Game Theory Why did Apartheid End?

A Solution Developed from the Concept of Game Theory

James Michener was a history professor at the University of Texas and a widely read chronicler of different periods of history. Michener was largely a novelist, but his novels were based on factual information that was peopled by fictional, but representative, main characters and some historical figures. In a book called "The Covenant," Michener detailed the history of the nation of South Africa from prehistoric times up until the late 1970's. In his book, the author spent a great deal of time discussing how the practice of apartheid came about, and why it continued for more than 300 years (culminating in the institutionalization of the practice in 1948 (Lodberg)).

This paper examines why the South African government chose to end the practice of apartheid according to the rules expressed in game theory.

The Game

At the beginning of the course (Lecture 2: Normal Form Games) the concept of game theory was defined, and parameters were set by which a situation could be analyzed using the theory. The first parameter was that there is a set of players who are the decision makers, and they can be countable or uncountable. The second part of the definition is that the game is played using a set of strategies which are the decisions and actions of the players. Finally, there has to be some payoff for the players to play the game.

The chosen game looks complex, but for this short paper it will be highly simplified. The players can be placed in three primary groups: The white ruling government that existed in South Africa; the mixed ethnicity group of natives, coloreds and Asians; and, the international community. The different strategies used by the players were to enact a system whereby the four different groups that existed in the country were segregated into their own communities that lived by separate rules, the non-white ethnicities that protested and disrupted the "harmony" of the...

The payoff for the ruling class was that they maintained racial and religious purity, and that they alone ruled the country. The mixed ethnic group protested and disrupted the decisions made by the whites because they desired equality and freedom. The international community recognized the human rights violations occurring in the country and desired to further the interests of the mixed-ethnicity inhabitants of the area. For the purposes of this paper, the decision tree will follow the basic decision for the whites of whether to continue or discontinue apartheid, the non-whites of the country to protest which could result in jail time or freedom if the decision they have made is successful, and the international community's options of pressure through sanctions or leaving the country alone and allowing the status quo to continue.
Game Type

It would seem, from the information just given, that the objectives of each of the players was known and that everyone at the board (so to speak) had a clear view of what the other player offered. However, this is not actually true. The whites assumed, even though there were worldwide protests and they had been banned from many international sporting competitions (The Economist) that they had the best interests of the country at heart. They believed that the white rulers were caretakers of the other races, and that they had a God-given imperative to act as they did (Lodberg). The rulers were also of the opinion that they knew what was best for their country and ignored the international pressure. The ethnic groups living in South Africa made the assumption that the whites enjoyed cruelty, and that they acted as they did only because of the power they exercised through a powerful army and police force. Because international coverage was not allowed for these people, they were not able to see the work that was being done on their behalf around the world either. The international…