De La Salle University

Graduate School of Business

5F, Tower II, RCBC Plaza, Salcedo Village, Makati City
Term 1, Academic Year 2017-2018

1986 EDSA People Power Revolution

Game Theory

A Course Requirement for MSC530M

Section GM91

Fulfilled by:
Group 2
CALAGUI, Irish Margarette
LIMBAUAN, Valerie Joy
MATIAS, Renier

Submitted to:
Dr. Dennis Berino

October 20, 2017

I. Historical Background
In February 25, 1986, Filipinos fought the most historical bloodless revolution in the Philippine
history- the EDSA revolution. It was a stand-off between two opposing parties: (1) the current
administration at that time, headed by President Ferdinand Marcos, and the (2) People, primarily
those who wanted to voice out their protest against the alleged iron fist of the government.
During Marcos regime, Martial Law was implemented and there were prevalent abuse, crimes
and human rights violations. Most of the people who opposed the government were either
mysteriously killed or gone missing. All these were presumed to be the actions related to the
rules of the Marcos administration. With the death of Marcos’ primary political foe, Benigno
Aquino Sr. and with an alleged snap election sabotage, people opposing gathered together along
the EDSA to finally express their angst against the government (Posadas, 2007).
II. Application of Game Theory
A. Players and Player Options
The group considered two players for this application - Former President Ferdinand Marcos
and the People of the Philippines. Also, the period of the game is before the actual EDSA
revolution. Feeling oppressed and abused by the government, the People of the Philippines
had the options to either protest or not to protest. Having the dictatorial power, on the other
hand, President Marcos had the option to stay in the position or resign.
B. Analysis of Payoff
The group assigned arbitrary payoffs for the two parties. The rationale of the payoffs are
indicated in Appendix A. With the payoffs being set, the group solved the value of each
game in accordance to the primary party’s views (Row player’s consideration).
President Marcos’ Payoff Table Filipino People’s Payoff Table

Considering the results generated from QM for windows and each situation assuming to
be a zero-sum game, the best strategy for the People of the Philippines is to not protest.
On the other hand, President Marcos’ best action is to resign.
However, in reality, this is a zero sum game. The parties severed communication thereby
no cooperation can be achieved.
 When these matrices are combined, it would be evident that if by any chance, the people
will protest but the president will choose to stay, both parties will lose in the process. On
the other hand, if the people chose to protest or not to protest and the president opt to
resign or stay, respectively, both party will have a chance to either win or lose. Needless
to say, if the optimal solution for both will be adopted, people will not protest while
Former President Marcos will resign, both parties will win.

In the actual people power revolution, People chose the strategy of Protest. With this
strategy being deployed against the government, Marcos then devised a strategy with the
use of military forces to scare off the People. The People, having a firm conviction to
continue the rally, stayed amidst military threat. The stand-off ultimately resulted to
Marcos’ resignation. The game theory associated with this can be categorized as the
Game of Chicken (Chen, n.d.). Please see Appendix B for supplementary discussion.

III. Ethical Considerations

A. Freedom of Expression

The Marcos administration was marred by cases of suppressing freedom of expression. The
martial law that was in effect gave the administration power which limited opposition
opinions. For years, the people kept silent in fear of the government, however the EDSA
revolution facilitated a show of force from the people despite the danger.
B. Lives, Threat and Intimidation

EDSA revolution involved the risk that People’s lives be endangered. The decision whether
to protest or not already exposed the People from the risk of being prevented from voicing
out their opinions. In the actual EDSA revolution on the other hand, there was an outright
threat by the military and intimidation by the president. It was only through bravery that the
revolution was pulled through.

