkey are the single most important geographic factor, defining its military posture and foreign policy.

f. Population: At approx. 10.4 million, the population is aging rapidly and shrinking due to a low birth rate and the previously mentioned "brain drain." This is a severe material constraint that threatens the solvency of pensions and future economic vitality.

The People's Republic of China (PRC) is a great modern case study for this framework, as it perfectly illustrates a highly rigid Governance Structure coexisting with and allowing a liquid Social Order. Its entire system is a complex, syncretic blend of ancient imperial axioms and modern Leninist mechanics.

a. Foundational Axioms: The PRC's Mythos is a fusion of three axioms: Firstly, Dialectical Materialism, the Marxist-Leninist framework that grants the Chinese Communist Party the "scientific" and historical mandate to rule. Then Confucian Order, the ancient cultural axiom of a unified, hierarchical, and harmonious society (Tianxia, "All Under Heaven") led by a virtuous, meritocratic, and paternalistic central authority. And as third axiom the deep-seated assumption of Han Chinese identity as the engine and default standard of the civilization.

b. Official Ideology: Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. This is the states public narrative, which brilliantly reconciles the three axioms. It frames the CCP as the sole virtuous authority capable of implementing the goal of harmony and ending the Century of Humiliation. It justifies its absolute power not through a democratic mandate, but through an outcomes-based social contract: the Party retains its monopoly on power, and in exchange, it delivers stability, prosperity, and the rejuvenation of the Chinese state.

c. Dominant Ideological Landscape: There is a very high degree of alignment between the populace and the goals of the official Ideology. The population, having experienced 40 years of unprecedented poverty reduction, genuinely shares the desire for stability, national pride, and economic well-being. The primary friction is not ideological but functional; popular anger at local-level corruption, extreme inequality, and environmental degradation, and alike, which are mostly seen as failures of local officials.

a. Define Governance Structure: A centralized, single-party authoritarian state. Power is not held by "the state" but is monopolized by the Communist Party of China (CCP), which is superior to and "shadows" all formal state institutions.

b. Formal ways of Governance: The Constitution of the PRC, which nominally guarantees various rights, and a legislature (the National People's Congress). These are mostly formalities; they have no independent power.

c. Informal ways of Governance: This is the real government. All power is concentrated in the Politburo Standing Committee, and ultimately in the General Secretary (Xi Jinping). Power is personalistic and flows from the top down through the 90-million-member Party apparatus. Key informal tools include: The Zuzhibu (Organization Department), which controls all key personnel appointments and the Social Credit System, a new, data-driven tool for enforcing social/political conformity. Propaganda and censorship is very present. Legitimacy is actively manufactured and maintained at a high level. All national success from Olympic medals to aircraft carriers in news and alike, is linked to the wisdom of the Party.

d. Military Force and Spending: The People's Liberation Army. Critically, the Chinese army is not a state army in the traditional sense; its oath of loyalty is to the Party, not the Constitution. Military spending is the second-largest in the world and is undergoing rapid modernization. This is essential to the official Ideology's goal of "Rejuvenation" and securing defense as well as possible future goals (Taiwan, South China Sea). Historically, China had few expansionist ambitions so far.

e. Legal Frameworks of Hierarchy: The law is used as shifting instrument. A tool used by the Party to govern. The hierarchy is explicitly codified and CCP members are at the top. Then there is the Hukou (household registration) system. This is a critical legal framework that legally ties citizens to their place of birth. This de jure system creates two tiers of citizenship, where access to the highest quality public services (like top-tier urban schools and comprehensive healthcare) is formally prioritised for those holding an urban Hukou. Ethnic minorities can legally be subject to surveillance and control aimed at enforcing the Han-centric Mythos.

a. Short cultural analysis: The observed basis of hierarchy is a combination of Political loyalty, Wealth (a new billionaire tech class has emerged) and Hukou (the de jure urban/rural divide).

