Analysis: The Prisoner's Dilemma
1. A) The Prisoner’s Dilemma – a classic theoretical model representing how rational individual actions may lead to seemingly illogical results. To illustrate this we need to look no further than the relations between Saudi Arabia and the other OPEC members, starting from the 1980s, through the oil crisis of in the 90s and up until this point. This will allow us to take a peek at the “game theory” behind political decisions in a context of a repeated game, the consequences of mistrust and miscommunication and will show us when actors can get better results.
OPEC accounts for about 40% of the world’s oil production with Saudi Arabia, responsible for 13% of the world’s supply. This makes the organization the most influential actor on the oil …show more content…
As you have clearly shown your sympathies towards a system, that has a high capacity to adopt policies, I would suggest picking one, where fewer actors have the ability to block the decision-making process and legislation – in other words, a veto player. That is the only way to guarantee maximum flexibility of the system. In these turbulent times perhaps that is what a country needs – immediate decisiveness in the face of constant change. I must also note that this will avoid gridlock in the future. The ultimate representation of that would be an absolute monarchy where the ruler would pick and choose how to act without anyone else’s consent. I do, however, think that that, monarchies are a dying breed, plus your citizens will not be too happy about it since the quality of monarchs is, often times, a sheer roll of the dice. That being said, you may opt for a system with just one veto player – be it in the face of another party, a coalition partner or another institution (a president figure, congress, a chamber). That way you will preserve the balance of power while having the very high capacity of making decisions – you must simply overcome the resistance of that veto player. In fact that should come naturally – if it is a coalition partner, then you should be able to reach a consensus and if it is an opposing party, you shouldn’t be that ideologically different from one another, since swinging to the extremes will lose more voters, than it wins, so it is likely you will be able to work things
OPEC accounts for about 40% of the world’s oil production with Saudi Arabia, responsible for 13% of the world’s supply. This makes the organization the most influential actor on the oil …show more content…
As you have clearly shown your sympathies towards a system, that has a high capacity to adopt policies, I would suggest picking one, where fewer actors have the ability to block the decision-making process and legislation – in other words, a veto player. That is the only way to guarantee maximum flexibility of the system. In these turbulent times perhaps that is what a country needs – immediate decisiveness in the face of constant change. I must also note that this will avoid gridlock in the future. The ultimate representation of that would be an absolute monarchy where the ruler would pick and choose how to act without anyone else’s consent. I do, however, think that that, monarchies are a dying breed, plus your citizens will not be too happy about it since the quality of monarchs is, often times, a sheer roll of the dice. That being said, you may opt for a system with just one veto player – be it in the face of another party, a coalition partner or another institution (a president figure, congress, a chamber). That way you will preserve the balance of power while having the very high capacity of making decisions – you must simply overcome the resistance of that veto player. In fact that should come naturally – if it is a coalition partner, then you should be able to reach a consensus and if it is an opposing party, you shouldn’t be that ideologically different from one another, since swinging to the extremes will lose more voters, than it wins, so it is likely you will be able to work things