IV. Conclusion

The Game of theory whether zero-sum or non-zero sum explained the various decision/
strategies that involved parties decided to do in the EDSA revolution. In each of the initial
viewpoints, the optimal strategies would be for opposing parties not to protest and for former
President Marcos to resign, to avoid any clash and to minimize the loss. However, with a tinge of
bravery, the People continued the protest. Marcos decided to threaten them by military forces but
in turn found himself in a game of chicken. With the people’s bravery unwavering, Marcos then
decided to take the most feasible action, which was to resign.
APPENDIX

Appendix A: Payoff Derivation

C. Payoff Table
For the payoff tables, negative payoff will be in favor for the column player. The row
player will be assigned a positive payoff for the strategy in favor of it. Payoff is presented
in the format (x, y), where x corresponds to the payoff for the People of the Philippines
while y represents the payoff for Former President Marcos.

State Payoff Payoff Consideration

This is in favor of the president because this is the status quo

even before the snap elections. The people were protesting
anyway so the president may receive a penalty even if their
risk their well-being as the president may also use military
force to stop the protest. So, the people will lose more as they
Protest - Stay (-2, -1)
exerted effort protesting while the President still stays in
power, hence the value of -2. The president on the other hand
will remain power but chaos will be everywhere, thereby he
will be losing a value of 1 because even if he stays in power,
he will not be able to control his revolting subjects.

The People wants the president to leave office, and at this

point they are willing to risk their safety to achieve their goal.
If the president will choose to lose his office and all his
power in government, the people will definitely benefit the
most as they believe that all the corruptions and violent
Protest - Resign (1, 0)
dictatorship will already end. The Filipino people will only
gain 1 as they still need to protest before they get what they
want, while the former president gets a 0 point because he’ll
no longer be the superior leader when massive uprising of the
citizens happen. It will no longer be his problem.

This will greatly favor the former president as the People

may choose to accept the result of the previous election and
keep silent. In this case, they totally lose the meaning of
democracy and the rights of the people. The President
remains in power with little resistance and he can maintain
Not Protest - Stay (-1, 2)
policies in favor of the government and the administration. In
here, the people scores -1 as the they were not yet freed from
the dictatorship but at least they did not put their lives in
danger. The president wins by 2 points since he stays in
power and nobody will dare to question of fight against him.
 This state goes well into the favor of the people because it
gives the people the freedom that they seek without putting
themselves in danger. The former president may finally come
to his senses and think that it will be best to give the people
Not Protest - Resign (2, 1) what they want without having any violent actions or without
incurring any fatalities. Hence, the people gains 2 points
while the president still gains by 1 since he resigned but there
were no bloodshed or any uprising that has to happen. It is
still a way to do his duty to protect the citizens.

Appendix B : The Actual People Power : The Game of Chicken

However, with emotions and disappointment surging, the People decided to protest, the
action that supposedly would not yield to optimal result. Out in the EDSA, people started
expressing their dismay to the government. As a response, Marcos deployed another strategy:
that is the military force. Military force can attack the protesters or Marcos could just resign. On
the other hand, protesters may continue or discontinue the rally.
The People being steadfast will most probably not yield to the military force’s threats.
People, together with the media, set a sense of worldwide awareness of the rally and displayed
combined power to the administration. On the other hand, military may fire or not; but to do so
will definitely sacrifice its honor and the image of the Marcos regime in the whole world. On the
other hand, if the People withdraws, military wouldn’t attack. This is similar to the Game of
chicken, a non-zero sum type of game where no one wins until someone gives way or sacrifices
for the other.
The dedication of the protesters, even if their lives were put to death is unwavering thus,
if military fires, protesters and military both loses: life and honor; no one wins. Because of the
people’s firm conviction, the military and Marcos decided to finally “give way”. In this Game of
Chicken, People drives straight; while Marcos’ swerved. Evidently, still, like the results in the
matrix tables, in a non-zero game, to resign is still the best option for Marcos, which in the end
he actually did.

V. References

Posadas, Ernesto Jr (2007) , Article Review on Mature Democracy: Governance in a Post

Modern World by Ken White, Retrieved from http://edsarevolt.blogspot.com/2007/06/article-
review-on-mature-democracy.html

Chen, Janet, Lu, Su-I, Vekhter, Dan (n.d.). Chicken. Retrieved from
https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/projects/1998-99/game-theory/chicken.html