Mao's Game

“All movements, however different in doctrine and aspiration, draw their early adherents from the same types of humanity; they all appeal to the same types of mind.
--“Not so obvious is the fact that religious and nationalist movements too can be vehicles of change. Some kind of widespread enthusiasm or excitement is apparently needed for the realization of vast and rapid change---“
                  Eric Hoffer, ‘51
----------------------------
I want, I want, I want: this is the constant chorus we hear in our hearts day in day out from the moment we pop out until we check out. Even a dog hears the same. Don’t forget your plant at the window wailing out for water and mineral nutrients.

Unfortunately we don’t always get the objects of our desires. Why is that? It is simple but profound. And like many aspects of us, we don’t take time to reflect on it. Most things are limited in supply, and others are also clamoring for the same. So, what to do? We play games.

Gaming is probably more pervasive than we are wont to admit. Unless you believe that some supernatural being put us ready made in this form, scientific evidence says that we acquired survival characteristics over millions of years. And gaming is one of those acquired traits that have become instinctive imperatives.

In gaming we do everything to get what we want: sex, food, power, you name it. We can use brute force if we think we can get away with it. Or we can use clandestine means of ruses and deceptions. Or like the hyenas (my favorite strategists and tacticians in the caliber of Sun Tzu), you can go on a joint hunt, isolate and fell a wildebeest, a thousand times your individual body weight.

The hyenas are on to something that we humans not only use it instinctively but have the added advantage of rationality, a feature of consciousness that might have arisen out of the competitive need to size up the other person in our gaming (Barash, ’03). In our evolved consciousness we are often aware that a community’s welfare also means our individual survival. So, rather than pursue only our self-interests until hell freezes over, we cooperate for the greater whole.

It is not that simple, however. I wish it were, then we would all be singing Kumbaya and smiling to one another as brothers and sisters, happy to be here in this fascinating earth. Now, if everybody pursues his or her individual interests exclusively, what we get is communal disaster. Isn’t it the reason Somali has redefined a dysfunctional nation state in the 21st century? What about the family that falls apart because of internecine bad blood? Do you know of a community that can’t get its acts together and is always complaining about how others, but themselves, from without are doing it to them?

Let us cut to the chase, and check out Mao’s gaming for the presidency. He is going to pursue it no matter what. He is the wayward alpha male hyena with the toughest jaw who takes it upon himself alone to bring down the toughest wildebeest in the plain. So, he comes up with some arcane algorithm which he only understands. The idea being that not joining the IPC pack (which all objective calculations point as, short of unforeseen occurrence, the only strategic chance probability of unseating the Mighty One) is a better strategy.

Here are some aspects of Mao’s reasoning:
1. The IPC is an outfit to promote Dr. Besigye, and not a genuine joint venture.
As a Dr Besigye’s enthusiast my response is: What is wrong with that if it helps change the political landscape? The man has paid his due more than any political operator has ever had in Uganda. His numbers are far ahead of most of the potential opposition candidates. Intuitively we should know that numbers represent reality, but illusions and dreams have a stronger hold on us to our detriment.

2. In Mao’s math Museveni will win, no matter what. It is only Mao, who has the magic wand to bring down Museveni’s tally below 50%, in which case he, Mao would then be the king maker by throwing his vaunted weight behind the opposition, coasting it to victory in a rerun.
This is pure fiction. Show me the money. Where are the polling data that supports this claim? Let us give Mao the benefit of the doubt. Supposing Mao’s scenario works at the initial round, why waste time with all the rigmarole? Something smells fishy here.

3. The IPC is a killer of parties, and Mao’s DP doesn’t want to become a dodo.
The reason the various political parties are entrenched in older democracies is a function of time. These parties have undergone all kinds of permutations to emerge into their present forms.

In business, mergers and acquisitions are germane to growth and innovations. The message being to let other synergies come into play otherwise atrophy sets in and you perish.

Many Ugandans know what it is to be free and happy—the basic purpose of life. Translated into a national aspiration, it is about democracy and dignified access to goods and services. On this altar they will sacrifice DP for the greater good. And Mao can go hang.

4. The IPC is another movement politics of yore, and we don’t need it.
Perhaps Mao uses “movement,” not in a generic but in a disparaging manner of uncle Museveni who cleverly uses words to skewer opponents in guilt by association. If so, then my brother has sunk very low. All for what—ambition?

The NRM may have been a revolutionary movement of sorts, but it never achieved a definitive national mass movement status. It is unlikely that was its aim either, since it showed its true colors in tribal chauvinism and apelike desires for trinkets (read corruption).

A movement is a collective enthusiasm, fueled by a collective desire for change. This is the only way drastic change can be made. Right now there is a national feeling that something is terribly wrong. The privileged don’t want change, and the uninformed are bewildered, uncertain that they could take control of their fate. That is why the Mighty One bullies radio stations not to air opponents who might reveal the SECRET. Now than ever we need “masters of the act of ‘religiofication’—the act of turning practical purposes into holy causes.” (Hoffer, ’51).

Apparently Mao doesn’t need a movement—only his greatness will do the trick. To which we say: Bury your head in the sand, Mr. Mao. When you wake up, with or without you, there will be a new president come 2011—we hope, and we will work on it.