The Cognitive Dissonance That Lacks AIMS - A Strategic Analysis / Part 1

(1) Preamble

This is a secret report generated by the ASDF, the think tank of the brotherhood. It is a preliminary assessment. And it is designed to familiarize all E89 space diplomats with an overview of the ongoing efforts of AIMS in 2 specific areas:

- How effective will AIMS be in being able to solicit real and meaningful change in our blogosphere? Will these changes be merely symbolic?

 - What is wrong with the current methodology deployed? What are the areas which should be improved on?

            (2) Main Body

Rather than concentrating on the actual efforts of AIMS. As this is already exhaustively discussed by the MSM. This report will focus on the efficacy of its approach.

(2.1) When AIMS uses the term “change” how should the “change” be rightfully measured to ensure that you are able to make sense of it?

In developing an appropriate model to simulate the various ‘what if’ scenarios; Mordecai 51 war gaming platform was settled upon by the ASDF.

From the onset the players asked the following questions which will form the assumption of this ‘what if’ simulation:

-Define the process that AIMS is trying to change? What forms the aggregate components to be changed?

-What is the best word that best describes the nature of this change?

In modeling the parametric analysis – the computer defined change as R1 – R6 –

on every single run the nature of change was satisfactory described in terms of transition from authoritarianism to democracy.

All other attempts to manipulate the program to accommodate another interpretation of the word ‘change’ failed to effectively make the simulation run.

In the assessment of the think tank, “change” must be seen accurately in this context. It was subsequently used as the model constant to run the simulation.

(3) Factors Encountered During “What If” Simulation – Possible Pitfalls That AIMS is likely to encounter in managing the process of change:

(3.1) SCENARIO 1:

AIMS needs to depoliticize itself from the established political order, it needs to be seen as an independent, impartial and non partisan organization; If it is to stand any chance of being regarded as a credible agent of change.

There currently exist a dearth of contradictions, ambiguities and contestations concerning the independence of AIMS.

Although it is widely marketed as an organization that proposes to abolish 100 sites currently barred and to do away from the need for political parties having to license themselves from the internet – these initiatives should never be equatable to ‘real’ and ‘meaningful’ change.

Central to the question of managing change requires us to ask; whether AIMS has effectively divested itself from the ruling party sufficiently to come across as appealing to the rest of broader society as a reliable agent for change?

If change is to be effectively managed, then this consideration is jugular.

Or is it another state ritual designed to establish and maintain social and political order?While ‘change’ in a general context does not impose such disciplines on planners.

 

 

 

In the case of AIMS since what they are in effect proposing is change in the context of transitionalizing the social political mindset; a significant part of whether it will be successful hinges directly on how effectively they are able to divest themselves from being seen as agents who are responsible for imposing state ideology from above.

It is fair to assume in the absence of any strategy to manage the perception of independence most netizens may continue to remain skeptical and even proceed to deconstruct this ‘myth of greater freedom’ by drawing attention to the numerous ambiguities and contradictions which exist in AIMS.(3.2) AIMS needs to divorce itself from it’s obsession with the strategic imperatives of political stability, nation-building and articulating national consensus; if it is to come across as a credible agent of proposing real and meaningful change.

 

 

 

From its very inception, a cloud of political compromise was bound up with the workings of AIMS, real or imagined. This serves to underscore the need to revivify AIMS overall vision and mission if it is to remain a credible facilitator in initiating real and effective social transformation in blogosphere.

This schism was clearly played out in 78 gaming simulations where on virtually every single occasion the gamers asked Q: How is it possible to reconcile the imperative for real and meaningful social and political change whilst balancing the strategic priorities of nation building and social stability?

The opposing gamers could not in a single instance give a good reason to satisfy the Marshalls.

This suggest, there is a very real danger AIMS efforts at instituting change will be widely perceived as procedural democracy. To paraphrase, they have form, but they lack the appearance of content.

Central to the whole discussion is the need for AIMS to reconcile two diametrically opposite ideas, driving real and meaningful change. Yet being able to maintain the strategic focus of nation building, intra faith harmony and social cohesion.

In the unanimous opinion of the gamers these competing goals cannot be effectively harmonized in an absence of a guiding ethos, theory or principle. As one gamer noted;

“Even the communist planners in China can tell you how they manage the transition from post-Maoist communist totalitarianism to free market authoritarianism. Not only can they do that, beyond Deng Xiao Peng simple black and white cat analogy. Their intellectuals can even reconstruct a plausible macro-model in conceptual and comparative terms for defining “regime identity” and assessing the nature of these social political changes with reference to fleshing out the political, ideological, economic, legal, and social dimensions. What makes this all possible is ideological underpinnings – I don’t believe, patch work cosmetic change can be a real substitute for ideological based change. AIMS should seriously consider subscribing to some higher principled logic based on precedence, text and reasoning, if they want to come across as a credible force for soliciting real and meaningful change. Otherwise they cannot be taken seriously.”

Cerebus 2008

In the assessment of the think tank, all matters of state legitimacy, nation building and intra faith harmony should have been better dealt with the formation of a sub committee comprising of government agencies which reports to AIMS.

AIMS should ideally remain the steering committee, but such a multi tiered feed back system would have in the opinion of the think tank managed to effectively iron out this longstanding anomaly.

Unfortunately under the current single level committee structure, it is almost impossible for any of the members of AIMS to reaffirm the social and political integrity and legitimacy of these counter views which form the basis of real and meaningful change.

It’s fair to assume these bracketed discussion will continue elsewhere in blogosphere and remain unexplored in AIMS.

As there currently exist no effective means for members in the AIMS committee to express opposition to the strategic imperative of nation building, social stability and intra faith sensitivities.

Neither is there an interlocutory means to do so which effectively allows a fuller discussion of the maintenance of the rule of law, liberal rights and first principled rights of bloggers e.g the right to privacy and online anonymity.

In the conservative estimation of the think tank this would not only perpetuate the ritual of schism and suspicion which usually accompanies procedural democratization, but militate against the whole imperative to touch base with the blogging community. If anything it is a sure fire recipe for alienating the masses.

 

4. Summary

This paper attempts to investigate such questions as what is the nature of the change AIMS is proposing to effect in blogosphere? And is it poised to do a good job?

It endeavors to also benchmark the metrics of what is termed effective and good change i.e higher valence of democratization; one notable observation we have made is scaling the nature of ‘change’ as one that effectively attempts to shift the social political equilibrium from an authoritative system to one that is democratic.

This observation is significant in our gaming simulation as it will provide us with an accurate appraisal of what AIMS is trying to accomplish on a philosophical level.

Crafting a definitional datum will hopefully allow ordinary readers who are interested in social political developments in our blogosphere to appreciate both the scale the magnitude of the exercise embarked on.

It will also allow them to appraise whether AIMS is well poised to be an effective agent of this transition.

[This report has been compiled by the ASDF, the think tank unit of the brotherhood – documented by the FILB 2008]

Related Article

The Cognitive Dissonance That Lacks AIMS – An   Interview With the ASDF / Part 2

September 5, 2008