Wednesday, October 20, 2010
The Diplomatic Risk of World Politics
Diplomatic risk and world politics are similar in many ways. The heads of state have a primary objective and they *usually* have advisers and diplomats who make alliances and help guide the heads of state. There is also a populous that supports or detests the head of state and has the ability to overthrow the head of state. However, unlike in diplomatic risk, in the real world, there's no real "winner." Yes, countries win wars, but there isn't a real game to win because world politics never stops. Diplomatic risk, on the other hand, ends the moment PTJ tells us that we have to stop playing and discuss the readings he's assigned us. As much as we want to keep playing, because the process of winning is more fun than the victory itself, we will stop and world politics will continue. I guess that is one of the main differences, or at least the most important to me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with what you're saying about how similar the team or country relationships are in relation to world politics. The team dynamics are similar to what leaders have to deal with when making decisions and how people help make the choices. I didn't make the connection about the recall factor being like the citizens of a country, though. In my blog, I had said that a problem was the fact that you don't have the popular support for decisions that you deal with in the real world. However, the rest of the team can serve as an advisor/population mix that has a say on what is going on.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first read what you said what no one winning in world politics, I immediately disagreed. However, I get your point about world politics never ending. In specific situations (which is what I would equate the game of Risk more to), there are clear winners and losers (mostly in conflicts). There may be a winner one day, but that victory isn't permanent - world politics can change and countries have another challenge to confront. Still, I would argue that throughout time, you can point to countries that were "winning" at dominating at world politics as a whole for a period of time (ex. United States now, Roman Empire, etc.).
Couldn't one argue that the game of Risk doesn't stop either? If Professor Jackson was to assign us new objectives, which in the "real world" would be a change in initiatives/doctrine, the game could continue on. Also, even if the objectives are met, you could continue to play the game and fight to maintain the objective/goal. This is much like the aim of some nations in the "real world" that fight to maintain their identity, sovereignty, or political agenda. For example, the United States looks to maintain its democratic system of government. America is already a democracy, the nation simply fights to maintain the democratic principles.
ReplyDelete