Game Theory and Pakistan

An intriguing new model for looking at the problems of South Asia, I have to say. And, as ever, some stuff I agree with, other stuff less so.

1. I`d always been under the (obviously wrong!) interpretation of a zero-sum game as being a lose-lose scenario.. nuclear war being an example. Needless to say, my future usage will be in terms of the definition you`ve given here.

2. *Unfortunately, from the Islamists perspective, a non-zero win-win situation never materialized between Islam and Pakistan or Muslims and Desis. *

If by Islamists you mean the obscurantist forces that have been plaguing us for centuries, I disagree. The Islamists would not want a win-win situation, but solely a win-lose one (guess who`s be `winning`!). That not available, they`d prefer the dog-in-the-manger lose-lose approach. `Win-win` would imply their willingness to grant dignity and equality to those of other faiths, and if they were willing to do so, we wouldn`t have the problem we do with them.

3. *If politicians win, banks lose; if Generals win, democracy loses; if mullahs win, humanity loses, if Islamist win, Pakistan loses and if Taliban win, women lose---no win-win situation anywhere in sight. *

Ouch..

4. The concept of good-versus-evil is prevalent in every culture.. no child is taught anywhere in the world that there are shades of gray. That is something they learn as they grow, with the caveat that their mind be allowed to develop rather than be limited. Thus the perpetuation of stereotypes all over the world.

5. In terms of international relations, economics etc.. isn`t it a zero-sum game the second that your interests are in competition with someone elses, regardless of whether in peace or war?

6. The solutions that you present here.. are all in themselves zero-sum games, because one side has to lose. Emancipate the peasant, and the feudal loses. Secularize the society, and religion loses (not necessarily a valid argument, but merely a possibility). So before we reach a lvel of being able to play win-win games, we would have a final round of a zero-sum game. With different people supporting different players.

7. `Quick death penalty`.. with the caveat, of course, that law has become truly just. But why stop just with the honour killers and the stove burners? How about those who make fake medicines? The drug dealers? The exploiters?

8. This is interesting.. you seem to be advocating strong local bodies, the same thing that the current government is advocating. Where do you feel the weaknesses are in their plans as they have been made, and how can such things be rectified? People jeer that the vested interests would be able to manipulate the local bodies to their ends.. so do we need some sort of strict purging before switching to such a method of government? Who do you feel would be in a better position to overturn the sacred cows.. a `democratic``heavy mandate` or the boots in cadence?

With luck, this forum can avoid becoming a slanging match for a while longer..

ANOTHER PATHETIC ATTEMPT,

Here is another pathetic attempt to accomodate TNT, situate pakistan in softer hue, rewrite history.

. ``Many Desis hoped to turn their loss into a non-zero sum, win-win situation by converting to the ways of the victors``.

Have the courage to tell the truth, those who converted were hindus, look into your own religion, what to do with the kafirs and you will know why they converted.

Another classic example of what education does to the dishonest, hides the truth in verbiage.

What convertion to islam did is to change death into life, it was not win-win situation, it was life and death situation.

Another Pak.com stuff, couched in psuedo mathematics, `game theory` , my foot.

Sameer,

Thanks for a very interesting article. One thing to remember is that until recently, mankind has always been motivated by zero-sum games as compared to win-win games. This is because it is natural to think that there is a finite pie and one has to grab the greatest share. It is not unique to Islamists only. Why do you think men fight wars, colonize continents, enslave others etc. ? In fact, we desis perfected zero-sum games by developing and practicing the caste system. Heck, evolution itself is the ultimate zero-sum game where there are clear winners who survive and losers who die out. It is ruthless but that is how nature works.

As civilization is developing, man is slowly realizing that a win-win game can actually be quite beneficial as well. The religions of Christianity and Islam initiated the concepts of win-win games by promoting universal brotherhood of all human beings. The western world started understanding and incorporating win-win games after the end of World War II. Now we have reached a point where everyone frowns upon war and the focus is on globalization, trade, economic growth etc. which are win-win games. The US is leading this effort and is willing to use force to enable the win-win games to continue. If someone like Saddam or Milosevic tries to disrupt it, they face the wrath of US. Indeed a lot of Pakistanis were surprised to see the christian NATO forces attacking fellow christian Serbs to protect muslim Albanians.

The muslim world including Pakistan refuses to acknowledge the benefits of a win-win game with non-muslims. This contrasts with early muslims who actively interacted with others. Today, the muslim world wants to erect fences and barriers. People like the Taliban destroy TV sets to allow isolate of the Afghan people. Thus the muslim world is out of touch with what is happening with the rest of the world. As a result they are suffering more.

Sameer,

At a glance, your analysis seems to be quite accurate. And I agree with the gist of your essay. I like your writing style, and your post-modern approach of looking at Pakistan’s problems is interesting. I believe that your game theory is applicable in most third world countries. However, based on your observation that we must find solutions to suit our own desi culture, style, and needs, I must question your idea of a revolutionary change. Correct me if I am wrong, but I can’t recall a revolutionary social change (similar to what we witnessed in SE Asian countries, for example) to have ever occurred in the history of subcontinent… Changes forced down our throats by dictators are not revolutionary social changes because the society, as a whole, did not enter into a meaningful social contract. This has resulted in further degeneration of some good Desi values. People of subcontinent are also very skeptical of, and resistant to any change that involves meddling with dominant discourse or dominant ideology. Grand narratives in these areas are deep rooted. So, I reckon that it won’t be easy to invoke social pragmatism when it comes to religion (for example).

“Decentralize all authorities, make every little community empowered with most of the governance left to local elected representatives. Create a national database to effectively collect revenues and land redistribution according to agricultural reforms. Abolish curriculum wing completely and let the natural human goodness dictate the curriculum for each school or school district.”

