Games Politicans Play

Imagine the following game:

1.       Players: A set of privileged players. Being a player in this game is itself considered as an honor and a reward.

2.       Rules of the game:

a)      The game is played at three levels: the first level is termed as a senior level, the second level a middle level, and the third, a junior.

b)      Playing this game well would need the player to spend a significant amount of time and draw attention of a wide variety of critics: thus, expend energy that the player could have profitably deployed elsewhere. There is no reward for playing the game well other than retaining the player’s current level.

c)       Playing this game in a mediocre fashion, e.g. just turning out for the game without performing anything leads to either the player retaining his/her level or earning a promotion to the next level.

d)      Playing this game in a really, really bad manner, e.g. screwing up everything and being a complete disaster leads to at most a demotion to the next level, but does not strip the player of any of his/her honors: you are still a player in the game.

3.       Question: If you are a player playing this game, what would be your strategy to maximize your payoff?

Applying the basic principles of Game theory, one can conclude that a winning strategy is to be a non-performer: you conserve your energy and it’s possible that you earn a promotion. The worst you could do is to retain your level. Screwing up is a sub-optimal strategy, and playing the game very well is the worst strategy: there’s no gain, but you are sure to spend lot of your time and energy and perhaps make a few enemies.

Such a game was recently played out in wide media attention: it’s called the game of Union Cabinet expansion. Consider the strategy of someone like Vilasrao Deshmukh or Mamata Banerjee. The most flattering term used to describe their performance as Union Minster is ‘mediocre’. Both Ms. Banerjee and Mr. Deshmukh were rewarded for their non-performance: Ms. Banerjee got to retain her high-profile Railway portfolio, where as Mr. Deshmukh got promoted to ‘Rural Affairs’, a department that has the highest outlay in the Union Budget after Defense. Disasters like KPS Gill and Jaipal Reddy were demoted, but are still Union Ministers.

Given such rules of the game, is it any wonder why there is a huge governance deficit? The system discourages your from being a performer, but offers you lot of incentives to do nothing. No wonder people like Vilasrao Deshmukh thrive in our political landscape. At worst, the system also throws disgusting ironies, like Mr. Deshmukh, who led the state with the highest number of farm suicides and is a known protector of a loan sharks, getting to be a Rural Affairs minister.

When politicians play games, we, the people, are the biggest losers.

Update: I showed the above toy game (via e-mail) to Prof. Ken Binmore. Prof. Binmore is best known for designing a telecom auction (without any scams) that made $35 Billion for the British taxpayer.

Prof. Binmore asked me to rewrite the game 'so that there is a reward under (b) other than retaining one's position. Perhaps a large reward, but one that is only obtained with a small enough probability that your analysis remains correct for players who are sufficiently risk averse. You could then ask yourself whether the players who choose the risky strategy do seem to be risk loving in other contexts.'

I did so, and it turns out the Professor is right: the system forces the players in (b) above to seek for rewards (e.g. telecom auctions, defense contracts) outside their stated duties so as to continue to play the game. The system not only promotes mediocrity, it also encourages players to be corrupt.