The Nature of Warlordism:Insights and Analysis

In the midst of the Olympic protests, I am thinking about that central problem of Darfur (Somalia), warlordism.


By:Abdirizak Adam Hassan (Durqun)


"Warlordism as a paradigm is not a recent phenomenon to the field of factional rivalry and power politics. Many political philosophers wrote extensively on this condition of state absence and lawlessness. Thomas Hobbes, an English political philosopher of 17th-century described such a scenario as "hell on earth", and life becomes " nasty, brutish and short". Others Thought such a condition of life as "unthinkable, natural and barbaric" (John Locke), as "the day of the cannibal, Zero Hour, revealing the real man" ( Fredrick Hegel), and as "the day of the coward and the dread of the brave, cultural suicide and undoing civilization" (Jacques Rousseau). What this means is that the old world has witnessed and grabbled with what can become of the human existence in the absence of overarching conventions of a commonwealth that would indiscriminately uphold and exercise the enforcement of the law for the common survival of the society. To most of us, warlordism appears as a relatively new innovation by Somali warlords just because we are conditioned by, and accustomed to, an orderly peaceful existence provided by the state through the enforcement of law and order. Thus, we didn't know what to think of a situation where there is no state to foster us and provide basic security guarantees for us. The reality of life in southern Somalia can be best understood in shifting our thinking away from the lulling view of warlordism as a brief, circumstantial and interim situation that could be easily overcome once law and order returns. We should rather think of warlordism as a self-contained phenomena, and a full fledged known paradigm that has a substantive existence of its own right. It is a state of existence that draws its validation by default due to the absence of enforceable legal order. It has a de-facto underpinning of a legitimate operational practicality by the sole virtue of the absence of any credible challenge. And, it is a self-perpetuating bstinate state of power politics that is here to stay, unless proven otherwise. The only thing political about warlordism is the fact it acts and plans for its survival which can be only achieved through securing the supremacy and the upper hand for the control of the country, region,city or fiefdom. The rest of its manifestations are all-out belligerence of personal nature. Despite that, I argue, worlordism is not all about drunkenness and mayhem; it has a life (reason), sense of direction (goal) and adheres unto its own norms (laws) - albeit laws that don't make sense.

"The life of a typical warlord could be characterized as being paranoid at best, if not schizophrenic. Like all criminals at lose, his life is plagued with a constant and impeding insecurity and suspicion. He secretly harbors the unsettling realization that he has inflicted gross inhumanities to many people and looted many public and private wealth; and he would logically want to get away with it. Trying to get away with it, however, requires a towering vigil and expediency from his part to identify, predict and eliminate what he regards as a potential source of danger to himself. As a result, the worst kind of fear ( the bodily one) is the hallmark of the life of a warlord and it is what makes him tick. Warlordism as a profession, thus, thrives on the dynamics of sheer survival and that is what gives life and reason for the justification of its core operational norms (laws) of shrewd plotting and cold brutality. Consequently, you can expect everything from a warlord but to willingly undo himself by dismantling his power-base for the sake of the nation, his own family or anything in-between.

"The goal of a warlord is to deny justice as we know it and replace it with a justice of his own making and taste. It is a justice that would polish him as a benevolent moral statesman and as a hero who has struggled and dearly sacrificed for the common good of the nation as a whole. It is a justice that must erase his shameful past and purge all traces of his criminality by compelling the nation to submit to his wanton desires of survival, wealth, fame and power. A warlord can never conceive of any other way out of this predicament of his own making, except through the choice between two evils: (a) the inevitable continuation of the mayhem, and (b) the eventual wise decision of the people to let him realize his goal of reaching the apex of power by becoming the head of the state. His will to power is intimately connected with his will to live. Hypothetically, even if the nascent state promises a grant of a retroactive blanket amnesty for the warlords, it would not be a sufficient guarantee for their insatiable security needs. This underlines how entrenched is the resolve of a warlord and as far as he is concerned, he is here to stay.

"The operational norms (laws) of Warlordism are simple, unwritten and tactical in nature. They are not "laws" per se, but laws nevertheless, in as much as they make sense and can be explained by the rational mind. They are akin to the raw tenets of balance of power and the logic of maximizing gains. Sometimes securing any scant of a relative gain over other warlords might be about enough for a given warlord. Often times, however, a warlord of good standing may raise the stakes and aim for an absolute gain. When such a warlord emerges, the rest of the warlords would suddenly cease all active hostilities between them and form a tactical alliance for the purpose of confronting him. Curiously though, even if the alliance succeeds in defeating their common enemy, it would not go the extra mile and form a government. What may explain this unwitting loss of opportunity is primarily the simple fact that forming a government and thereby ending warlordism would involve the emergence of one of them as the leader, and that spells as horrific a scenario as the one they just collectively defeated. Their need (use) for each other stops there and they would invariably resume their perpetual enmity of each other. A warlord for a warlord is both a sworn enemy and an occasional tactical ally (savior). This neurosis that trips between [H]ate-love dichotomy stems from the dictates of being realistic and not letting lofty ideals of any kind undermine ones sacred desire for survival and perseverance. It is what gives credence to the old classical theories of balance of power and Real-Politick which are the passionate breechings of realism."


Forms of warlordism can be found in many different realms and the idea of it can be extended to a general principle---the formation of a rogue power center within a structure originally designed for another purpose. Here is an example from politics in India:


Factionalism within Cong takes ugly turn

"Factionalism within the Congress took an ugly turn today with the acting leader of the Congress Legislature Party (CLP), Capt Ajay Singh, alleging that the Union Minister of State, Mr Rao Inderjeet Singh, worked against him and other party candidates in the Ahirwal belt in just concluded Assembly elections.

"Capt Ajay Singh, Congress MLA from Rewari, without naming Mr Rao Inderjeet Singh said the Union Minister of State, who hails from South Haryana, worked against party nominees.

"The allegation of Capt Ajay Singh, considered to be in the vanguard of anti-Rao Bireder Singh politics, assumes serious political significance. In the Ahirwal belt, comprising districts of Rewari, Gurgaon and Mahendergarh, politics of Congress leaders is polarised between pro and anti-Rao Birender Singh, former Chief Minister of Haryana. Rao Inderjeet Singh is the son of Rao Birender Singh...

"However, some leaders like Capt Ajay Singh, Rao Dharam Pal (Sohna), Rao Narender Singh (Ateli), Ms Anita Yadav (Salawas), have been winning elections in the past inspite of the opposition from the Rao Birender Singh’s clan. The anti-Rao Birender Singh faction allege that Rao Birender Singh’s family has a vested interest in not allowing others to rise and always try to brow beat the Congress leadership by claiming that it has monopoly in Ahirwal politics. The family leverages the figure of Rao Bireder Singh in the Congress high command just to scupper the political growth of the leaders who show signs of “independence and maturity” and “preferred loyalty” to the party organisation, they add."