Divide and conquer

Tradition attributes the origin of the motto to Philip II of Macedon: Template:Langx diaírei kài basíleue, meaning "divide and rule"

The term divide and conquer in politics refers to an entity gaining and maintaining political power by using divisive measures.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> This includes the exploitation of existing divisions within a political group by its political opponents, and also the deliberate creation or strengthening of such divisions.<ref name="EW">Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>

Definition

The concept primarily refers to the practice of creating divisions between opponents to prevent them from uniting against a common foe, allowing the one who divides to gain or maintain political control.<ref name="EW" /><ref name="AH">Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref> As a maxim, it is commonly recommended to political rulers.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> A secondary usage of the idea refers to the practice of "dividing one's own forces or personnel so as to deal with different tasks simultaneously."<ref name="AH" /> The exact wording of the idiom in English is varied,<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> including divide and rule (mainly in British English but rarely used),<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> divide and conquer (in American, the most common variation),<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> divide and govern, and divide so that you may rule.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

Etymology

The phrase divide and conquer (from the latin divide et impera) first appeared in English around 1600.<ref name="EW" />

Edward Coke denounces it in Chapter I of the Fourth Part of the Institutes of the Lawes of England, 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 invincible 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.")<ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

In a minor variation, Sir Francis Bacon wrote the phrase as 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,<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> which summarized the thesis of Federalist No. 10:<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> "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."<ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>

Divide et impera is the third of three political maxims in Immanuel Kant's Perpetual Peace (1795), Appendix I, the others being Fac et excusa ("Act now, and make excuses later") and Si fecisti, nega ("If you commit a crime, deny it"):<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> Kant refers to these tactics when describing the traits of “despotic moralists."<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

Politics

In politics, 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 to prevent a rebellion against the elites or the people implementing the strategy. The goal is either to pit the lower classes against themselves to prevent a revolution, or to provide a desired solution to the growing discord that strengthens the power of the elites.<ref name="Ilia Xypolia 2016. P. 9">Template:Cite journal p. 221.</ref>

The principle "divide et impera" is cited as a common in politics by Traiano Boccalini in La bilancia politica.<ref>1 §136 and 2 §225</ref>

Economics

In economics, the concept is also mentioned as a strategy for market segmentation to get the most out of the players in a competitive market.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

Historical examples

Roman Empire

In his history of the Gallic Wars, Commentarii de Bello Gallico, Julius Caesar narrates the following episode:

Translated into English, this reads:

The Gauls were a people who shared a language and culture but were politically independent from one another, being separated into a number of tribes. Their interests frequently being at odds, and with existing populations being disrupted by large-scale migrations of other peoples being commonplace, warfare between the tribes was endemic; mostly simmering at a low level in the form of constant raids, but occasionally erupting in paroxysms of violence which saw entire cities laid waste and their populations dispersed or enslaved. For this reason the tribes frequently had bitter hatred for the others.<ref>Goldsworthy (2006), pp. 212–214</ref><ref>Woolf, Becoming Roman (1998), pp. 23–25</ref><ref>Drinkwater, Roman Gaul (1983), p. 19</ref>

These weaknesses — the lack of centralized political authority and the resultant animosity between the tribes — were relentlessly and systematically exploited by Caesar during his conquest of Gaul.<ref>Goudineau, Le Dossier Vercingétorix (2001), pp. 180–185</ref> Caesar used a system of incentives and punishments to ally with some tribes and intimidate others, ensuring that he was only ever fighting one opponent at a time.<ref>Goldsworthy (2006), pp. 280–285</ref> He carefully presented himself as a defender of Gallic interests, and his military actions as aimed only at hostile tribes who threatened the peace and stability of Gaul.<ref>Caesar, BG 1.33–35 (on the Aedui as "brothers of the Roman people")</ref> Neighboring tribes often agreed with his assessment, viewing those he assailed as deadly foes who had all too often plagued them, rather than as fierce potential allies in the wars to come. Many even supplied Roman forces with grain or auxiliary troops, or even offered the use of their towns as permanent bases for legionaries.<ref>Woolf (2012), p. 119</ref><ref>Example: the Remi in BG 2.3–5</ref>

Eventually, though, there could be no mistaking Caesar’s true motive: not pacification, but conquest.<ref>Goudineau (2001), p. 201: "Ce que César voulait, c’était la domination permanente."</ref> The Gauls realized that they were on the verge of becoming a conquered people without ever having fought a war in their defense.<ref>Roymans, Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity (2009), p. 224</ref>

In response they elected Vercingetorix of the Arverni to lead the unified Gallic resistance with the goal of expelling the Romans from Gaul.<ref>Caesar, BG 7.4</ref> Although Vercingetorix was a leader of an exceptionally high caliber, banding together the disparate tribes as had never been done, and enforcing discipline and order on a people who never known either; and despite his innovative strategy of continual retreat before the superior legions, burning or destroying all food that they left behind them denying Caesar the set-piece battle he desired, Vercingetorix eventually erred. Harried by the Romans, he and his forces sheltered in the walled city of Alesia. Caesar entrapped them within a double ring of defensive fortifications: one to keep Vercingetorix and his army confined, the other as protection against the relief army that was sure to come, and the Romans waited.<ref>Goldsworthy (2006), pp. 320–335</ref><ref>Goudineau (2001), pp. 280–295</ref>

