In
politics and
sociology, 'divide and rule' (derived from
Latin ''divide et impera'') (also known as 'divide and conquer') is a combination
political,
military and
economic strategy of gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into chunks that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. In reality, it often refers to a strategy where small power groups are prevented from linking up and becoming more powerful, since it is difficult to break up existing power structures.
Maxims "Divide et impera" or "Divide ut regnes" are traditionally identified with the principle of government of Roman Senate. This attribution is not entirely reliable, insofar as the Roman policy mainly aimed to unite the conquered nations both politically and culturally, under Roman rule. It is, however, borne out by the example of
Gabinius parting
the Jewish nation into five conventions, reported by
Flavius Josephus in Book I, 169-170 of ''The Wars of the Jews'' (''De bello Judaico'')
[1]. Likewise,
Strabo reports in ''Geography'', 8.7.3
[2], that the
Achaean League was gradually dissolved under the Roman possession of the whole of
Greece, owing to them not dealing with the several states in the same way, but wishing to preserve some and to destroy others.
In modern times,
Traiano Boccalini cites "Divide et impera" in ''La bilancia politica'', 1,136 and 2,225 as a common principle in politics. The use of this technique is meant to empower the sovereign to control subjects, populations, or factions of different interests, who collectively might be able to oppose his rule.
Machiavelli identifies a similar application to military strategy, advising in Book VI of ''The Art of War''
[3] (''Dell'arte della guerra''
[4]), that a Captain should endeavor with every art to divide the forces of the enemy, either by making him suspicious of his men in whom he trusted, or by giving him cause that he has to separate his forces, and, because of this, become weaker.
The strategy of division and rule has been attributed to sovereigns ranging from
Louis XI to
the Habsburgs. Its historical reception has been mixed. Thus
Edward Coke denounces it in Chapter I of the Fourth Part of the ''Institutes'', reporting that when it was demanded by the
Lords and
Commons what might be a principal motive for them to have good success in
Parliament, it was answered: "''Eritis insuperabiles, si fueritis inseparabiles. Explosum est illud diverbium: Divide, & impera, cum radix & vertex imperii in obedientium consensus rata sunt.''" [You would be insuperable if you were inseparable. This proverb, Divide and rule, has been rejected, since the root and the summit of authority are confirmed by the consent of the subjects.] On the other hand, in a minor variation,
Sir Francis Bacon touts the cunning maxim of "separa et impera" in a letter to
James I of 15 February 1615. Likewise
James Madison recommends in a letter to
Thomas Jefferson of 24 October 1787
[5], summarizing the thesis of ''
The Federalist #10''
[6]: "Divide et impera, the reprobated axiom of tyranny, is under certain qualifications, the only policy, by which a republic can be administered on just principles."
Typical elements of this technique are said to involve
★ creating or encouraging divisions among the subjects in order to forestall alliances that could challenge the sovereign.
★ aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate with the sovereign.
★ fostering distrust and enmity between local rulers.
★ encouraging frivolous expenditures that leave little money for political and military ends.
The use of this strategy was imputed to administrators of vast empires, including the
Roman and
British, who were charged with playing one tribe against another to maintain control of their territories with a minimal number of imperial forces. The concept of "Divide and Rule" gained prominence when India was a part of the British Empire, but was also used to account for the strategy used by the Romans to take Britain, and for the
Anglo-Normans to take Ireland. It is said that the British used the strategy to gain control of the large territory of India by keeping its people divided along lines of religion, language, or caste, taking control of petty princely states in India piecemeal.
Also mentioned as a strategy for market action in
economics, it can be applied to get the most out of the players in a competitive market.
Examples of Divide and Conquer strategies
United States
★ Many people view the increasing polarization of voting blocs by
wedge issues as being an example of "Divide and Rule." Examples include
abortion,
gun control, and
gay marriage. The key idea is that these issues prevent the public from thinking about, let alone addressing, potentially more objectively important issues, such as
global warming, the erosion of
civil liberties under the
Patriot Act, and the negative effects of
lobbying on issues such as
campaign finance reform and
corruption.
