A David Attenborough Approach
I recently watched a science documentary on PBS Nature. It was about the organization of an elephant herd in Africa. We were shown the various relationships between the members of the herd. There was a dominant male who was occasionally challenged by the subordinate males for leadership. The dominant got most of the girls. There were some matriarchs who were past their reproductive abilities but were still useful for their knowledge of previous migrations. There were caring mothers and their children. And all the herd had some responsibility to the children.
A month earlier, I watched another PBS Nature documentary about a pod of killer whales near Antarctica. They too had an interesting social structure, organizing themselves to create waves to force seals off the ice floe as the whales’ next meal. We are fascinated with animal social structures.
Europeans used to send anthropologists to all parts of the world to study “primitive” cultures. While many Europeans were fascinated at the obvious differences, they also believed that Europeans were above any such analysis.
Eventually, the academics moved into the study of different groups in our society. The various demographics of economic classes, religions, ages, etc. have been well studied by sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists, and storytellers. I have read many Medium articles on these topics: some professional and some amateur (and still interesting).
For example, I have encountered about 10 Medium articles as to why MAGA is going to be a big political force for years to come. The rational is that many MAGA members cannot forsake their movement for fear of losing their social and support networks. Even when they understand that their leaders are inept or corrupt, MAGA members will rationalize those facts away — just to keep their friend circles intact. Social connection is a strong psychological force. I believe that force will blindly bind MAGA members to their next leader.
Like the Europeans of the early days of anthropology, there is one political group that seems to be above any similar analysis. That group is the political parties. How do the party members relate to each other? This topic seems to be off limits for I have not encountered any research.
The rest of this essay gives you insights into politics you will likely never hear from anyone else. I seem to be the only “professional” taking a look in the direction of a political party.
In 2021, I wrote an essay that explained the competitive nature within political parties. Basically, various players jostle for more status, influence, and power within the party. They all can’t get the top spot. But like the lower status elephant males accepting their lower position in the elephant pecking order, political players accept their lower position. For them, it is better being on the inside than on the outside.
In 2026, I wrote an essay about the psychopathic culture inside political parties. Basically, psychopaths like playing political games to acquire more status, influence, and power. Their actual positions are less important than the game they are playing. To combat these people, the more normal political players have to behave like psychopaths to defeat the psychopaths. And all this psychopathy keeps many good people away from politics.
Three Progressives vs. One Psychopath
The two above essays are my better articles on internal party politics. I have many little insights into more member-to-member relationships scattered in my TDG books and many Medium articles. I will bring them into this one essay.
When reading this next section, try to read as if David Attenborough is narrating. Imagine he is talking about a troop of mountain gorillas or a hive of bees.
The Nature of Internal Party Politics
Political parties have different groups of members with different purposes to keep the party functioning. This study delineates four kinds of party members.
The first group are the “workers.” These members believe in the direction that the party wants to take their society. They will cast a vote on election day. They will be good ambassadors for the party in their social circles. They will donate a little money. They will come to party events, like rallies and fundraisers. They will put in some time for the election, like canvassing or putting up signs. But they have other life priorities, which means they do not take on any management roles within the party.
The second group is called “the managers.” These members have a bigger mission than contributing a little time, money, and cheering to the party. They aspire to be of more influence, so they take on management roles for the party to get that influence. In that way, the party gets the managers to manage the workers.
The managers are happy that the workers are willingly taking a back seat in party affairs. This reduces the competition for the better spots in the party.
The managers can be further divided into two groups. The first are the “overly ambitious.” These managers aspire to be an elected politician some day. They take on management roles to build their experience, profile, and connections for their future political career. While they don’t regard their management roles as self-actualization, they understand that these roles are stepping stones.
The other manager group is the “back roomers.” Back roomers might recognize they don’t have the time, personal finances, and/or talent to be in the overly ambitious. But they still crave political influence and action. They take on volunteer management positions to later be in the back rooms of power. While the back roomer’s path is less intense and not reaching as high, they are closer to power, which is its own aphrodisiac.
Back roomers are well connected to the overly ambitious. Members of each group are on a first-name basis and often socialize together. For some back roomers, being that connected is enough incentive to take on the drudgery of management tasks in a political party. The back roomers will often tell their non-political friends and acquaintances about how well they know certain politicians.
Other back roomers will not be so easily sated. They are looking for bigger opportunities for later.
Often these opportunities are jobs in the elected politicians’ offices. These politicians need staffers to manage the finer details of running the public face. For some back roomers, these jobs pay better than their free market potential. For other back roomers, these jobs put them into the soap opera of politics, which is its own aphrodisiac. Often, this political experience may later lead to a good job outside of politics because it does require managing people, paper, and programs.
Some back roomers want more than social interaction or a government job. They want access to government grants, government contracts, and business opportunities, which will not be easily available to workers and the public. This is often called “corruption.” Here is my story of my political corruption.
My Brush With Political Corruption
Not all back roomers get the corruption they might be looking for. But the political party needs to be seen to be giving favors to some of its back roomers. Otherwise some of the necessary management tasks to win elections do not get done.
Some back roomers start their political volunteerism with altruism. Like the workers, they believe their party is the best solution for society. But when a certain opportunity presents itself that is not available to the public or the workers, the back roomer can rationalize taking it. A back roomer might say to him- or herself: “I have spent many hours of my free time and away from my interests to save society from the evil political opposition. In the meantime, the general public has had a free ride on my work. A little opportunity has come my way. I’m going to take it. I deserve that, right?”
There is one more group in the internal party hierarchy. They are called “donors.”
Although the workers, overly ambitious, and back roomers are already donating to the party, this study will define “donors” as the party members who do little else for the party other than sending money. They do not organize anything. They do not work on elections. They might show up to party social events if there is some networking or socializing to be done. It’s always good for the bigger donors to show their face to the overly ambitious.
Most of the smaller donors and some of the big donors have no expectation of a return on their donation. They donate altruistically.
But some big donors expect a return later. It might be a big government contract. Or it could be a favor to vote against certain legislation. Sometimes delaying that legislation or watering it down is enough reward for the donor. Again, the party must deliver on some corruption if the party wants to attract enough donors for the next election.
And a few donors do donate to more than one party. They have bought their influence regardless of which party wins the election.
Undoubtedly, most people are attracted to celebrities of various kinds. Political parties use this social and psychological force to full effect.
In a party’s social function, the overly ambitious party members who have become elected can be easily spotted. There is an aura around them. Whether that aura is natural to them or it comes with the job, it is there. The workers, back roomers, and donors can recognize those successful overly ambitious from far away. When in a closer social situation, these party members will bask being around the more famous and powerful people. An aphrodisiac!
For the overly ambitious, being basked is their aphrodisiac. The two groups feed off each other, psychologically speaking.
The internal party election campaign is a test of celebrity potential. Candidates show they are willing to put in long hours, meet the people, and amplify the party line. If the candidate plays this game in the internal election, he/she will likely play it during the general election. While the pace is reduced after the election, the elected overly ambitious must still be “out there” as much as possible. If not, the party will find someone else for the next election.
But being a political celebrity is time consuming. This means not enough time is invested into studying the various bills that are circulating in the legislature.
Back roomers don’t have to be a celebrity.
Humans are social creatures. We like being around others. Political parties feed into that need by providing social events, inviting the overly ambitious, back roomers, workers, and donors to attend. Often, an elected overly ambitious or two will speak at these events. But after the speeches, there is usually a lot of free socializing. Alcohol is often consumed; boys meet girls; girls meet boys; political junkies pontificate; connections are made.
During an election campaign, the party office should plan for a programmed social event once a week. The social event is actually a reward for doing the mundane tasks of electioneering.
These social events must be organized, which requires an overly ambitious or back roomer to put the pieces together. Yes, the event organizers are doing good work for the party. But they are also advancing their own position.
Throughout the rest of the week in campaign season, a party member will still have many informal social opportunities to interact with other party members. However, there is election work that needs to get done. The campaign managers must create a culture where people are not hanging around the campaign office mostly to discuss politics.
The most important work of an election campaign is the canvassing. Canvassing is about identifying potential voters for the party and getting their contact information. Later, these voters will be contacted frequently by the campaign office to encourage them to vote. Many citizens are not as committed to the democratic process as the overly ambitious, back roomers, workers, and donors. Many “soft support voters” need this encouragement to put their X in the ballot box.
Any unemployed young political volunteer can find a job because of their election work. Such a person should do lots of canvassing, at least three evenings a week. As well, this person should come to social activities, wear nice clothes, and mention “looking for work.” At the end of the election, someone will offer a real job. Political parties have many “movers and shakers” who are in positions to hire employees.
Maybe that job is not exactly what the young person wants to do, but it is money coming in. Such an employer will understand when a better job is found later. Or maybe this new job helps build a career. Or maybe it could even be a political job. Canvassing is an indirect way for a young person to find employment.
We could say that this job is part of political corruption. But the young person has also demonstrated that he or she has taken on a difficult assignment — and did not quit. Canvassing is not easy. It requires fortitude and interpersonal skills, especially as a volunteer. The employer knows a good canvasser is likely to be an effective employee in many other workplaces.
After election season, the workers go back to their regular lives. They don’t see the soap opera or associating with the big names as worthy of their time. Or maybe they don’t want to compete to be in these positions.
For the overly ambitious and back roomers, maybe their election work earned them a higher position in the party. If so, they will likely be meeting once a month, mostly to discuss how to win the next election. But after the formal meeting, there will be opportunities for more socializing and networking and advancing. Political parties are good at providing social opportunities for the overly ambitious and back roomers to connect.
It should be said that the party has some informal rules as to what can or cannot be discussed at these party social functions. If a party member goes too far outside those social rules, he or she will be more alone at the function. There is not much rise in the party for a person who cannot recognize the boundaries.
One of those off-limit topics is internal corruption in the party. If a party member knows some corruption inside the party, it is better to keep quiet. There are several reasons for this. First, some corruption is necessary to keep the party together. Because many cases of corruption never make it to public attention, exposing one corruption still leaves the other corruptions unaddressed. Second, if the party member is making some noise, that noise might find its way to the media or political opposition. If so, the party will have some explaining to do. It knows it can still go through several episodes of corruption — and not suffer electorally. Lastly and most importantly, political parties need to be forgiving of the members who have been instrumental in winning elections. So corruption is tolerated to a certain degree.
So by trying to reform the party from the inside, an altruistic party member could be bringing unwanted negative attention to the party. While the party can usually “ride out the storm,” the party does not need this hassle, even if it results in some self-cleaning. The party will look for ways to reduce the status and influence of the party member making the corruption allegation.
To win elections, the party needs the resources of the corruptible more than the resources of the altruistic.
Political parties like to claim that they are about policy development. But most formal discussion is about winning the next election. It is not likely that a party will automatically and enthusiastically adopt a new policy at a three-day “policy convention” where strangers meet to cast their “Yeas” or “Nays.” At best, such conventions give the leaders a look at what party members are thinking — to strategize politically. Majority votes at policy conventions are often ignored by the party leadership.
If anything, being selected to attend party conventions is a reward for previous work to the party. The attendees may believe that they have some influence in the party, but they are not that influential. If they rock the boat too much, they won’t be attending the next convention.
If there is any serious policy change, it usually comes after a change in the higher leadership. Maybe the new leader can or will effect the changes he/she campaigned on. Or maybe it is just lip service to get the leader’s job. Who knows for sure?
When the party gets a new leader, avenues of opportunity open up for some overly ambitious and back roomers around the new leader to move forward. If some of the old guard retain some influence in the party, it is usually diminished. Their climb to be close to the top is usually over.
The more altruistic members of the party have little say in the development of policy. Their choice is to either work for the policies as stated — or withdraw their volunteer support and donations from the party. A good party leader knows the support of workers and donors is voluntary.
The leader of the political party is often the arbitrator of party internal discussions that seem not to find a resolution. The party leader will decide for the party. The party members have four choices: 1) accept the decision of the leader because it is a good decision 2) accept the decision because not accepting it means a loss of status, influence, and power, 3) reject the decision and likely incur that loss of status, influence, and power, and 4) withdraw from all party activities.
If too many party members choose #3, that is the seed for a party revolt. And an open revolt inside a political party reduces the chance of electoral success. So the motivation around Reason #2 weighs heavily.
While political parties like to claim they are “big tents,” there is not as much free thought inside the parties as the party likes to claim. And there is limited room at the top. It is a very competitive culture, with “good moves” taking months or years to play out. Some discussion is socially censored. And there are too many psychopaths in political parties.
Most citizens cannot or will not play the game of internal party politics.
After the Monologue
You can turn off the David Attenborough narration.
What you have read is a sociological, anthropological, and psychological synopsis of what happens inside a political party.
Have you heard of anything like this before?
I gained these insights by spending six years as an active volunteer in a Canadian political party. If you have been on the inside and not been seduced by the partisanship, you will agree with much of this synopsis. If you have not been an insider, you will likely find at least 50% is congruent with your outside observations of political parties.
This synopsis is not flattering. It shows personal advancement and corruption are stronger forces than bettering society. It easy to understand why a political party will not accept the sociologists, anthropologists, and psychologists to internally study it.
Some readers may claim that this essay describes many workplaces. In my experience, the dysfunction was far more intense in my political party — and I got a paycheck from my workplaces.
I see no hope for political parties to overcome their psychological ailments. This is like expecting lions to become vegetarians.
Some readers would claim that this personal advancement is just a part of human nature. Western democracy has somehow corralled this instinct to manage our societal affairs. And, to quote Winston Churchill, western democracy does this better than “other systems that have been tried.”
But is this satisfactory?
Most animals are mostly running on instinct. While elephants and killer whales have shown ability to make minor social adaptations to changes in their environment, humans can make things like internal combustion engines, televisions, and computers. We have risen above our technological constraints. Could we also not rise above our current sociological, anthropological, and psychological constraints?
I invite readers to inspect Tiered Democratic Governance (TDG). This new democracy has no campaigning, no political parties, and a different way of voting. The TDG elections will organically find the more capable people for governance. These representatives will work with the process of consultative decision making rather than working toward their personal advancement.
When this TDG movement first starts, the experts in sociology, anthropology, and psychology will not be interested. This gives the early TDG builders the opportunities to build a new political culture without the observers and their critical eyes. There will be a few bumps as we learn the new ways. But please understand, the early TDG builders are consciously and deliberately building a new political culture as well as a new electoral structure.
The TDG will grow. When it moves from the Early Stage to the Middle Stage, the culture of the TDG should be reasonably well established. The experts would now be interested in studying this new movement.
I hope the TDG is confident that it can allow those observers on its inside. Not only will the experts’ findings help promote the TDG, they might even have some useful suggestions to make the TDG better.
Published on Medium 2026
My Grandparents Had a Grade 4 Education
