This marks the fourth installment of my series on problems facing international development as explained through game theory (with some artistic license on the idea of game theory). As always I must warn readers that this post is quite academic and not nearly as fun to read as the rest of the blog. If you found your way into this sentence by accident, I am kindly pointing out the exit.
In this post I will examine the complex inner workings of the children’s game Rock-Paper-Scissors and compare it to the fragile and necessary democratic government check and balance system supported by a free press. I will also cover the concept of zero-sum games.
The game Rock-Paper-Scissors is simple, elegant, a classic. Two players choose one of three options simultaneously. Rock, Paper or Scissors? That is the question. Rock defeats Scissors, Scissors defeats Paper, and Paper defeats Rock. If both players make the same choice the game is a tie.
Or to put it into a decision matrix:
It is no accident that Rock-Paper-Scissors ends up in almost every textbook on game theory. There is a surprising level of complexity at work here.
First, you must play the game with simultaneous moves; otherwise it doesn’t work. If the game is sequential, whoever plays first will lose. If I have to play first and I choose Scissors, then you choose Rock, you win. If I have to play first, you win. If you have to play first, I win.
Second, the game is a zero-sum game. When Player A wins a point it is the same as Player B losing a point. If you add +1 and –1 together you get zero. When you sum the scores from both players the total will be zero in a zero-sum game. The dangerous thing about zero-sum games is that you can only gain at the expense of the other player. In a zero-sum game you must become adversaries.
Third, the game rewards erratic behavior and punishes predictability. If you always play Rock, then I will know to play Scissors. If you never play Rock, then I will always play Scissors. I can never lose by playing Scissors (if you never play Rock, and Scissors vs. Scissors is a tie) and on occasion I will win against Paper.
Another beautiful thing about Rock-Paper-Scissors is that you cannot be ‘good’ at the game. You can be ‘bad’ at the game by being predictable, but you cannot be ‘good’ at the game. No amount of study will make you a better player.
Now here’s where I make a jump in logic. Let’s take Rock-Paper-Scissors and apply it to a social setting. Instead of Rock being a choice, Rock is now a person. Same with Paper and Scissors. They live in harmony because they have achieved a social equilibrium. No one can use their personal leverage without consequences. If Rock starts attacking Scissors, Scissors has no immediate way to retaliate. Scissors will have to start attacking Paper so that Paper will start attacking Rock. When everyone is attacking everyone there is no advantage to conflict, no one can gain, everyone loses. No one in this group can gain by conflict because everyone is vulnerable to someone either directly or indirectly.
Let’s go one step further and imagine that Scissors and Paper decide to work together. After all, Scissors and Paper are crafty (thank-you. arts and crafts puns, I'm here all week). Instead of a three-player game we now have a two-player game. Rock is alone and can only play Rock whereas Scissors and Paper are a team that can choose to play Scissors or Paper (they always play Paper).
Now the contest is unfair. The team of Paper and Scissors will always win against lowly Rock. Rock versus Paper, Paper wins (Scissors cheers). Now there is a way to benefit from conflict. The team of Paper and Scissors can defeat Rock and steal Rock’s property. But wait, once Rock is removed, what is to stop Scissors from attacking Paper?
We have veered into the very hypothetical and it’s time to come back out. The point I am trying to make is that a harmonious social system can be built on mutual accountability. Furthermore, someone defecting from the system in search of personal gain can threaten that harmony.
What does this have to do with freedom of the press in developing democracies? I’m getting to that but I need to make one more connection first.
The nature of a functioning democracy is one of checks and balances. It is simple and elegant. The Rock-Paper-Scissors society lives in harmony because of checks and balances. It is simple and elegant because everyone is accountable; no one can act with impunity. Now substitute Rock-Paper-Scissors for Business-Government-Citizens.
Government regulates Business. Business employs Citizens. Citizens elect Government. Simple, elegant. More than the simple one-way power dynamics, there is also a second set of feedback loops.
SO, now every part of society is accountable. Citizens can elect Government to regulate Business, but Citizens can also boycott Business. Business can choose to hire and fire Citizens and also lobby the Government. The Government can regulate Business and is also the body that polices the Citizens.
However, just like our Rock-Paper-Scissors society from before, no one group can defend itself if the other two team up. A Government-Business team will be able to control Citizens easily. A Business-Citizens team can control Government. A Citizens-Government team can control Business.
And with that last connection made, the frame-work to discuss freedom of the press in developing democracies is set.
-
Why is a free press so important to a developing democracy? Why does its absence create so many problems for international development?
Well, the delicate balance in the ‘democracy as Rock-Paper-Scissors’ model requires something I didn’t list earlier. Something is missing: information.
People need information to act upon their interests. Government naturally collects information by way of administering its duties. Business also naturally collects information because of how vital good information is to a competitive market system. The Citizens, however, are not cohesive and do not naturally gather information on their own.
Who steps in to correct this? A Free Press.
A Free Press is necessary to keep the balance. No one needs to be a villain to throw the system out of balance, a simple lack of information will accomplish as much harm. Without a free press to supply information the citizens become vulnerable and vulnerability creates the potential to gain from conflict.
Remember, government naturally collects information, business naturally collects information, but the citizens do not. Some system must be in place to supply the citizens with information.
Political parties can provide the role of information gathering but we need to respect the difference between opinion-based editorial content and fact-based journalism. If the best source of information in a country is opinion-based, then the political discourse in that country may become overly opinion-based. Information gathering by political entities is a band-aid solution, we need something better.
A Free Press is necessary to keep the balance between government, private business, and citizens. All policies concerning freedom of speech in developing democracies should err on the side of tolerance, if the goal of that policy is to encourage democracy.
One could argue that curtailing freedom of speech is necessary to creating stability, even in a democracy. My argument, to the contrary, is that by curtailing freedom of speech the resulting lack of information also creates instability by weakening the citizens. Moreover, once the delicate balance maintained by a Free Press is lost, regaining it will be difficult.
No comments:
Post a Comment