I have been playing for a long time now, four years now in fact, not that four years is an impressive number, of course there are many who have been around just as long or longer than I have. However, in my time here I have noticed a few things, amongst many alliances and among the cyberverse as a whole. One trend I notice more often these days, and hear about from many others is about the trend of alliances to move toward closed societies.
What?
Open v. Closed
In open society the government is expected to have a large degree of transparency. That is to say that the mechanism that work to make the system function, and the mechanisms at work are visible to all those who inhabit that society(or at a minimum those who wish to know about them).
In an open society the government is responsive to the will, and the needs of the people, implementing actual changes that effect the mode of internal operation, the structure of the system, and the foreign policy of the alliance. In an open society government remains tolerant of and receptive to criticism, affecting change when possible.
In contrast, in closed societies the leadership becomes fixed. Members who levee criticism are met with belittlement, dismissal, or worse, change in response to criticism is non-existence or only comes when it suits the needs of the leadership or when the leadership faces an event that could be cataclysmic for their alliance and they have no other choice except change.
How?
Operational Security
Operational security (OPSEC), that is the process in which an alliance government determines whether or not the information on a given subject could be potentially harmful to their alliance and implements measures that will reduce the chance of that information falling into the hands of people that would use it against them is often used as a justification for the move toward a closed society. From a practical standpoint in Cybernations operational security means limiting the number of people within and alliance that has access to that information, usually to high ranking government members. I do not deny that OPSEC can be important in specific situations where the leaking of that specific piece of information could be potentially damaging to the alliance it pertains to, however, there is an worrisome move for some alliance governments to hide behind the wall of OPSEC on occasions that do not warrant it.
For example, the signing of new treaties. Alliance members should never find out about a new treaty, when their alliance is a signatory of the treaty, on the Open World Forum. In fact, in any open society they should have known about the forthcoming treaty long in advance, in fact they should have given input on to whether or not they felt that the treaty is a good idea.
OPSEC is to often used as a curtain to hide what goes on in back rooms behind closed doors, and an excuse for alliance governments to avoid consulting their membership about the fate of their alliance.
Creation of Outside Threats
Along with operational security comes the emphasis on the outside threats, and the "they're out to get us" mentality. By creating the illusion of or greatly exaggerating the potential immediate danger that a foreign body poses to their alliance leaders of a closed societies distract their membership from the slow erosion of their own alliance from within.
There is no doubt that the rally around the flag effect that occurs when a group feels threatened or is convinced that they are in danger from either foreign invasion or of foreign spying is strong. However, this illusion of being in jeopardy can only last so long as either active conflict results in the removal of one of the actors as a threat or both sides come to some sort of common ground do to the fluid nature of the treaty web. Ultimately new threats and enemies must be created or else the entire facade will eventually break down.
Proclamation of Hidden Knowledge
Generally, but not in all cases the demand for and insistence on the need for operational security and the creation of outside threats are spurred on by the idea of hidden knowledge. This hidden knowledge can be many things, and generally ranges from some "pivotal" piece of intelligence which may not even exist but you can never be sure (after all there is a need for OPSEC on the matter ) to a proclaimed better understanding of the game.
Often this proclamation of hidden knowledge is accompanied, at least in closed societies that present themselves to be meritocracies, the claim that you too can have this hidden knowledge. All you have to do is work hard and not ask questions and then sometime, in the future, the brighter future perhaps you too can be included in the "elite" group of people who are important enough to know this information.
Promises of a Brighter Future
No doubt there is in times of great strain or crisis legitimate cause for leaders to call out "Things may look bleak now, but they will get better, we will change, I promise, just stick with us." But, slowly this is becoming the common rallying call of many desktop dictators. It's and easy way to convince those that who do not have a say or that are being ignored or degraded to stick around despite their misgivings and their lack of political say despite their immense contributions to the alliance.
This rallying call is often accompanied with promised of increased transparency, greater regard for member input, and better behavior on the part of the alliance governments. When these promises come to fruition that is fine, however when these promises are continually made by alliance leaders but never actually quite come true, or only come true in what amounts to a token gesture so that leadership can have something to stand up and point to and say "he we're trying look at the one insignificant thing we did so long ago". Chances are if you are repeatedly promised the moon and they never deliver you're being duped, unfortunately the majority of people that will realize that they're being mislead they've already made a significant investment in whatever alliance they happen to be a part of, which brings us to the next way to create a closed society.
Creation of High Exit Cost
Raising the exit costs, the cost for the individual to end an engagement, project, transaction, or in this case a relationship, for the individuals is another way in which the governing force of closed societies maintain control. Exit cost does not need to be financial. Exit costs can include costs to self esteem, or possible derision, or the ability to re-enter an alliance.
For example, if a member thinks that if the leave they will never be able to find a new community to be a part of the perceived exist cost for them is high. Additionally if that member has no strong ties to any outside alliances it is nearly impossible for that member to know where to even begin to start searching for a new home if/when they leave. By creating the illusion of high exit costs closed societies manage to retain members that would otherwise have left.
