Why optimal outcomes remain the greatest political impossibility
The title of this article might sound a little controversial, but it is the reality. The entire idea of achieving an optimal outcome is a distant dream. This applies to power in international relations, the reason communism failed, and why we have been unable to eradicate poverty despite an abundance of resources. Selfish behaviour will invariably lead to a sub-optimal outcome, which is why it is unrealistic to glorify the utopian idea of equality. The contours of the political landscape have decisively altered, and the decline of the Communist Left Front was inevitable.
To illuminate this peculiar truth and an unconventional view, one must understand the Prisoner’s Dilemma and its application in the real world. Here is the central dilemma. Imagine you have been apprehended for a crime along with another individual. You are put in separate cells, and each of you has been accused of the crime. Now, if you defect and snitch on the other prisoner while they keep quiet, you receive a short sentence - let’s say two months - and they get incarcerated for eight years. If you both defect and rat each other out, you both receive a sentence lasting four years. If you both refuse to speak to the authorities, you both receive one year in prison for obstructing justice. The most rational thing to do is to keep quiet, but you also do not want the maximum sentence, so you snitch. The other individual does the same, and both of you get locked up for four years. Now, this may seem like a theoretical dilemma, but its application in international relations is wide-ranging.
Prisoner’s dilemma payoff structure
Charles Kindleberger, an eminent economic historian, postulated the Hegemonic Stability Theory. Quite simply, it says that a vital prerequisite for stability in the international financial and trade regimes is a hegemon (superpower) that induces stability and balance in a world fraught with national self-interest. It guides the tenor of international relations. Without the existence of a hegemon, the world would plunge into a rudderless era fraught with diverging concerns and inherent conflict. Think about it. The existence of a hegemon diminishes the chances of a Prisoner’s Dilemma.
When we had a bi-polar world, the world was engulfed in a crisis: the Cold War. Now, one could argue that the Cold War was a battle of ideology, but even if the two superpowers had similar resources, cooperation would have been an impossibility. How would the contours of international relations change if each state decided to cooperate? Why do states not collaborate effectively when it is in their best interest to do so? This leads to a security dilemma and contributes to a profound disconnect in aligning international foreign policies. It is indeed a tragedy of rational behaviour. States will always prioritise themselves over collective security. And because states prioritise their own security, this leads to a very costly outcome. Some states will always be endowed with more resources, and equality is an impossibility.
That is why communism is a distant dream. When Karl Marx posited his theory of Dialectical Materialism and the establishment of a communist society, it was a theoretical perspective. It incorporated Hegel’s dialectical method, which focused on change through inherent contradictions, with a philosophy focusing on materialism (matter). The central idea he spearheaded was that through contradictions in society, class differences would emerge and the capitalist model would make room for communism. But communism requires collective cooperation, yet individual self-interest will lead to collective failure. Again, it is the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Even a contentious and widely debated topic like eradicating poverty is misguided. Everyone can clearly visualise the collective benefit of lower poverty rates. It mitigates the extent of crime and stimulates productivity, thereby benefiting the economy. But this requires spending money, and governments do not cooperate, again hoping others would bear the cost. We are again left with a sub-optimal scenario. Lamentably, this is a vicious cycle. Rampant poverty severely damages the structure needed to foster collective action to alleviate it. So, the pertinent question is: Is there a way out of this lingering conundrum? Theoretically yes, but practically no. The world does have credible and robust mechanisms and institutions to facilitate cooperation, but there is always a trade-off. When it comes to international relations, repeated interactions may assist in fostering cooperation and trust. But then, states today do not just negotiate on one issue. There is a wide array of issues that need to be addressed, and in this trade-off cooperation inevitably dwindles. Even systems designed to address uncertainties and disagreements crumble. Regarding communism, it is a lost cause anyway.
If we want to address poverty reduction, then the world has made strides. Iterated, as in repeated, interactions, a legal framework, transparency, and mandatory taxation or contributions like Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) have played a pivotal role in addressing poverty reduction. But curtailing the social mobility of defectors — people who encourage corruption — remains an everlasting challenge. So perhaps here, the goal could be promoting equity (fairness) rather than equality (sameness), because let us face the fact that not everyone is born equal, and if we put everyone on the same level playing field, some will inevitably outpace the rest.
The writer is a national security analyst; Views presented are personal.
