Democracy, at its best, is a vast cooperative enterprise. Rival parties agree to contest fiercely, but also to respect the result. Voters, in turn, agree to accept the outcome, even when their side loses. This works not because humans are naturally selfless, but because we believe the playing field is level.

Game Theory is the branch of Economics/Social Science that studies strategic interactions (referred to as games), where the return to an agent is not just a function of what she/he does but also what others in the game are doing.

How game theory offers a clear analogy

Game theory offers a clear analogy in this issue. In the Prisoner’s Dilemma, perhaps the most cited game, two actors face the choice to cooperate or defect. If both cooperate, both benefit. If one defects while the other cooperates, the defector gains more – and the cooperator loses badly. Fearing exploitation, both often defect, producing the worst possible outcome for each.

Although the game is said to have been first developed by Albert Tucker, the mathematical structure of the game predates Tucker and it was two mathematicians – Merill Flood and Melvin Dresher – at the Rand Corporation who came up with the same. Tucker certainly invented the story illustrating the mathematics.

While the story is of course interesting, Prisoner’s Dilemma became so popular because it captures many real world interactions where there are gains to cooperation but there is a powerful incentive to free ride. Several of our social interactions, for example, citizens voting in a democracy resembles a Prisoner’s Dilemma. In these interactions while there are gains from cooperation (all of us participating in these democratic practices), strict private preferences might be to stay away and not participate.

Large elections, like the ones we have in a democracy such as India, are mostly never won or lost by a single vote. We can think of several other examples too. With countries deliberating on reducing emissions, while everyone curbing emissions might be the desirable outcome, it might be the case that any single country might found it in their benefit to deviate and emit more given that the others are cutting their emissions.

The outcome in this case would make everyone worse off. The discussion here is very similar to what is also referred to as the Tragedy of Commons, where commonly owned resources would be over-used and exploited as the private returns of usage exceed the social returns.

Research has shown how communities around the globe have avoided this trap with the help of social norms that help in building trust and drive desirable behaviour, often supported by reliable, impartial institutions that clearly define and enforce the rules of the game.

Losing trust in the rules of the game

In India’s electoral game, the Election Commission is that institution. It is meant to guarantee fairness, to make defection – in the form of fraud or manipulation – both risky and rare.

But the Prisoner’s Dilemma has a cruel twist: In the original game, in the absence of these institutions, it is perfectly rational to cheat irrespective of what others are doing. The “inferior equilibrium” sets in – both sides defect, both sides lose, and the rules become meaningless.

Lok Sabha leader of opposition Rahul Gandhi’s charge that the Election Commission is tolerating fake voters and quietly abetting the BJP is certainly worrying. There are several arguments from the press conference and the presentation that merits attention and an unbiased inquiry.

But the significance of this extends beyond the immediate political skirmish. If left unaddressed, it gnaws at the single most important asset in a democracy – trust in the rules of the game.

This is why the Election Commission’s silence matters so much. If the referee in a football match is suspected of favouring one team and does nothing to prove otherwise, the match soon stops being a game and becomes a brawl. In politics, the equivalent is parties abandoning restraint, fighting fire with fire, and treating every election as a do-or-die struggle where the end justifies any means.

India has already seen worrying signs: deepening partisan polarisation, declining voter confidence, and a growing belief that institutions no longer stand above politics. Questions have been raised in the recent past on the appointment of Election Commissioners, storage of CCTV footage from polling booths, sample size issues with the VVPATs  and so on. The Commission’s job is not only to ensure fairness, but to demonstrate fairness – with transparency, verifiable audits, and a willingness to confront allegations head-on.

A healthy democracy cannot survive on technical compliance alone; it requires visible legitimacy. Even if the Commission is entirely blameless, its unwillingness to actively clear the air risks the same outcome as actual bias. In the eyes of the public, doubt unchallenged becomes fact.

The Election Commission cannot afford to be silent

The stakes are enormous. When public trust in elections collapses, civic cooperation disintegrates. Voters disengage, assuming their ballot no longer matters. Parties escalate tactics, convinced that the other side will cheat if they do not. The result is a self-fulfilling prophecy: the more the system is seen as rigged, the more rigged it becomes.

Rahul Gandhi’s accusation may be politically charged, but the response required from the Election Commission is not a matter of politics – it is a matter of institutional survival. Rahul Gandhi certainly has the right to have a press conference and raise allegations, those in the government/BJP also has a right to similarly not hold a press conference or respond to these allegations.

In our democracy, they are supposed to face the people and will be held accountable then. But one party who cannot afford to be silent, is the Election Commission. And the minimal response till now, have been in the public eye certainly not convincing. This is the moment to open the books, not to close ranks. Silence now will be remembered as complicity later.

In the Prisoner’s Dilemma, once trust is gone, the cycle of defection is hard to break. In a democracy, that cycle ends with institutions hollowed out, elections reduced to rituals, and citizens trapped in a permanent state of mutual suspicion. India’s democracy is one of the world’s great cooperative ventures. The Election Commission is its referee. If that referee cannot be seen as fair, the game itself will not be worth playing.

Benston John teaches Economics at St. Stephen’s College, Delhi.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.