Again, Curtis Yarvin’s excellent point, this time that even in a situation of total domination by a liberal oligarchy, people on both sides can enjoy benefits. There are parliamentary seats for loyalty to the ruling power, and there are parliamentary seats for opposition to it. Supporters of the ruling power can become senators, activists of the radical opposition can become senators. There are paid activists on both sides, there are journalists on both sides. After all, I too was part of the game before I created the position of a lone wolf who belongs to neither camp. Curtis Yarvin specifically mentions lawyers who defend opposition supporters against government lawsuits (or, conversely, sue the government).
The essential difference is that there are many seats on the government side and few on the opposition side. Those on the government side have better conditions and enjoy higher prestige. But even those on the opposition side are not entirely bad off. Certainly better off than if they were in a regular job. Both Tomio Okamura and Kateřina Konečná are better off in all respects than the average voter in the five-party coalition.
There is nothing strange or wrong with that. However, it can happen quite easily that both parties become complacent and neither is interested in change. Opposition functionaries need to create a constant sense of unbearability to mobilise their supporters, but they also need not much to change. The ruling party in turn uses the opposition as a bogeyman. Everyone gets what they want.
But it can only work with a certain balance of political power. If the ruling party becomes stronger, it will no longer need such opposition and will trample on it. If the ruling party weakens, a takeover is the order of the day, and if a tame opposition fails to do so, another may emerge.