Tripartite

The more you divide something, the less it is divided. If a society is split into tiny fractions, there are actually no fractions. The smallest possible part of society is the individual, and if every individual were his own party there would in effect be no parties at all. Everyone would be united. United by what or by whom? By one strong Leviathan! A million-party state would be a one-party state.

Unity is always the ideal, although quite a metaphysical one. In the physical reality of the state, unity would come with a price. The question is then what level of division would create the healthiest level of unity.

The bipartite state makes any conception of unity unattainable. It makes it necessary to decide one over another and any idea of compromise is intrinsically excluded. Of course compromises still happen, but at that moment the system effectively cancels itself, and for it to survive it is necessary for it to immediately bounce back to its natural position where everything is effectively split down the middle.

Now a tripartite state is a naturally living compromise. There will be a resting place in the middle for those who are generally content or just don’t want to be forced into a position with unknown consequences. Such a partition creates the most realistic sense of unity, that is one that is not based on the principle of divide and rule.

The idea of balance is found in the number three. One is a monolith that is based on forceful restraint. Two can at most achieve a ceasefire: The combatants will be eyeing each other waiting for a false move to restart the fighting. Four is on the way towards a weakening multiple division. But in three there is balance.

On either side of the scale people are striving to pull the whole weight over to them and any sudden pull will tip the balance; only a third force can keep it.

https://onedailyprompt.wordpress.com/2020/07/03/your-daily-word-prompt-tripartite-ydwordprompt-July-3-2020/