He argues that the monopoly of crime by the state – in this case being the warlords – is in order to receive protection from external rivals as well as internal political rivals. Charles Tilly, an American political scientist and sociologist, theorised that organised crime can function as a means for war and state making. In both cases there is an inherent inefficiency in the model, as “resources are wasted on unproductive arming and fighting.” However, the functionality is often sustainable because it presents citizens with no choice but to accept rent levies in exchange for protection. ![]() It may actually have a stabilising effect on a region. Herrmann noted, “Warlordism is the default condition of humanity.”Įconomist Stergios Skaperdas views warlordism as a default – albeit inefficient – competitive economic model that emerges in states where state capacity is low, but that innately evolves into an institution governing political order that uses violence or the threat of it to secure its access to “rent”-producing resources. In modern states the presence of warlords is often seen as an indicator of state weakness or failure. In colonial empires warlords served in both cooperative political capacities and as leaders of rebellions. Often warlord governance in pre-modern state history was constructed along tribal or kinship lines and was congruent with early perception of “nation”. Warlordism was a widespread, dominant political framework that ordered many of the world’s societies until the modern state became globally ubiquitous. The other major consideration in categorising warlords is through the lens of history. Warlordism as the Dominant Political Order of Pre-State Societies Warlords can also fall into a hybrid category, temporarily joining a warlord coalition in collusion with the regime or defecting for political expedience – transitioning from one paradigm to the other based upon strategic interests. This is commonly viewed as “ungoverned warlordism”. The other is one in which the warlord is operating independently of the state and is viewed as a rebel, insurgent or strategic political competitor of the regime. This can be viewed as “cooperative warlord politics”. The first is one in which the warlord functions within the political framework through a degree of bargaining with the state regime so that the warlord, sometimes individually and sometimes in a coalition with other warlords, is acting with the explicit consent of or at least in accord with the regime. There are two major functional distinctions when considering warlords and their relationship with a state. There is also a divergence of opinion within the field of political science as to what specifically constitutes warlordism, particularly in the context of the historical setting.Ĭooperative Warlord Politics vs. Conceptions of WarlordismĪlthough warlords were present historically in either pre-modern states or “weak state” societies, and in countries designated “fragile states” or “failed states” in modern times, there is a tremendous degree of variance in the political, economic, and societal organization, structure, and institutions of states where warlordism exists. In China, Junfa is applied retroactively to describe the leaders of regional armies who threatened or used violence to expand their rule, including those who rose to lead and unify kingdoms. It was not widely used until the 1920s, when it was used to describe the aftermath of the 1911 Revolution, when provincial military leaders launched the period that would come to be known in China as the Warlord Era. ![]() The first appearance of the word “warlord” dates to 1856, when used by American philosopher and poet Ralph Waldo Emerson in a highly critical essay on the aristocracy in England, “Piracy and war gave place to trade, politics and letters the war-lord to the law-lord the privilege was kept, whilst the means of obtaining it were changed.”ĭuring the First World War, the term appeared in China as Junfa (軍閥), taken from the Japanese gunbatsu, which was taken in turn from the German. Warlords have existed throughout much of history, albeit in a variety of different capacities within the political, economic, and social structure of states or ungoverned territories. These armed forces, usually considered militias (but can be regular troops), are loyal to the warlord rather than to the general government due to the background of the Warlords. A warlord is a strong leader able to exercise military, economic, and political control over a subnational territory within a sovereign state because of their ability to mobilise loyal armed forces.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |