Was the development of left-right politics in a developed world inevitable?

[eschaton]

IOTL, the norm in all western-derived* nations is broadly speaking left-right politics. There are, of course, exceptions, but these are usually ether in nations where nationalism/minority parties play a strong role, or places where democratic republicanism is weaker, and clientelism and/or political personalities trump ideology. The only example I can think of with a "mature" electoral system which isn't based on left-right politics is Ireland.

Obviously, the terms left and right come from the French revolution, and without the particular circumstances surrounding it, they wouldn't have come to be associated with socialist/social liberal and conservative politics respectively. But was the division between the two essentially pre-ordained as a result of mature democratic institutions and the industrial revolution? Or could alternate political divisions have predominated?

* I put the caveat for the West because my understanding is it's harder to place Asian countries on a left-right spectrum, although India, South Korea, and the Philippines have a political spectrum fairly similar to a Western country, the influences of Britain and the U.S. may have played a role here.

 

[Falecius]

Both terms include a really wide spectrum of often incompatible positions. They could have been arranged in other way.
For example, stress the role of the State. Fascism, communism, and many nationalist strains all tend to a powerful state, while libertarianism, anarchism and liberal socialism put more stress on non-statal communities and/or individual. This differences are orthogonal to the left-right divide but might prove to be a good way to rally things differently.

 

[archaeogeek]

I suspect you need an earlier rise of literate peasant movements detached from the rural middle class (which IOTL would have led to more powerful anarchists) and a break between the upper estates. Then avoid the bourgeois establishment becoming upper class.

I'm not sure how though and this probably still leads to right and left liberalism breaking down along the path.

The problem with third ways though is that OTL "third way" was basically wildly reactionary in many places, hence extreme right.

 

[Falecius]

I suspect you need an earlier rise of literate peasant movements detached from the rural middle class (which IOTL would have led to more powerful anarchists) and a break between the upper estates. Then avoid the bourgeois establishment becoming upper class.

I'm not sure how though and this probably still leads to right and left liberalism breaking down along the path.

The problem with third ways though is that OTL "third way" was basically wildly reactionary in many places, hence extreme right.

Well, in Italy we had a 'nazimaoist" thing and another stuff called "Third position" that was, if I understand them correctly, Revolutionary Fascism with a lot of contradictory stuff within.
The extreme right in post WWII Italy is somewhat interesting, i mean the way they overcame the principle of non contradiction is.
Some of them manage to be neo-pagan and conservative Catholic at the same time.