Game theory shows that in a single game, self-interested actors defect from cooperation when it offers them an extra profit. This risk is considerably reduced if the same actors play many games. In this case, players may mutually sanction defection, which then becomes less attractive. This is exactly the case in a steady power-sharing arrangement, as it allows actors to develop mutual trust. An additional advantage for cooperation is found if politics involves different cleavages for which the opposed camps, for instance the left or the young, are not the same. This leads to different coalitions from issue to issue, cementing an important aspect of the ongoing process of power-sharing: Political actors opposed today on a particular issue may find themselves as coalition partners tomorrow on a different issue. Mutual respect and amicable relations even with the opponent (of today) are the result.
- Swiss Democracy by Wolf Linder
I do not understand the sentence I emphasized. It mentions "opposed camps" then say "for example the left or the young". Think I don't understand is: Is the left and the young are opposed camps to each other? If so why does the author says "or" instead of "and"?
If not, is "left" (or the young) an opposed camp all alone? It is opposed to what?