Sabado, Hulyo 23, 2011

Prisoner's Dilemma = Rizal Law


The prisoner’s dilemma helped explain the outcome of one of the most controversial bills in history called the Rizal Law also known as Republic Act 1425. Way back in 1955, before the Law was passed, it was still known as the Nolil-Fili Bill. Those who were pro-Rizal Law included the nationalist members of the Congress, the House of Representatives, Philippine Public School Teachers and even Emilio Aguinaldo. Those who were anti-Rizal Law included Catholic schools, members of the Congress who are related to a clergy, clergies, priests and bishops. Basically, this was a huge issue between the government and the Catholic Church. 

The Noli-Fili Bill proposed to make Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo a compulsory reading matter in all schools to reawaken the sense of nationalism of the Filipinos, to open their eyes and to make them feel proud of their nationality and history. Also, Jose Rizal serves as an inspiring source of patriotism and his works should develop the Filipinos’ moral character and teach the duties as a citizen of the Philippines. The Catholic Church was against this because Jose Rizal’s works attacked the Church during the Spanish rule wherein he violated the Catholic Canon Law on heresy and schism.  When the prisoner’s dilemma is applied, we could find how behavior motivated by self-interest might lead to outcomes that are sub-optimal between the government and the Catholic Church.

Two possible actions that either side should do are to cooperate with each other or think of themselves to get their self-interest. The government could ignore the protests of the Catholic Church and just go on with the approval of the Noli-Fili Bill or they could just cooperate with the church and find a solution that both of them could agree on. The Catholic Church can threaten the government by closing down their Catholic schools or also, they could just cooperate with the government and find a solution that they could both agree on.

Both opposing sides would not want to be in a position where they will not benefit from a choice they have made. Either one wins or one loses but there is also a choice of stalemate, when both choose to cooperate and win at the same time. The two individuals have different preference rankings over their possible outcomes and this can be demonstrated with the use of the Prisoner’s Dilemma.

There are four options: Win-win, lose-win, win-lose, lose-lose.

The most preferred ranking of the government, being the one who controls and has the power of everything in the country, is to get the bill passed as soon as possible. Knowing the government, they would pay any amount to get what they want and would not care (usually) of what happens to their opponent especially since it’s the Catholic Church since they should not be interfering in this situation (Church vs. State). Their second preferred ranking would probably be to cooperate with the Catholic Church since they cannot get the bill passed with another high power that is protesting against them. There are even those who are part of the government who are protesting against them (government officials who are related to clergies). Their third preferred ranking would be not doing anything about it anymore because I think they would rather not do anything than let the Catholic Church win since they want the Noli-Fili Bill to be passed. Losing is the last resort and probably not even an option.

On the side of the Catholic Church, they do not have the power to control the people but I think their first preference ranking is that both sides will win. Cooperation is the key so that the government and the Catholic Church will benefit from the possible outcome. They can add or take out something from the bill and make certain changes that can make it agreeable to both individuals. Not passing the bill would be their second preference because they are really against the Anti-Catholic Jose Rizal and his “errors of church dogma.” Their third preference would be not doing anything about it since nothing will happen and their least preferable action would be letting the government win and there is no way that they will make that happen.

In the end, the bill was finally passed and it ended as a win-win situation because the church finally accepted for it to be passed provided that, with the government’s cooperation, changes should be made in the Noli-Fili bill. The Noli-Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo shall be taught in schools in their unexpurgated version. The Noli-Fili Bill was approved, it became the Rizal Law and this showed that both individuals moved to the equilibrium of “Defect, Defect” to “Cooperate, Cooperate.” 

In this situation, the government and the Catholic Church considered each others’ reasons on the bill so that the outcome moved towards a positive condition. For the Catholic Church, they had a pretty personal reason on why they did not want it to be passed. They did not want their reputation to be ruined because of Jose Rizal nor did they want the students to learn about how the Church took advantage and abused the early Filipinos. As for the government, they wanted to bill to be passed to bring about nationalism in the Philippines. They weighed each others’ reasons and gained each others’ trust in coming up with a solution. In cooperation, trust and restoring right relationships must be present in order to be able to pursue self-interest and at the same time reach a mutually-beneficial outcome.


▲▲▲


Walang komento:

Mag-post ng isang Komento