I'd cut Kings/Tsarism from the equation altogether. That is "traditional" government, which is a different mode of life because it subsists through an appeal to tradition and religion rather than acknowledging a secular source of power.
I'd embrace a variation of the 4-point system: left and right as we know them, but the top is "Elitism" and the bottom is "populism" rather than the political compass' top of authority and bottom of liberty. More important is whether power is concentrated in the many or the few. This is only within the democratic spectrum. Outside of the democratic spectrum, there are 5 routes you can take: the first four are military rule, tyranny, fascism, and communism (as marx-leninism), while the fifth is "guided democracy" which is an exaggeration of any democratic viewpoint to the point where the system is captured by a dominant constituency (essentially, retain the trappings of democracy but make one party untouchable de facto, think current Russia).
Within the democratic field, you have left, right, elite, and populist, and points on each end where we tend to see politicians land: left populism ends up as popular socialism, left elitism is progressive socialism or utopianism, right populism is reactionary, the mass appeals of folks like the Tea Party or the Know Nothings. Right Elitism is old-fashioned "Tory" style, appeals to old money often.
Elitism can take different forms, like statism, mild authoritarianism, or the sort of mercantile-capitalism that the American Whigs and the early Republicans embraced. Populism is just populism at heart, if it's simply focused on transferring power to the masses in a way that is not otherwise focused on making society more traditional or more progressive.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
