Malaysian politics had been played along the line of the classic 'game theory'. The game theory won the economist John Nash a Nobel Price. John Nash is the central character in the movie A Beautiful Mind, an Oscar winner. I would like to discuss Malaysian politics in the context of Nash's theory, but presented in layman language so that the ordinary person can understand how the game is played, and what are the implications.

The following illustrates what the game is all about. It takes the form of a prisoner's dilemma. Two persons Abdullah and Mohammed commit a crime. The police throw them into two separate cells. They say to each, "If you both confess, you'll get 10 years in jail. If you both stay silent, I won't have enough evidence and you'll both go free (note: assuming the crime is not political), but if only one of you confesses, I give you only five years in jail and while the other will get 15 years in jail".

Common sense would dictate that the best strategy is for both to stay silent and cooperate. This is the cooperative solution in game theory as it maximises the two players' joint welfare. But both Abdullah and Mohammed are in separate cells and cannot cooperate (or even if they do communicate somehow, they do not trust each other, or worse, both are of the untrustworthy kind ready to take advantage of any situation at the drop of the hat).

Abdullah says to himself, "If Mohammed confesses, I am better off confessing; if Mohammed stays silent, I still am better off confessing. So I am better of confessing under any condition." Mohammed think about it the same way, and concludes that he too is better off confessing. Therefore both players have the same best strategy no matter what the other chooses. This is called the dominant strategy. When both players have the same dominate strategy, it is an example of a Nash Equilibrium. The result for the prisoners is that they both get 10 years in jail. They are both worse off.

Now let's switch to 1950s and 60s when Malaysia was in the early formative years. There were several games that fitted the game theory.

Game one: look at Malaysian politics in the context of the Alliance. You have multiple players such as Umno, MIC, and MCA who realised that the best strategy for all Malaysians is to cooperate. And cooperate they did. Though Umno had the main share of political power, the other two players more or less has some important say in policy making.

Then something happened in 1969, Umno decided not to share power with the other players. Instead it wanted all of the power for itself. This is akin to one of the prisoners breaking away and not cooperating. The result is that everyone would be worse off. And we can see some of the worsened situations already: polarised communal politics, blatant discrimination and corruption.

Game two. The game in the context of MCA, and MIC. Umno decided not to share real policy-making power with MCA and MIC. From the perspectives of MCA and MIC, the dominant strategy for them would be to stop cooperating with Umno and break way from the untrustworthy 'partner'. That is what is best for them. This is their dominant strategy according to the game theory. Instead, they opted to stick with their 'partner' Umno, equivalent to getting the worse jail sentence of 15 years in the example of the prisoner's dilemma. The result: these parties are sidelined and the communities that they represent are marginalised.

Game three. From the perspective of minority Malaysian politics. Who are the players? MCA, DAP, Gerakan, MIC, and numerous other parties that represent Indians, Chinese and other minorities in Sabah and Sarawak. After Umno decided not to share real power with the minority groups, the dominant strategy for the minority would be to break away from Umno and stick together among themselves.

This is equivalent to confessing in the prisoner's dilemma. Since Mohammed had already confessed, Abdullah's best strategy is to confess too. Tit for tat. Otherwise, Abdullah would get the worse jail term of all. As we all know, MCA, Gerakan and MIC chose the worst strategy for themselves. MCA, Gerakan, MIC etc chose not to stick together with DAP, but instead played along with Umno.

Another way to look at this is to keep Umno out of the picture and ask what is the best strategy for MCA, Gerakan, MIC and DAP? As in the prisoner's dilemma, the best strategy for them is to cooperate. However, the dominant strategy for each of them is to cheat and rat on each other, as we all know that is what MCA, Gerakan, and MIC did. They confessed and ratted on the minority as a group because they would be better off individually. As a group, they picked the worst strategy. For the minorities, this is the worst outcome.

Game four. Opposition politics. PAS verses BA and DAP. The best strategy is for them to cooperate. However, since the dominant strategy is for each of the players to betray each other and grab more than its share of power, PAS naturally picked to break away from the pack and played religious politics to the detriments of common good among the opposition.