In the subsequent Battle of Alesia, Caesar's legions won such a crushing victory that Gallic resistance to Roman rule was no longer possible.<ref>Caesar, BG 7.88–89</ref> Vercingetorix rode into the Roman camp alone and silently fell at the feet of Caesar, laying down his arms in token of submission in what Plutarch described as “the most famous surrender in antiquity.”<ref>Plutarch, Life of Caesar 27.3</ref> The rest of the tribes followed, and they were integrated as the province of Roman Gaul. The region was eventually organized into the Tres Galliae (Gallia Belgica, Gallia Lugdunensis, and Gallia Aquitania) alongside the older Gallia Narbonensis.<ref>Drinkwater (1983), pp. 15–20</ref><ref>Strabo, Geography 4.1–3</ref>

Mongol 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.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>

British India

Some Indian historians, such as politician Shashi Tharoor, assert that the British Raj frequently used this tactic to consolidate their rule and prevent the emergence of the Indian independence movement, citing Lord Elphinstone who said that "Divide et impera was the old Roman maxim, and it should be ours."<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> A Times Literary Supplement review by British historian Jon Wilson suggests that although this was broadly the case a more nuanced approach might be closer to the facts.<ref>Wilson, Jon, 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, 11 August 2017, pages 13-14.</ref> On the other hand, Proponents of Hindutva, the ideology of the current and recent Indian governments over the years, stress strongly Hindu-Muslim conflict going back centuries before the arrival of the British.

The classic nationalist position was expressed by the Indian jurist and supporter of Indian reunification Markandey Katju, who wrote in the Pakistani paper The Nation in 2013:<ref name="Katju2013">Template:Cite web</ref> Template:Blockquote

Historian John Keay takes a contrary position regarding British policy, writing:

General S.K. Sinha, former Vice-Chief of Army Staff, writes that contrary to what the notion of divide and rule would predict, the British Indian Army was effectively integrated:

Ottoman Empire

The Ottoman Empire often used a divide-and-rule strategy, pitting Armenians and Kurds against each other.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>

Europe

• Athenian historian Thucydides in his book History of the Peloponnesian War claimed that Alcibiades recommended to Persian statesman Tissaphernes, to weaken both Athens and Sparta for his own Persian's benefit. Alcibiades, suggested to Tissaphernes that 'The cheapest plan was to let the Hellenes wear each other out, at a small share of the expense and without risk to himself.<ref>Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 8.46.2</ref>

• Tacitus in Germania. chapter 33 writes "May the tribes, I pray, ever retain if not love for us, at least hatred for each other; for while the destinies of empire hurry us on, fortune can give no greater boon than discord among our foes."<ref>Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref>

• In Revolutions of 1848, the governments which were being revolted against used this tactic to counter the rebels.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref>
• The colonial authorities in British Cyprus often stirred up the Turkish minority in order to neutralize agitation from the Greek majority.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref> This policy intentionally cultivated further animosity between the already divided Greek majority and the Turkish minority (which consists of 18% of the population) in the island that remains divided to this day after an invasion by Turkey to establish the state of North Cyprus (which is only diplomatically recognized by Turkey).<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>
• The partition of Ireland in 1921 has been claimed as an intentional implementation of this strategy by David Lloyd George, although the religious divisions in Ireland were notorious and of long standing.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> The Stanford historian Priya Satia claims that the partition of Ireland was in ways a patch-test for the partition of India in 1947.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>

Colonialism

According to Richard Morrock, four tactics of divide and rule practiced by Western colonialists are:<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>

1. The manufacture of differences within the targeted population;
2. The amplification of existing differences;
3. The use of these differences for the benefit of the colonial empire; and
4. The carry over of these differences into the post-colonial period.

Foreign policy

United States

Some analysts assert that the United States is practicing the strategy in the 21st-century Middle East through their supposed escalation of the Sunni–Shia conflict. British journalist Nafeez Ahmed cited a 2008 RAND Corporation study for the U.S Armed Forces which recommended "divide and rule" as a possible strategy against the Muslim world in "the Long War".<ref>Template:Cite news</ref>

Israel

Professor Avner Cohen, a former Israeli religious affairs official, publicly acknowledged that Hamas was "Israel's creation."<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> Similar statements have been made by Yasser Arafat.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref>

Assertions of Israeli support for Hamas date back to the late 1970s and early 1980s, a period marked by significant political upheaval in the Middle East. Former Israeli officials have openly acknowledged Israel's role in providing funding and assistance to Hamas as a means of undermining secular Palestinian factions such as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Brigadier General Yitzhak Segev, who served as the Israeli military governor in Gaza during the early 1980s, admitted to providing financial assistance to the Muslim Brotherhood, the precursor of Hamas, on the instruction of the Israeli authorities. The aim of the support was to weaken leftist and secular Palestinian organizations.<ref name="blowback" />

Israel contributed to the construction of parts of Islamist politician Ahmed Yassin's network of mosques, clubs, and schools in Gaza, as well as the expansion of these institutions.<ref name="blowback">Template:Cite news</ref>

Shlomo Brom, retired general and former deputy to Israel's national security adviser, believes that an empowered Hamas helps Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu avoid negotiatings over a Palestinian state, suggesting that there is no viable partner for peace talks.<ref name="nyt">Template:Cite news</ref> Bezalel Smotrich, a far-right lawmaker and finance minister under Netanyahu Government, called the Palestinian Authority a "burden" and Hamas an "asset".<ref>Template:Cite news</ref>

Russia

Some consider that contemporary Russian affairs also have characteristics of a "divide and rule" strategy. Applied domestically to secure Vladimir Putin's power in Russia,<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> it is used abroad in Russian disinformation campaigns to achieve "regime security, predominance in Russia’s near abroad, and world-power status for Russia".<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>

See also

• Soft power
• Hard power
• International relations
• Political realism
• False flag
• Destabilisation
• Identity politics
• Black propaganda
• Might makes right