In game theory, a hawk-dove game is often used to model distributive conflicts, in which an impasse cannot be solved by a central authority due to the existence of multiple equilibria.

The solution, and the speed of this solution, depends on resource asymmetry and the holding power of the contestants. The more equal the distribution of power, the longer the impasse becomes and the longer the contestants have to put up with a sub-optimal outcome.

This game bears stark resemblance to the current political tussle in Perak. The state itself being the bone of contention further aggravates the problem, where there is no central authority to alter the payoffs structure and strategies of the contestants.

Institutions that could have provided relief eg, the judiciary and the police are seen as partial the higher they go up, thus removing whatever credibility that is left of these authorities.

So it seems that the only way out of the crisis depends on whether BN or Pakatan Rakyat has the stronger holding power. Perhaps, this has always been the way for BN to resolve conflicts. After all, with so many resources on its side - financial, police, judges, media and machinery, is there really a need to appeal to principles here?

Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak could comfortably make the rhetoric of adhering to the due process of law simply because the laws and institutions have been fashioned over the years to favour his regime.

It is a mistake in game theory to assume that the power to contest can be framed by a restrictive instrumental rationality of cost-benefit calculations. This is because the willingness to contest is based on a host of other factors (besides ‘rational choice') chief amongst which are ideological, organisational and one's notion of justice.

Such is the mistake Najib cannot afford to make in this hawk-dove game. It is uncertain to many Malaysians how much Najib and his compadres have truly grasped the tectonic shifts not only in the psychological mindset of Malaysians, but also the distribution of power in Malaysia's political scene since March 8 last year.

The ‘Mahathir's Malaysia' Najib has grown so familiar with, a conception of a nation-state dominated by the personality of a single person, is hardly conceivable in today's Malaysia especially with a growing urban, educated middle-class all wanting a stake in the determination of what Malaysia ought to be.

The blatant injustices and institutional violations that leaked out from the fetters of traditional censorship through the advent of information technology provoked a rising sense of discontent among ordinary Malaysians.

Bailouts of crony companies which are not genuinely productive and whose wealth did not trickle-down to the wider public caused the poorer Malaysians to realise that this growing pie was not equitably shared.

Malaysians are organising themselves around broader and more ideological goals, a momentum that was triggered since the ‘reformasi' movement of 1998/99. Where development has always been conceived as economic growth in the country, we now see a desire to incorporate other developmental dimensions such as political rights and social freedom.

The emergence of these ideologies has exorcised the May 13 ghost which has been used for 40 years to legitimise the divide-and-rule policies of the BN hegemony. Such was the sentiment in a recently concluded ‘May 13 to 1Malaysia' forum.

In holding on to this battle in Perak, Najib has better realise that the distribution of power is not as asymmetrical as it once was in Mahathir's era and the willingness to contest is motivated not merely by material cost-benefit calculations (although the three ‘frogs' in Perak proved otherwise) but also by a strong notion of justice and rights.

One can only hope, albeit not too optimistically, that his willingness to talk to PR leaders is an indication that he does have his fingers on the pulse of the nation and conscious of the repercussions to his party come next general elections if this impasse drags on.

Yet, it is unclear at this point if there are any actual, feasible solution on the cards even if the talks materialise. A hawk-dove game, by its very nature, implies that there will be losers in any one solution. Najib's ‘konchos' in Perak who are hoping to benefit from controlling state resources will definitely put up resistance against the possibility of a shrinking pie for their faction.

Moreover, there is much personal disutility on Najib's own part to concede defeat given the fact that this takeover is perceived to be his handiwork to usher in his new premiership.

So it seems that Najib has got himself into a Catch-22 scenario. He has to find a balance between the options of short-term losses by crossing his own ‘konhcos' and long-term losses in the next general election by crossing the rakyat.

It will be disastrous for him to underestimate the holding power of Pakatan in resolving the current impasse.

While he ponders on his next move, with the Mahathir and Pak Lah camps playing a different tune in the background, the hawk-dove game tells us that it is the Silver State citizens who will continue to suffer from the present sub-optimal, disequilibrium outcome.