Maoist Insurgency as a Prisoner's Dilemma
From Dickinson College Wiki
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.
The Payoffs
Though the conflict in Nepal seems to be between two distinct antagonistic forces, the total power to influence each other is distributed among four players. It is a strange phenomenon because two parties are in conflict but four players hold the power key. The two players to the conflict are the Maoists and the government and the remaining two players are the political parties (seven party alliance) and the international community.
The basis for generating payoffs is the relative power each player has to influence each other because none of the players have sole capacity to sway away the whole situation in their favor.
- Bold textRoyal Government
