User:Christopher Connors/sandbox

Bibliography for Warlord

Mukhopadhyay, Dipali. Warlords, strongman governors, and the state in Afghanistan. 2014. Cambridge University Press. Chapter 1.

Reno, William. Warlord Politics and African States. 1999. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Rice, Andrew. Warlord Politics: The Congo." April 2009. The Nation

Weingast, Barry R., Wallis, John J. North., Douglass C. Violence and the rise of open-access orders. 2009. Journal of Democracy, 20(1), 55-68.

Draft for Editing Article

The "Modern Usage" heading is quite bare and could use some serious additions, paying particular attention to how warlords fit into the political structure of many countries. However, I intend on keeping this heading free some specifics examples, and expand it from an analytical perspective.

How does warlordism contribute to political organization? Can it be used as an effective method for governance?

I am going to refer to the North, Wallis, Weingast article about open access versus limited access orders, and how political warlordism fits into this model. The limited access order, or natural state, is the collective power of coalitions. These coalitions are not so different from warlords, and the relationship can be further explained in the modern usage section. I plan on analyzing how open access states do not coincide with political warlordism because of the denial of open access economics, which are incompatible with the monopolies set by warlords.

I will also expand on Olsen's idea of stationary bandits as it pertains to warlords, paying particular attention to the Dipali article about Afghanistan. Olsen gives a more analytical, refined definition of stationary bandit, (warlord) and how they can extract effectively within political structures. Both of those readings tie together nicely to help define political warlordism. I want to incorporate exactly how regionalism fits into the modern usage of warlord, as the periphery warlords can systematically maintain a region in a different manner from another region, while simultaneously being apart of a somewhat cohesive governing coalition. This establishes warlordism as a legitimate form of politics, which Dipali highlights and can be drawn from. This is where the page can be improved and expanded, as the modern usage heading only includes a brief couple of sentences that include a few countries in which warlords exist. Dipali states, "From the stockpiles of small arms to the capital derived from illicit economic activity and cross border trade, the periphery was privileged vis a vis the center with respect to coercion and capital." With further detail, I will incorporate this argument into the definition of political warlordism.

I also have two readings on Warlord politics in Africa, with one focusing on the Congo. These will give a different perspective from the Dipali reading regarding the function of warlords on a regional basis. I have only skimmed through these readings, but there is intense focus on warlords cohesively maintaining a state and often working within the political structure. For example, there are stationary bandits in the Congo that have connections with Congo's president and government officials. How can this be explained via political warlordism? Is the modern usage different from the past, in terms of function and sophistication? Many of these questions can be answered through viewing warlords as actors within a larger political structure, as opposed to individual entities acting on their own accord. There is also a fine line between political warlordism and simple pillaging and plundering of roving bandits. I intend on making this distinction clear when expanding on both the definition headline and modern usage headline.

Christopher Connors (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)