The concluding chapter reviews the theory and evidence and derives implications for how civilian agency, violent resistance, and the rise of third actors affect the dynamics of civil war. The chapter explores how the arguments can shed light on similar developments in past and contemporary armed conflicts and reflect on Naparama’s legacy for postwar politics in Mozambique. Overall, the chapter shows that, while this book explains when, where, and how militias originate, there is much work to be done to understand how militias evolve and develop their relations with governments, rebels, and civilians. Militias are important third actors in civil wars, but we do not yet completely understand the challenges that come along with their rise.

Chapter 4 shows that the warring parties’ strategic aim of controlling the population provided the background for the formation of militias in Mozambique. The control of the population became an end in itself rather than a strategy to control territory. As a consequence, the population's forced resettlement became a major weapon of war. The war’s focus on the people contributed to the rising level of community responses to the violence, which culminated in Naparama's formation.

An empirical analysis of what drives members of the House of Representatives to cultivate a reputation as a disadvantaged-group advocate is found in Chapter 4. These analyses use an original dataset of the members of the 103rd, 105th, 108th, 110th, and 113th Congresses (ranging from 1993 to 2015). Findings demonstrate that the greater the size of a disadvantaged group within their district, the more likely a member of Congress is to form a reputation as group advocate. Higher levels of district hostility toward a group reduces the odds that a member will be a group advocate, particularly for groups that are generally considered to be less deserving of government assistance. The results of this chapter also demonstrate that descriptive representatives, those who are themselves a member of that disadvantaged group, tend to be more likely to capitalize on a wider advocacy window to increase the level of representation that they offer than nondescriptive representatives.

The Introduction invites readers to consider the link between two things that are both true, but rarely considered as equal parts of the same whole: first, disadvantaged groups are not well represented in Congress, and second, some members of Congress do prioritize the representation of the disadvantaged. The book opens with short case descriptions of several members of Congress who are expressly known for their advocacy on behalf of disadvantaged groups. It then introduces the central question of why these members would make the choice to emphasize the disadvantaged in their representational strategy, and what makes them different from other members who choose to work on behalf of more advantaged groups. It also makes a case for why disadvantaged groups are particularly worthy of study, and what they can teach us about group representation more broadly.

Chapter 3 examines the critical role that legislative reputations play in the ways that groups are represented in Congress. It makes a case for legislative reputation as one of the primary conduits of representation, and offers a clear definition and operationalization for what legislative reputations are, as well as what they are not. It presents a novel measurement for legislative reputation by utilizing the member profiles found in the well-regarded Politics in America collection and explores the frequency with which members choose to develop reputations as disadvantaged-group advocates. This showcases the variation in the primacy of each disadvantaged group to a member’s reputation, as well as the partisan and institutional differences in the types of reputations members form.

The final chapter offers concluding remarks on the principal contributions of this project. It emphasizes the important insights to be gained by viewing representation through the lens of the consciously cultivated legislative reputations and highlights the benefits of using the advocacy window as an analytical tool for understanding the quality of representation that different disadvantaged groups receive from their representatives. Additionally, it reflects on the normative implications of this project, particularly for the representation of racial/ethnic minorities. The chapter closes by discussing future extensions of the research agenda.

Chapter 6 examines the representational tools that members of Congress who are building or maintaining reputations as disadvantaged-group advocates can employ and how their use of these tools can vary based on the group that they are seeking to represent. The chapter argues that members make choices about representational actions that they will engage in based on the likelihood that their action will attract attention, the risk associated with that attention, and the potential for actually creating policy change. It finds that members of Congress with reputations as disadvantaged-group advocates devote a greater portion of their sponsorship and cosponsorship activities to actions impacting their groups than non-advocates, but that this is conditioned by how deserving of government assistance the group is generally perceived to be, and how well that group’s interests map onto the committee structure.