The Nepalese Conflict as a Prisoners Dilemma
The ten plus years of insurgency in Nepal has left the economy and the state on the verge of collapse. The two warring sides, the government and the Maoists rebels are insistent on their own demands, loathe the concept of table talks and want to overthrow each other militarily. This characteristic is seen distinctly after the Royal coup in Nepal in February 2005. With both sides not agreeing to peaceful negotiations, the increasing violence, sabotage and insurgency have severely impacted all economic programs of the country. Currently, the rate of GDP growth and population growth is the same and estimates released last week by Institute of Development Studies (IfDS) predict that further slowdown in the former indicator would result in overall negative GDP per capita.
Experts and analysts from all quarters have been time and again reiterating the without peace development activities are ineffective. However, for peace there needs to be an end to the protracted insurgency that has already claimed 13000 plus lives. Neither the state nor the rebels are willing to talk and both are increasingly engaged in military warfare to attain their ends. Reports claim that the rebels control most of the parts outside the Kathmandu Valley. However, the government also claims that it has presence in all the parts of the country. In such a backdrop, who of the two really control the majority parts of the country is still unknown though the state is considered legitimate and hence the rightful claimer of the country and its resources.
None of the sides want to unilaterally modify their strategy of winning the other side through military means. If the government modifies its strategy and the rebels do not then the rebels think that they have a military advantage over the government and vice versa. So maintaining status quo is a dominant strategy for both the parties to the conflict. However, this leads to further misery, poverty and heightened crisis. So, it is in the best interest of both the players to find a negotiated peaceful solution to the crisis. This is also the desire of the public. But with headstrong behavior from both the sides this seems to be a distant dream. Rather both the sides would stick to status quo, which furthers the conflict. This is a case of the classic Prisoner’s dilemma, with strategies ‘modify position’ and ‘status quo’.
What can inspire the two sides to find a ‘win-win’ situation? More specifically, what gives incentives or guarantee to the two sides that if both modify their respective stances then it would lead to peace? Here, comes the role of the political parties, which have been shadowed after the Royal coup, and the international community. Both these players have the same agenda of peaceful solution to the crisis and restoration of democracy in Nepal. The political parties and the international community can play a vital role in convincing both the players in conflict to modify their position simultaneously and break the Prisoner’s dilemma. This can lead from outcome conflict to peace.
