Divide and rule

Tradition attributes the origin of the motto to Philip of Macedonia: διαίρει καὶ βασίλευε diaírei kài basíleue, in ancient Greek: «divide and rule»

Divide and rule (or divide and conquer, from Latin dīvide et imperā) in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. The concept refers to a strategy that breaks up existing power structures, and especially prevents smaller power groups from linking up, causing rivalries and fomenting discord among the people. It was heavily used by British Empire in India and elsewhere.[1]

Traiano Boccalini cites "divide et impera" in La bilancia politica[2] 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 maxim divide et impera has been attributed to Philip II of Macedon, and together with the maxim divide ut regnes was utilised by the Roman ruler Caesar and the French emperor Napoleon.

The strategy, but not the phrase, applies in many ancient cases: the example of Gabinius exists, 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).[5] Strabo also reports in Geography, 8.7.3[6] that the Achaean League was gradually dissolved under the Roman possession of the whole of Macedonia, owing to them not dealing with the several states in the same way, but wishing to preserve some and to destroy others.

The strategy of division and rule has been attributed to sovereigns, ranging from Louis XI to the Habsburgs. 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 consensu 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 wrote the phrase "separa et impera" in a letter to James I of 15 February 1615. James Madison made this recommendation in a letter to Thomas Jefferson of 24 October 1787,[7] which summarized the thesis of The Federalist#10:[8] "Divide et impera, the reprobated axiom of tyranny, is under certain (some) qualifications, the only policy, by which a republic can be administered on just principles." In Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch by Immanuel Kant (1795), Appendix one, Divide et impera is the third of three political maxims, the others being Fac et excusa (Act now, and make excuses later) and Si fecisti, nega (when you commit a crime, deny it).[9]

Elements of this technique involve:

  • creating or encouraging divisions among the subjects to prevent 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 meaningless expenditures that reduce the capability for political and military spending

Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories.

The concept is also mentioned as a strategy for market action in economics to get the most out of the players in a competitive market.

Narcissism

A primary strategy the narcissist uses to assert control, particularly within his/her family, is to create divisions among individuals. This weakens and isolates them, making it easier for the narcissist to manipulate and dominate. Some are favoured, others are scapegoated. Such dynamics can play out in a workplace setting.[10]

Psychopathy in the workplace

Clive R. Boddy found that "divide and conquer" was a common strategy by corporate psychopaths used as a smokescreen to help consolidate and advance their grip on power in the corporate hierarchy.[11]

Historical examples

Africa

The divide and conquer strategy was used by foreign countries in parts of Africa during the colonial and post-colonial period.

  • Germany and Belgium ruled Rwanda and Burundi in a colonial capacity. Germany used the strategy of divide and conquer by placing members of the already dominant Tutsi minority in positions of power. When Belgium took over colonial rule in 1916, the Tutsi and Hutu groups were rearranged according to race instead of 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.
  • During British rule of Nigeria from 1900 to 1960, different regions were frequently reclassified for administrative purposes. The conflict between the Igbo and Hausa made it easier for the British to consolidate their power in the region.[12]

Asia

Mongolian Empire

  • While the Mongols imported Central Asian Muslims to serve as administrators in China, the Mongols also sent Han Chinese and Khitans from China to serve as administrators over the Muslim population in Bukhara in Central Asia, using foreigners to curtail the power of the local peoples of both lands. Pakistan and India were also divided by this policy.[13]

Indian subcontinent

The strategy of "Divide and Rule" was employed by most imperial powers in Indian subcontinent. The British and French backed various Indian states in conflicts between each other, both as a means of undermining each other's influence and consolidating their authority. The Durrand line divided Afghanistan and Northwest Pakistan, the homeland of the Pashtuns.

Further, it is argued that the British used the strategy to destroy the harmony between various religions and use it for their benefits[14]; a Times Literary Supplement review suggests that although this was broadly the case a more nuanced approach might be closer to the facts[15].

