The problem of the three bodies

In physics, the problem of the three bodies describes the complex and often unpredictable interactions of three celestial bodies under mutual gravitational influence. There is no general analytical solution, as its movements generate chaotic patterns. In politics, a parliament divided between three great parties – such as the one in the Assembly dissolved and perspective in the one we are electing this Sunday – mirrors this cosmic puzzle, creating a dynamic system where stability is illusory, alliances change and results defy simple prediction.
In essence, the problem of the three bodies in physics arises because three bodies, each exerting gravitational attraction over others, create too complex system for long -term accurate predictions. Similarly, a parliament divided between three great parties – none of them with absolute majority – lacks a single dominant force to anchor governance. Each party, as a heavenly body, follows its own trajectory, shaped by ideology, the requests of its voters and the strategic or personal ambitions of its leaders. Their interactions, driven by conflicting interests, produce political orbits that are anything but ordained.
Consider yourself a ‘hypothetical’ parliament where the S (left) party, party C (right) and D (centrist) party hold, respectively, 32%, 20% and 37% of places. In physics, systems of three bodies are rarely established in predictable standards, unless one body domine or two form a rigid torque, marginalizing the third. In a tripartite parliament, stable governance requires a coalition, but three strong actors resist or require a lot to accept this solution. The temporary alliances that are formed, around this or that theme, tend to crumble under ideological or public pressure.
Like the three bodies in physics, where the movement of one body disturbs others, each party’s actions reverberate in the system. If the party S proposes an active policy for the construction of housing by the state, the C Party can react with the requirement of greater restrictions on immigration, while the D Party, seeking a compromise, dilutes both agendas. The result? A political trajectory in zigzags, without fully satisfying anyone and risking voters to disappoint. Moreover, a trajectory in no way leading to reforms, especially those that, by deep, tend to generate protests; Any of these reformist purposes will soon be blocked by the negative coalition of the other two parties trying to capitalize on the discontent of the streets.
These systems are also sensitive to the initial conditions of the problem. A slight change – a scandal, for example – can drastically alter the political scenario, such as the recent dissolution of parliament has shown. Montenegro’s decision to present a motion of trust was which light disturbance that pushes the bodies into new orbits.
What is the solution to this unstable and paralyzing impasse. I only see one, but whose time has passed, at least for this Sunday. The emergence of a fourth body that forms with the largest of the existing bodies a system with sufficient mass to become dominant. For kids: It would have been a pre-election alliance between AD and IL that, using the Hondt method lever, got an absolute reformist majority.

University professor