When more than one leader crops up it is because the people no longer agree on something fundamental

Social insects follow this pattern

Primates follow this pattern

Dunbar’s number hypothesizes that we can have a group of 150 people max that we feel comfortable socializing with

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

If a group gets so big that each person no longer knows all the others then it’s harder to agree on a leader (or common ideologies)

The tribe then splits (or fights)

This is probably good over all

As long as the groups can get along, separating because of fundamental differences leads to more options

The more options there are, the more likely a better option will emerge

If we force everyone to stay in the same group it is probably unhealthy

-it leads to animosity and resentment

-If there is only one option it is less likely to be the ideal (fragile)

How could a system like this work?

Maybe try to design cities with this in mind

Allow communities as much autonomy as possible

Make sure there are clear agreements, traditions, expectations, etc for what happens when there needs to be a split. (peace treaty, who leaves and who stays)

Dispute resolution is key