Middle East

  • The Sykes-Picot Agreement, which carved the Middle East, is an example of a 'divide and rule' strategy.
  • Some analysts assert that the US is practicing the strategy in the 21st century middle east through escalation of the Sunni-Shia conflict. Nafeez Ahmed cites a 2008 RAND Corporation study for the American military which recommended "divide and rule" as a possible strategy against the Muslim world in "the Long War." [16] Dr. Christopher Davidson argues that the current crisis in Yemen is being “egged on” by the US, and could be part of a wider covert strategy to “spur fragmentation in Iran allies and allow Israel to be surrounded by weak states”.[17]

Europe

Mexico

See also

References

  1. ↑ Ilia Xypolia. 'Divide et Impera: Vertical and Horizontal Dimensions of British Imperialism'. Critique: journal of socialist theory, vol 44, no. 3, pp. 221-231, 2016. P. 221.
  2. ↑ 1 §136 and 2 §225
  3. ↑ http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au Archived 25 June 2007 at the Wayback Machine.
  4. ↑ "Dell'arte della guerra: testo - IntraText CT". intratext.com.
  5. ↑ "Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book I, section 159". Perseus Project. Retrieved 2011-08-27.
  6. ↑ "Strabo, Geography, Book 8, chapter 7, section 1". Perseus Project. Retrieved 2011-08-27.
  7. ↑ "Constitutional Government: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson". Press-pubs.uchicago.edu. Retrieved 2011-08-27.
  8. ↑ "The Federalist #10". constitution.org.
  9. ↑ "Immanuel Kant: Perpetual Peace: Appendix I". Constitution.org. Retrieved 2011-08-27.
  10. ↑ Hall J It’s You and Me Baby: Narcissist Head Games The Narcissist Family Files 27 Mar 2017
  11. ↑ Boddy, C. R. Corporate Psychopaths: Organizational Destroyers (2011)
  12. ↑ "HISTORY OF NIGERIA". historyworld.net.
  13. ↑ BUELL, PAUL D. (1979). "SINO-KHITAN ADMINISTRATION IN MONGOL BUKHARA". Journal of Asian History. Harrassowitz Verlag. 13 (2): 137–8. JSTOR 41930343.
  14. ↑ Shashi Tharoor - Inglorious Empire What the British Did to India
  15. ↑ Jon Wilson, 2016, India Conquered: Britain's Raj and the chaos of empire, cited in a review of Tharoor's work by Elizabeth Buettner in "Debt of Honour: why the European impact on India must be fully acknowledged", Times Literary Supplement, August 11 2017, pages 13-14.
  16. ↑ Pernin, Christopher G.; et al. (2008). "Unfolding the Future of the Long War" (PDF). US Army Training and Doctrine Command’s Army Capability Integration Center – via RAND Arroyo.
  17. ↑ "The Pentagon plan to 'divide and rule' the Muslim world". Middle East Eye. Retrieved 2018-06-29.
  18. ↑ "France: The Roman conquest". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved April 6, 2015. Because of chronic internal rivalries, Gallic resistance was easily broken, though Vercingetorix's Great Rebellion of 52 bce had notable successes.
  19. ↑ "Julius Caesar: The first triumvirate and the conquest of Gaul". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved February 15, 2015. Indeed, the Gallic cavalry was probably superior to the Roman, horseman for horseman. Rome's military superiority lay in its mastery of strategy, tactics, discipline, and military engineering. In Gaul, Rome also had the advantage of being able to deal separately with dozens of relatively small, independent, and uncooperative states. Caesar conquered these piecemeal, and the concerted attempt made by a number of them in 52 bce to shake off the Roman yoke came too late.
  20. ↑ Grob-Fitzgibbon, Benjamin (2011). Imperial Endgame: Britain's Dirty Wars and the End of Empire. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 285. ISBN 978-0-230-30038-5.
  21. ↑ Jordan, Preston Lim (2018). The Evolution of British Counter-Insurgency during the Cyprus Revolt, 1955–1959. Springer. p. 58. ISBN 9783319916200.
  22. ↑ "International Justice: The Case of Cyprus". Washington, D.C.: The HuffPost. Retrieved 1 November 2017.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.