In politics and sociology, divide and rule
(derived from Latin divide et impera) (also known as divide and conquer) is a
combination of 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
Europe
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
- 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]
- 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.
- 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[attribution needed] believe that the British employed
"Divide and Rule" in British India as a means of preventing an uprising against the
Raj.[citation needed]
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
References
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
