You are likely thinking of SOMALIA, but this is not technically correct since Somalia has always had a government in Mogadishu. The issue has been expanding it to cover the entire country.
First off, Somalia has never been in anarchy. While Somalia comes close to being an anarchy because the national government cannot extend its power to the entire territory. The territory instead has innumerable local warlords who actively contest the authority of the national government. However, the presence of these warlords serves to be a form of recognized government, which is why Somalia is more properly classified as a failed state (a state where the national government cannot compete with local warlords to the extent that the local warlords control more than the national government).
As for why Somalia is a failed state, this was not "introduced" by anyone. This was a direct result of the infighting an disagreements between the various rebel groups that effectively ousted dictator and strongman Siad Barre.
You need to reword your question for it to make sense. You can't have the "most anarchy" anymore than a country can have the "most monarchy" or the "most communism". Anarchy is a system of government without a formal government. It is not a synonym for chaos as you seem to believe. Secondly, there are many different forms of "anarchy" that each have different ideas of what their form of "anarchy" is. For example, there is forms of anarchy which are more communist in nature, there are other forms of government that replace things that are commonly done by governments such as national defense and foreign policy with capitalist solutions. Anarchy is simply having no formal government or order and there are many different ideas on how an anarchist society would work.
developing country
4 lacks apprx. 80% of 4 lack +20%on sales of 4 lacks E SAYA REDDY
no the region lacks oil.
Minimum 4 Lacks.
Around 11 Lacks.
Western Sahara is an African country recognized by the African Union that Morocco currently occupies. However, to term it a "country" is a bit generous. It has no government, serious leadership, territory, population, or economy. The entire region is a money-drain for Morocco and lacks any actual development.
North Korea lacks anything resembling a constitution that limits the authority of the government. Since it lacks such a document, it is not a constitutional government.
developing country
It is actually a third-world country. It lacks social wellness. It also lacks infrastructure as well as a non-existent rule of law.
"Frailocracia" is a term coined in Spanish to refer to a political system in which power is held by weak or ineffective leaders. It is used to describe a government that lacks strength, legitimacy, or effectiveness in governing the country.
Its a developing country. It is also very rich in natural resources but lacks technology and money to utilize them.
france
united kingdom
kurds
No, the country lacks adequate infrastructure to support tourism after a 27 year Civil War.
That would be false.
its is called an executive agreement