Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "History of Somalia (1991–2006)" in English language version.
But if we define anarchy as places without governments, and we define governments as the agencies with a legal right to impose violence on their subjects, then whatever else occurred in Haiti, Sudan, and Somalia, it wasn't anarchy. For there were well-organized gangs (e.g., governments) in each of these places, demanding tribute, and fighting others who made similar impositions. Absence of government means absence of government, whether well established ones, or fly-by-nights.
Here, there most certainly were bands of thugs and fraction leaders on the loose. Are these not governments? Anyone who denies this must show a relevant difference between these marauders and the governments of such worthies as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and their ilk.
[A]t one time, Bosnia, Somalia, and Afghanistan had central governments, and no longer do so; instead, they have decentralized governments, rebel thugs. For Holcombe (2004), in contrast, once the central government is gone, there is anarchy. That is, he considers the thuggish war lord scenario to be what I am advocating, and does not much like it. Well, neither do I. ...[S]uffice it to say, I do not consider [this] exactly the model of the anarcho-capitalism I advocate.
