Maoist Insurgency as a Prisoner's Dilemma: Difference between revisions
From Dickinson College Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
* The outcome that is generated if both sides agree to go for modify position strategy is termed as “Peace”- a joint cooperation solution, which is a win-win situation for all. | * The outcome that is generated if both sides agree to go for modify position strategy is termed as “Peace”- a joint cooperation solution, which is a win-win situation for all. | ||
[[Image:Pda.JPG|thumb|Description]] | |||
Revision as of 01:39, 1 May 2006
The conflict as a 2x2 matrix
- Two distinct warring factions (one partly constitutional and another rebel outfit), two choice games.
- By no means is this representation comprehensive and it only touches one of the many problems associated with peaceful resolution to the uprising.
- Two clear strategies for both: Modify position and Status quo
- Each has a dominating strategy: ‘status quo’. However it serves only one party’s vested interest and is not a popular public choice. Though this keeps them in better position it never wins the hearts of the public, the main factor for whom both party to the conflict claim to be representing and fighting for.
- Another strategy is ‘modify position’: since each side claims that their fight is for the public, both agree that without winning the heart of the public they won’t achieve their goals. Contrary to their fighting strategy the public desire peace and an end to all forms of hostility. So modifying position seems to be the option for both to win the public’s heart.
- The outcome that is generated if both sides agree to go for modify position strategy is termed as “Peace”- a joint cooperation solution, which is a win-win situation for all.