Causes
Generational Gap
Most alliances are founded by people who have experience in other alliances and saw things they did not like about them, or thought that they could do better. Others were founded by members of alliances who had been around since near the beginning of their previous alliance but took a back seat role to allow for newer members to take the helm, however because the alliance had become a closed society and was no longer receptive to change and therefore left to form a new alliance. Still other alliances are founded by people who have political ideals and ideas that they would like implemented and want to create an environment that will become the embodiment of these ideas usually because they believe their current environment is not suitably providing for their ideals to take root.
All three of these groups have one thing in common, they know how it feels to be on the wrong end of the power structure when a society is closed. They have a personal interest in creating and then preserving an open society and will attempt to create an alliance in which the culture calls for a transparent society where opinions are respected because of their past experiences.
However, as time progresses and new generations emerge to take the helm of power in an alliance they the demeanor of the alliance changes. The new generations have not experienced the circumstances that lead to the founding of an alliance, they never experienced the hardships of building the alliance early in its history, and they often times do not hold the same opinions or demeanor as the old guard who they have replaced. As a result they no longer hold the views on governance and instead of maintaining an open society they attempt to to consolidate their own power and use their power in order to create a structure where they themselves become the power center and can exercise their as they wish. Seeking out selfishly future glory for themselves rather than maintaining the ideals that the alliance was founded on, although they often pay lip service to them.
Lack of Accountability
Another factor that comes in to play when it comes to causing a lack of accountability. With out a system in place that allows for the removal of part of or all of the existing leadership by the membership it becomes easy in order for leaders to create a closed society, because they do not need to worry about coup or revolution, but rather only need to maintain a situation in which there will not be mass exodus of active membership from their alliance. Because they are not accountable leadership can simply say "don't like it, too bad, we're in charge". Often times this message is veiled in some other sort of rhetoric, it does not change the significance of the statement or the implications that a society has become closed.
Effects
Citizens v Denizens
When a alliance transitions from a open society to a closed society members go from being citizens, individuals with a voice in political affairs with a responsibility to actively participate in social, economic and political activities, to being denizens or subjects, individuals who merely inhabit an realm, or in this case an alliance, and have no political say but are instead bribed, convinced, or commanded to work. However, citizens still exist in closed societies, but instead of including the body of all members it becomes only the a small group of people who have control and hold power within an alliance that are citizens, creating a de facto groupings of haves and have-nots.
Rigidness, Brain-drain and Stagnation.
However, a change in political status of their membership is not the only side effect that closed societies suffer from as a result of their rigidity. When governments refuse to listen to their membership they only serve to alienate their membership. Those who are most alienated are those who offer their services freely and put in a decent amount of work to better the alliance in hopes of receiving the promises made by earlier generations, or paid espoused by current leading generations in order to maintain control. When these types of people find out that the ideals are hallow and promises will never come to fruition they leave. Unfortunately for the alliances that cause these people to leave, these types of people are often skilled and knowledgeable and occupy the middle teir, and deputy level positions that allow alliances not only to function but to thrive. These people go elsewhere in order to find a place where their opinions and efforts matter and are received with open minds causing brain drain within the alliances which caused them to leave.
As a result of the this brain drain brought on by the nature of a closed society stagnation usually sets in. Unless those in power can manage to continuously bring forward people who are just as qualified or more qualified as those who leave closed societies will begin to stagnate. Without the middle ranks, the battalion commanders, recruiters, middle tier bank managers, and the academy staff, alliances are forced either make drastic changes to the way that they function, bring in and promote new members to replace the outgoing members, or else stagnation sets in.
Growth in the Number of Small Alliances
With an the emergence of a trend toward closed societies comes an expected result, the growth in the number of small alliances. When long time members with large amounts of experience leave the alliances they are in, they do not always see other communities that they think suitably represent their ideals and therefore turn to founding an alliance.
Founding a new alliance results in small communities generally with a dedication to openness. However, even if a commitment to openness does not exist as part of the fundamental ideas of a new small alliance there are piratical limitations that require that a certain degrees of openness be observed. First, in small communities every member's efforts are required to survive, all members must have complete (or at least substantial) knowledge of nearly every section of the alliances business and what is going on because they are forced to take on a wide variety of tasks. Second, since new alliances tend to be formed by people trust each other and place substantial trust in one another members of smaller alliances tend to view no need for the secrecy that is inherent in closed societies because when every member of an alliance knows all other members of the alliance and has direct interaction at nearly all times with every member of their alliance there tends to be frank open discussion. As such players will find that small alliances are traditionally lean more toward the open society model.
Final thoughts
While this may seem like a long argument for democracy or democratic government, it is not. An elected legislature can trample on the individual just as easy as a autocrat. It is not the structure itself of an alliance that causes a society to become a closed society, although certainly some structures lend themselves more to closed societies, but rather the culture that exists within a society, and the demeanor and character of the leadership. While direct democracy may seem like it would prevent closed societies from forming, and it indeed does, direct democracy leads to other problems which makes it impractical outside of very limited situations and not scalable to large alliances.
This argument is merely states the following: What constitutes a closed society, what, what causes closed societies to form, how they form, and what results from the creation of closed societies.
- Read more...
- 18 comments
- 763 views