Your idea of a mini narrative in the above areas, provided it does not threaten the grand narrative, has a greater chance of success.

Will read your essay once more, and talk to you in detail about some of your other ideas.

Take care.

Sameer is an outstanding contributor on the Chowk. He has now made an interesting effort to come to grips with the long history and the current dilemma of Pakistan with the help of the Game Theory. A single reading of Sameer’s article is not sufficient to fully appreciate its power. I, however, am not convinced that a focus on either zero-sum games or non-zero sum games provides adequate understanding/explanation of the complex history of the Subcontinent vis a vis Muslims (and Islam). Even for more recent Pakistani history, Sameer argues that “Most of the politicians, bureaucrats, military and feudal in Pakistan have been deeply rooted in the philosophy of zero-sum games. Their mindsets do not think of win-win situations.” I think, this statement over-simplifies the complex nature and interrelationships between the army, bureaucracy, and bourgeoisie. The persistent ruling alliance in Pakistan in itself suggests the existence of a cooperative (non-zero sum) strategy. I, however, agree with Sameer that Pakistan needs a new vision, a reconstructed sense of identity, and a major political reform.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

I have intentionally given a very brief introduction of Game theory. In detail, it is lot more complex and very useful. Generally speaking, zero-sum games are competitive whereas non-zero sum games are cooperative. The cooperation could be intentional or unintentional. For instance, buying a car unintentionally help car manufacturer, corporation and share holder although it was not the principal reason for a person to buy a car. Instead of cooperation, perhaps, potential synergy is the right word to correctly describe non-zero sumness. Most IT prople are more familiar with it because it is the backbone of many computer simulation dealing with forcasting as well as most video games programming, where cooperation is rewarded and non-cooperation is punished.

Now back to Pakistan. Let me make it clear that by sidelining the most expensive player, I mean to secularize Pakistan. It is by no mean a suggestion for people to eliminate their personal religion. I am talking about Islamic politics, to be precise. The Islamic politics has been used all along in the history of Pakistan, more for abusing than for any good cause and it is giving bad name to Islam. Once out of politics, it can not be used as an instrument of abuse, more or less like Turkey, Malaysia and many other Muslim majority nations.

Asfand: It is good to have an ideology especially when it has a synergy with the identity. But ideology itself niether make us more patriotic nor it puts meal on the table. In my opinion, love Pakistan (thanks temporal) is much more attractive and timely than an ideology rooted in TNT. I will be glad to read your point of view, particularly if it is different than mine.

temporal: Pal, you lost to Asfand in firing the first volley. Yes Dallal is quite suitable word to describe the collective mindset of elite or what Bilal Ahmad would call ``military-bourgeoisie-feudal alliance``. I am sure you understand I am not criticizing each and every individual. There are actually a lot of good people but due to collective mindset, they are sooner or later pulled down. It is like playing the central Asian game of Buz-kashi where horsemen fight viciously over a stuffed goat hyde and in doing so sometimes rip the hide with the stuffing scattering all over. Well Pakistan is the hyde, stuffing its people and horsemen, the elite. Pakistani politicians are like those horsemen, they seem to be competing fiercely but behind the wall, they are pals just like the Buz-Kkashi players. They freely socialize with each other, intermarry and have joint businesses but put up a virtually true rooster fight show for the masses. You should read an Urdu book titled, ``Siasat ke Firown`` (Pharoahs of Politics) which describes how so many of these well known families are inter-related through marriages.

Kant Patel: You are absolutely right about our lax tropical attitude and no wonder we will always be the loser. That is why I have used the word revolution in this article. Nothing will change as long as people do not make themselves heard. The public did not have a dog in any of the political, or otherwise, fights I have mentioned. Why did they remain indiffernt when all this nonscense was taking place? I suppose it is more like a fatalistic attitude, built up through a long history of irrelevence to governance.

SameerJB: Good effort. I shall definitely come back with something to say. Right now I am concerned with your introduction as a ``scientist``. I have followed your posts now for some time and should very much like to know if you are a social scientist, natural or physical scientist, biologist, or, finally, a computer -- IT, Cyber, Programming, consulting, developing -- scientist.

You may choose not to respond to this query as extra-topical, which would be alright with me. I, too, shall understand the unforgivable extra-topicality of the query. Best Wishes.

Yours etc.

CJ

I agree with temporal about the Dallal(Dalal?)Factor. There is another one a Halal Factor. The reluctant players are People. The difference here is for this one the game is loose loose and never a chance to win. No matter who plays what game, they are destined to play only one aspect, albeit a negative one, of the `non-zero sum` games. Kudarat (or is it Allah) ne kya khel khelai he!

Sameer:
MODIFIED DALLAL FACTOR


Welcome to Chowk. I have been reading your various interacts with interest. And was wondering when you would pen something here.

The game theory should be modified when considering Pakistan.

In practice, regardless of the three situations, win-win, lose-lose or win-lose, there is one group that never loses. Hence the ‘dallal’ factor. These professional dallals or brokers always win. No matter who wagers what on whom; no matter who wins or loses, these beaurecrats act as the gaming house dallals, and gather or garnish their take regardless.

Zooming in on Pakistan, we are hard pressed to find one instance when their power was ever affected. It matters the least who is in power, or what democratic or autocratic game is played.

Sometimes I wonder if even a Khalkhali would have cowed them down. And what is more perturbing is that some irreligious big beards are vicariously joining them.

More later, keep writing.

regards,

temporal

Good article, at least you presented solutions to some of the existing problems Pakistan is facing. However I like to know about your ideas on what should be the ideology of Pakistan should be? Islamic, Democratic Republic or something else.