Paul Staniland (2011: 10) recently argued that “we do not have systemic concepts to describe political authority and order in civil war.” This argument can be expanded to environments in which fragmented sovereignty is the norm. Building on the recent findings about state formation, wartime and social orders, and armed groups governance, I argue that there is a lack of conceptual vocabulary for understanding the relationships that take place in situations of fragmented sovereignty – specifically, the nature and repositories of authority and type of political orders that emerge. This engagement lends itself to the creation of different types of political orders which vary according to the nature of authority an armed group possesses and the threat it poses to the state. The political orders range from indirect engagement, to congruent engagement, and conflictual engagement. These concepts are illustrated by making reference to the literature on gangs, organized crime groups, and ideological or rebel groups. The nature and repositories of authority within a state, the state’s disposition towards them, and the political orders that emerge as a result of their engagement, has implications on the patters and diffusion of violence, politics, and governance both within and beyond the state.