b. Economic Permeability and Living Standards: For 30 years (1990-2020), the PRC experienced the highest economic permeability in human history, lifting 800 million people from poverty. This created a population of hundreds of millions of people who, acting on their own free will, moved from rural areas to cities for work. Permeability is high within the urban class, but the path from rural to full urban status is riddled with legal and social barriers, though not impossible. Living standards have risen spectacularly, but the GINI coefficient is still one of the highest in the world.

c. Political Permeability: Extremely rigid. There is zero permeability for anyone outside the CCP. It is a closed system. Within the Party, however, the system functions as a vast, hyper-competitive meritocracy, where people have to navigate a complex system of exams, patronage, and purges to rise through the ranks.

d. Cultural Permeability: See Economic Permeability

e. Geography: China is a massive, defensible land but lacks the resource self-sufficiency. It is critically dependent on securing external resources via sea lanes: oil from Russia, iron ore from Australia, and food from the Americas. Its long, populated coastline is perceived as a major vulnerability.

f. Population: At 1.4 billion people, at least officially, its population was the engine of its economic miracle. Due to the one-child policy (a Governance decision), that engine has somewhat stalled. The population is aging and beginning to shrink faster. This is a potential macro problem for the political system, as most of the legitimacy is prosperity based.

Conclusion

The one-dimensional left-right spectrum is a relic of a specific historical moment and a flawed model that has long outlived its usefulness. Its continued dominance in political discourse forces complex realities into a simplistic and distorting binary, fueling misunderstanding and tribal conflict. There are other, more complex models. The proposed model is relatively simple to understand and allows us to analyse figures like Napoleon not as contradictions, but as synthesizers of distinct political elements. And it allows us to clarify debates around the Horseshoe Theory, by specifying easy, precise dimensions on which political extremes can converge. It also enables the ability to differentiate more nuanced between lived social hierarchy, governance and power access.

I want to offer a framework that is depicting the reality of a state more accurately and can be used by anyone. Anyone with a connection to the internet. Or a giant library close by.

It is important to acknowledge its limitations, though. The framework has little predictive power. And no geo-political dimension. Something I will be working on in the future.

Essential next steps for future research therefore will be to develop a fourth, external dimension to account for geopolitical pressures on a state's internal structure and on how ideologies can be evaluated.

Summary and Template to analyse political systems

The following template provides only a basis, see article for details. Follow the 3D framework logic and avoid typical one dimensional superficial wording (for example left-right) and narrative coloring.

I. IDEOLOGY

The analysis of the ideology should focus on identifying the axioms as revealed in foundational texts and the public justifications the state now provides for its authority. The task is not to validate, but to identify them and rigorously trace their structural consequences across the other two dimensions.

a. Foundational Axioms: The civilization's average core assumptions about reality, The set of shared foundational axioms and the collective narrative that provide the basis for a society's legal structures, coherence, and purpose.

b. Official Ideology: For the purpose of having a clear set of metrics to analyse a state and enable decent replicability, here we will go with the dominant ideology the state uses to justify the existing Governance Structure and Social Order.

c. Dominant Ideological Landscape: The average Dominant Ideological Landscape of the citizens. Ideally derived from polls. Useful for social cohesion and perceived legitimacy of the state. (Alike sources, for example values surveys, religious surveys, media demand statistics... can be used to go further into detail.)

II. GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

a. Define Governance Structure: Identify and the state's institutional structure.

b. Formal ways of Governance: Mapping the formal systems that dictate how decisions are made and power is exercised.

c. Informal ways of Governance: Mapping the informal systems that dictate how decisions are made and power is exercised.

d. Military Force and Spending: Additionally find data concerning the military spending and military force and how vital they are for the states functioning.

III. SOCIAL ORDER

a. Short Cultural Analysis: Short description of the culture and observed, proven basis of the social hierarchy

b. Economic Permeability: De facto distribution of wealth and mobility, living standards, intergenerational wealth mobility, purchasing-power. (GINI coefficients, prizing data, purchasing-power parity all are helpful if available...)

c. Political Permeability: The de facto paths to power.

d. Cultural Permeability: The de facto status of different social groups, independent of law or wealth.

e. Geography: Analyse the geography of the country and it's implications for the state.

f. Population: Analyse the population size and it's implications.