Vikram should answer that he would choose to do "something else" by adopting a system of power sharing. Simply following the "regular" rules or sticking to the "old" rules would not be suitable for a country like Lebanon.

The context highlights that Lebanon is a modern, cosmopolitan city where people from various communities, such as Orthodox Christians and Sunni Muslims, live together. However, these communities fought a bitter civil war. Adopting "regular rules" usually implies majority rule, which would ignore the interests of minority groups and likely lead to further conflict.

Instead, Vikram should suggest a new set of rules based on power sharing. As noted in the context, power sharing is necessary in societies that have religious or ethnic divisions. By sharing power, all communities would feel represented, preventing the outbreak of violence like the civil war mentioned.

This approach satisfies both prudential and moral reasons. Prudentially, it helps avoid conflict and ensures stability. Morally, it upholds the spirit of democracy where power belongs in the hands of the people, allowing the diverse population of Beirut to live together peacefully.