It may be something of an enduring irony that unilateral actions taken by any political instance to secure their own continuity are the most probable causes of their own accelerated departure; even where tenure and continuity is ensured, the underlying costs of insecurity and instability rapidly accumulate. Closed systems, while an abstraction hardly mirrored in reality beyond simple ideological convenience or crude irrational assertion, are prone to structural disassembly borne of their own internally-proliferating entropy and organisational turbulence. It is at base a pathological state of affairs.
This may all even be variations-on-a-theme of the “amygdala hijack” in which strong appeals to emotion tend to cause even untenable beliefs to become intransigently held despite all evidence as to their fallacy. A political position or ideological assertion, having been adopted or made, generates a social and psychological pressure to at the very least appear competent. Doubling down on faulty assertions becomes the key purpose and critical component of dialogue or debate, over and above any original semantic content in the concepts.
Where intellectual or ethical bankruptcy is the pivot upon which any untenable political assertion or associated narrative rests, an overinvestment in faulty reasoning becomes something of an inevitability. A simplest (or lowest common denominator) applicable in most cases is the metaphorical equivalent of rendering one muddy hole plausibly smaller by digging a larger one around it. It does not take any specific examples to demonstrate this logic at work and it is in fact a conscious decision made by the current author to exclude particular contemporary instances; if you understand what the message here means, you are already aptitudinally equipped to know well enough where this applies.