Players take actions anticipating their future moves. Where is the point to make a move if it does not take you further? What is the point to make a move when you lost already?
Future moves include as well your opponent moves. In economics, players reach a Nash-equilibrium when they can clearly identify the best response of each players in the game. A poor strategist will ignore the best moves of his opponent by attempting a blockage of some sort. Such a strategy works when the blockage is not anticipated by the opponents. Every player must be aware of the possible actions combined with different strategies. Every player must anticipate the outcomes of these actions. You are a poor opposition leader if you don't consider the best response of the ruling president. I cannot help it, but to take note of how poor politicians in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) tend to be every time they play.
These politicians are doomed to fail as they are overconfident. In 2006, the country adopted a new constitution imposing the presidential terms to 2 of 5 years long. The acting president of that time sign in law the constitution and made it public. The acting president became president Joseph Kabila, and went out in public to declare his faith in the new constitution.
I did read the constitution and found good and bad things in it. Among the good things, it expressively exhorted the citizens of the DRC to resist against any attempt for a dictatorship move. There are few constitutions in the world that give its people a licence to resist. Another good thing is that it is impossible to modify the constitution regarding the institutional form of the state, and the presidential terms. Among the bad things was the denial of citizenship to Congolese who adopted another citizenship.
Nine years later, the president and his team are showing all the signs of players who want to cheat. Their argument is that the constitution is not longer adapted to the current situation of the country. Clearly, the argument is that at the time the constitution was sign in law, the country was facing rebellious movements. What they really mean is that their hand was forced to sign whatever they want to change today. Such an argument is flawed, and intellectually dishonest. It is in contradiction with the notion that the DRC is an independent state. Once the president signs a text in law, blames should not be on the process. Another serious contradiction is that the acting president became the president, which implies that he agreed on the terms of the constitution. Denying the terms of the constitution that made him president means that he must have resigned as a president. He cannot possible deny the source of his power when still president.
Of course the president and his team can play another card. They can ignore the constitution to force a new republic or monarchy or whatever suitable for them to remain in power as long as the cost is lower than the gain. It means that they should not change the constitution, they should kill it. The trouble is that if killed, the citizens have the legal authority to resuscitate it. The constitution gives them the licence to resist any one who kills the constitution.
The current tension in the country reflects the move of the ruling president. I don't know what is the outcome of such a move. One thing for sure, this move was anticipated by the members of the opposition. Worse the move is anticipated by the international community. It remains to see if the move will not lead the current president to a bloody end.
Future moves include as well your opponent moves. In economics, players reach a Nash-equilibrium when they can clearly identify the best response of each players in the game. A poor strategist will ignore the best moves of his opponent by attempting a blockage of some sort. Such a strategy works when the blockage is not anticipated by the opponents. Every player must be aware of the possible actions combined with different strategies. Every player must anticipate the outcomes of these actions. You are a poor opposition leader if you don't consider the best response of the ruling president. I cannot help it, but to take note of how poor politicians in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) tend to be every time they play.
These politicians are doomed to fail as they are overconfident. In 2006, the country adopted a new constitution imposing the presidential terms to 2 of 5 years long. The acting president of that time sign in law the constitution and made it public. The acting president became president Joseph Kabila, and went out in public to declare his faith in the new constitution.
I did read the constitution and found good and bad things in it. Among the good things, it expressively exhorted the citizens of the DRC to resist against any attempt for a dictatorship move. There are few constitutions in the world that give its people a licence to resist. Another good thing is that it is impossible to modify the constitution regarding the institutional form of the state, and the presidential terms. Among the bad things was the denial of citizenship to Congolese who adopted another citizenship.
Nine years later, the president and his team are showing all the signs of players who want to cheat. Their argument is that the constitution is not longer adapted to the current situation of the country. Clearly, the argument is that at the time the constitution was sign in law, the country was facing rebellious movements. What they really mean is that their hand was forced to sign whatever they want to change today. Such an argument is flawed, and intellectually dishonest. It is in contradiction with the notion that the DRC is an independent state. Once the president signs a text in law, blames should not be on the process. Another serious contradiction is that the acting president became the president, which implies that he agreed on the terms of the constitution. Denying the terms of the constitution that made him president means that he must have resigned as a president. He cannot possible deny the source of his power when still president.
Of course the president and his team can play another card. They can ignore the constitution to force a new republic or monarchy or whatever suitable for them to remain in power as long as the cost is lower than the gain. It means that they should not change the constitution, they should kill it. The trouble is that if killed, the citizens have the legal authority to resuscitate it. The constitution gives them the licence to resist any one who kills the constitution.
The current tension in the country reflects the move of the ruling president. I don't know what is the outcome of such a move. One thing for sure, this move was anticipated by the members of the opposition. Worse the move is anticipated by the international community. It remains to see if the move will not lead the current president to a bloody end.
No comments:
Post a Comment