Europe
★ Following the
October revolution, the
Bolsheviks engaged at various times in alliances with the
Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, certain
anarchists, and various non-Russian ethnic
nationalist groups, against the
White movement,
Right Socialist-Revolutionaries, and other anarchist and ethnic nationalist groups. This was done in the context of establishing the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union (the Bolshevik party) as the sole legal party in the
Soviet Union. Similar shifting alliances were played out amongst various dissident factions within the CPSU, such as the
Workers Opposition and
Left Communists, with
Joseph Stalin and his supporters gaining absolute power within the party by the mid-1920s.
★ The
Salami strategy of Hungarian Communist leader,
Mátyás Rákosi.
★ Alliances with various parties played a role in the Nazi ''
Machtergreifung'' and ''
Gleichschaltung'', the seizure and consolidation of total power by the
National Socialist German Workers Party. The
Enabling Act, which banned the
Communist and
Social Democratic parties, was supported by the Nazi's coalition partner, the
German National People's Party, as well as by the
Centre Party. Several months later, these parties were themselves banned, along with all other political parties other than the NSDAP.
Cyprus
★ Cyprus was placed under
British control on
4 June 1878 as a result of the
Cyprus Convention, which granted control of the island to Britain in return for British support of the Ottoman Empire in the
Russian-Turkish War.
★
Famagusta harbour was completed in June 1906; by this time the island was a strategic naval outpost for the
British Empire, shoring up influence over the Eastern
Mediterranean and
Suez Canal, the crucial main route to
India.
★ A British colonial strategy was to keep the
Greek Cypriot majority and
Turkish Cypriot minority of the island separate and discourage intermingling. The British hoped and succeded to strengthen their hold on this strategically important colony.
[7]
★ Cyprus Independence was attained in 1960 after exhaustive negotiations between the
United Kingdom, as the colonial power, and
Greece and
Turkey, the cultural 'motherlands' for both of the communities in Cyprus. The UK ceded the island under a constitution allocating government posts and public offices by ethnic quota, but retained two
Sovereign Base Areas. The British drafted constitution, reflected mutual distrust bred earlier between the communities by the colonial power
[8]. Today, two British
Sovereign Base Areas are found in
Cyprus and the ''divide et impera'' effects endure as the
Cyprus dispute.
Middle East
★ The
Sykes-Picot Agreement
★ One of the many factors contributing to the approval of an increase in
Jewish immigration to
Palestine was motivated by a desire to maintain
British dominance in the
Middle East by Foreign Secretary
Arthur James Balfour in
1917. The first Governor of
Jerusalem Sir
Ronald Storrs stated that
Israel "will form for England a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism."
[9]
★ Israel has provoked
Kurdish separatism in
Iraq,
Syria, and
Iran. The Israeli foreign-intelligence agency,
Mossad, has conducted covert operations in Kurdish areas as a means of destabalizing rival Middle Eastern countries.
[10] [11]
★ During
Israel's
occupation of southern
Lebanon Israel installed the
South Lebanon Army, a Christian-led proxy militia to manage a 12-mile wide occupied zone along the border. Israel supplied the SLA with arms and resources to fight Lebanese resistance forces led by
Hizbullah. Israel also used the
Phalange as a proxy militia to fight
Shia Lebanese and the
Palestine Liberation Organization.
★
Robert Dreyfuss's
Devil's Game presents the support of Islamic Radicalism as a tool against Communists and pro-Soviet
Pan-Arabism. He also sees this aspect in Israel's early support of
Hamas against
Palestine Liberation Organization.
Foreign Affairs's review criticizes the author's view as including flaws.
[12]
★ Some allege that the US military and media fosters an opposition between
Shia and
Sunni Muslims.
Sri Lanka
The Caste divide
★ During the last quarter of the 19th century, British Governors encouraged Inter-caste rivalry among the
Sinhala speaking inhabitants of
Sri Lanka to prevent the formation of anti-colonial movements. The British administrators helped loyal families of mixed origin who professed the
Anglican faith of the British administrators, to merge with the numerically large
Govigama middle-caste of cultivators and landlordss to pose as native leaders. Among them were the De Saram family that had married Burghers, and later through other marriage alliances, created a network embracing the Obeysekere, Jayasekara, Dias-Bandaranaike, Ilangakoon, de Alwis, de Livera, Pieris and Siriwardena families. This “Govigama” Anglican Christian network expanded further with the preponderance of native headmen as Mudaliyars, Korales and Vidanes from the Buddhist Govigama section of the community.
