An attack on the state? Anarchy? Or, perhaps, the murder of Douglas Chambers revealed the emergence of a new political system.

Two years ago, I published an article in Foreign Affairs which argued that in many parts of the world, particularly Third World cities, a new political regime was emerging. Because it bore striking resemblances to the model which had governed mediaeval Europe, and had emerged in similar circumstances (the waning power of post-imperial states), I called it the new medievalism.

The new mediaevalism is characterised by a multiplication of authorities, and the waning of the sovereign state. Often as a result of new opportunities presented by globalisation - from transnational crime to remittances - local barons are able to build autonomous resource bases which give them, effectively, taxing powers. This enables them to perform a set of functions, from security to employment, once performed by the state.

Significantly, the rise of these new barons does not represent the collapse of the state. State 'failure', as the scholarly literature calls it, is actually rare.

More common are situations in which the new barons cooperate with the organs of the state to render services valuable to the latter, whether political mobilisation, basic social services, or the enforcement of law and order.

The laws enforced are not always those of the state, though. A whole legal system, and an attendant political culture, often emerges alongside the new mediaevalism. In some settings, it is based on appeals to traditional cultures. There, the new mediaevalism can appear benign.

Violence

But where the new barons lack traditional legitimacy, they most often base their authority upon violence. Using it to enforce contracts, or the laws of a community, becomes the norm. What appears to an outsider like anarchy is actually an inefficient, costly form way for these political players to enforce their authority.

It is this kind of new mediaevalism that, I have argued, has begun emerging in some parts of Kingston. But if I have so far seen the topic as being primarily of academic interest, events in recent days have thrown it into stark new relief.

Perhaps the decay of the Jamaican state has reached the point that we have no choice but to cede to the new regime. Maybe it was that which motivated a peace deal in August Town which more or less recognised the right of existence of private militias.

I have no doubt the intentions were good, but the implications are profound. Since the time of Max Weber, the monopoly of violence has been seen as a defining element of the modern state. The overlapping of state with sub-state repressive apparatuses probably signals the emergence of a new kind of political system.

However, the murder of Douglas Chambers arguably represents the strongest sign of the new regime's existence yet seen here.

Rights violated

There is evidence that the action was motivated by one group's assertion of its rights, vis-à-vis, the state - in this case, the right to allocate and retain state jobs. Having had those rights violated, it sought to assert them with the means at its disposal: violence.

The response of the political establishment to this challenge to the state may well determine our political future. It seems most unlikely that the elements responsible for the crime emerged wholly outside the political and administrative system. However, they may now be asserting what they consider their authority over that system.

Neo-mediaevalism can be a stable, peaceful regime. However, where it prevails, individuals depend for their rights on the barons, whose authority in their domains is absolute. I'm not sure many Jamaicans really want to live in that kind of system.