Could you help me understand this...

So, let's set the scene: unnamed African country, where the proletariat is a minority.
The proletariat rallies behind a leader, that takes power through a military coup, or a guerrilla campaign, etcetera.
This new leader (dictator?) suppresses the bourgeoisie with the support of the Petit bourgeoisie and proletariat. The economy would be state capitalist (nationalised?) and a cult of personality would be used to gain the support of peasantry.

So what you've supposed so far is a Thomas Sankara type state?

How do we get from the above to the parties of order and liberty?

I originally sent the above to DNZ in a PM.

He replied with this:

Would you mind posting this in the discussion group instead?

I'll answer there more fully, but here briefly:

1) Supports the urban and rural petit-bourgeoisie who then rally behind said leader
2) It's not fair to characterize the leader as a dictator, although constitutionally he should be stronger than the strongest Latin American caudillo ("Comparative Presidential Systems")
3) The cult of personality is based on peasant politics, yes
4) The competing parties of order and liberty (i.e., the socially conservative and liberal parties) are the key to my statement of "it's not fair" above, because the Caesar should be subject to the whims of the governing party's "politburo" - if his coalition wins election after election over the opposite coalition, and if he himself is popular, then he can stay in office as long as Todor Zhivkov (Bulgarian strongman heading the CP then), but the "politburo" of the coalition should be able to oust him if he concocts "hare-brained" schemes and pulls a Khrushchev

I should add that said cult could be used and not necessarily should be used. Also, the extent to which it could be used could be rather mild. Was Hugo Chavez's larger-than-life political persona organic, or a cult of personality in the strictest sense?