★ Eventually the British created a very powerful class of
Sri Lankan Mudaliyars. Towards the end of the 19th century, appointments to high native positions were restricted for several years only to Anglicans from the Govigama caste. In the
Caste system in Sri Lanka, the Govigama caste had been the 4th caste. ''Nitinighanduwa'', a spurious publication on so called native laws which was in reality designed to claim the highest status for the Govigama caste was published by the British government and it sparked the famous caste-conflict of that period. This caste antipathy remained for decades and it effectively prevented the formation of a nationalistic independence struggle in Sri Lanka. It also laid the foundation for the post-independence Govigama hegemony which has led to several youth uprisings followed by brutal mass massacres by Govigama controlled governments to suppress them. The country has been ravaged by a civil war for over two decades driven by demands for democracy and autonomy and there is brewing discontent among youth against the exploitation of the nation by a few political families.
The Race divide
★ Through their methods of administration, divide and rule policies, census taking methods and mandatory declaration of one’s ‘Race’ on official documents, The British Governors forced the Sri Lankan population of diverse ethnic origins to become either
Sinhalese or
Tamils based on the language they spoke in the 19th century.
★ Ethnically diverse but
Sinhala speaking castes and racial groups who had their own origin myths were virtually compelled to adopt a common origin myth, the myth that all Sinhala speaking people descend from
Vijaya the grandson of a lion, even though all of the Sinhalese lower-castes were originally
Tamil. This myth was encouraged and popularised by the British colonials ably aided by staunche nationalists. Prince Vijaya died without even a royal heir and subsequent dynasties until the 12th century
Kalingas never claimed Vijayan connections. Nevertheless in the modern Sinhala psyche the ‘descent from the lion’ story has a special place and is widely accepted unquestioningly.
★ Similarly in northern Sri Lanka, ethnically diverse communities of various origins but speaking
Tamil, the language of trade and commerce of the region, were grouped as Malabars and subsequently relabelled as Tamils even though many of them were Malayali and Telegus.
★ These strategies, created two mega races, the
Sinhalese and the
Tamils in
Sri Lanka and a raging civil war based on this division by the conniving
British has been raging for over two decades.
Africa
Western countries have used the divide and conquer strategy in
Africa during the
colonial and post-colonial period.
★
Germany and
Belgium both ruled
Rwanda and
Burundi in a colonial capacity. Germany used the strategy of divide and conquer by placing members of the
Tutsi minority in positions of power. When Belgium took over in
1916, the
Tutsi and
Hutu groups were rearranged according to race rather than by occupation. Belgium defined "Tutsi" as anyone with more than ten cows or a long nose, while "Hutu" meant someone with less than ten cows and a broad nose. The socioeconomic divide between Tutsis and Hutus continued after independence and was a major factor in the
Rwandan Genocide.
★ When the
British Empire ruled
Sudan, it restricted access between the North and the South. The British also neglected to develop
southern Sudan or include southern Sudanese in governance. The disparity between the North and South helped lead to the
First and
Second Sudanese Civil Wars. ''See also
History of the Anglo-Egyptian condominium.''
★ During
British rule of
Nigeria from
1900 to
1960 different regions were frequently reclassified for administrative purposes. The British used conflict between
Ibos and
Hausa as a means of consolidating their power in the region. Regional, ethnic, and religious splits remain a barrier to uniting
Nigeria.
[13]
India
Some believe that the British employed "Divide and Rule" in
British India as a means of preventing an uprising against the Raj.
In his historical survey
Constantine's Sword,
James Carroll writes,
:"Typically, imperial powers depend on the inability of oppressed local populations to muster a unified resistance, and the most successful occupiers are skilled at exploiting the differences among the occupied. Certainly that was the story of the
British Empire's success, and its legacy of nurtured local hatreds can be seen wherever the
Union Flag flew, from
Muslim-
Hindu hatred in
Pakistan and
India, to
Catholic-
Protestant hatred in
Ireland, to, yes,
Jew-
Arab, hatred in modern
Israel. [Ancient]
Rome was as good at encouraging internecine resentments among the occupied as
Britain ever was."
[1]
See also
★
Divide and conquer algorithm
★
Motti
العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Español
