Keep in mind it's always a process of selection and judgement. We would still be little single celled organisms swimming around in puddles otherwise.

It's how structure evolves.

The problem with Critical Theory is that while it questions everything, it proposes nothing. Any system is going to be provisional, contextual and subject to cicumstances. So any structure is going to be fragile in some contexts and strong in others. The most durable ones will be those most totalitarian ones, that don't allow criticism.

So the reality isn't that we are working towards some ideal situation, but more a game of rock, paper, scissors, where a system starts out enthused, settles into a grove, that becomes a rut and then can't change when circumstances do.

Aristocracies are really just oligarchies with a little history behind them. Democracies and Republics also require certain conditions, where people don't feel threatened when they don't get their way, so it's not so much a situation of who wins, but if who loses is treated with sufficient consideration that they don't set out to break the system.

Our problem isn't so much the two party system, as it is an economic oligarchy draining all wealth out of the larger society. Having multiple parties isn' going to solve that, if the oligarchs still pull the strings of value underlaying the health of the community.

Politics is top down. Economics is bottom up and while our minds see top down, reality evolves bottom up.