Divide and rule: Difference between revisions

VisualWikitext

Latest revision as of 21:37, 3 April 2025

Redirect to:

Divide and conquer

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{short description|Strategy in politics and sociology}}
+#REDIRECT [[Divide and conquer]]
-{{other uses}}
-{{distinguish|divide and choose}}
-{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2023}}
-[[File:Philip-ii-of-macedon.jpg|thumb|Tradition attributes the origin of the motto to [[Philip II of Macedon]]: {{lang-grc-gre|διαίρει καὶ βασίλευε}} ''diaírei kài basíleue'', in [[Ancient Greek]], meaning "divide and rule"]]
-'''Divide and rule''' policy ({{lang-la|divide et impera}}), or '''divide and conquer''', in [[politics]] and [[sociology]] is gaining and maintaining [[Power (social and political)|power]] divisively. Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories. However, it has been hard to distinguish between the exploitation of pre-existing divisions by opponents, and the deliberate creation or strengthening of these divisions implied by "divide and rule".
+{{Redirect category shell|
+{{R from move}}
-The strategy, but not the phrase, applies in many ancient cases: the example of [[Aulus Gabinius]] exists, parting [[Judea (Roman province)|the Jewish nation]] into five conventions, reported by [[Flavius Josephus]] in Book I, 169–170 of ''[[The Jewish War]]'' (''De bello Judaico'').<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=J.+BJ+1.159 |title=Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book I, section 159 |publisher=[[Perseus Project]] |access-date=2011-08-27}}</ref> [[Strabo]] also reports in ''[[Geographica]]'', 8.7.3<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Strab.+8.7.1 |title=Strabo, Geography, Book 8, chapter 7, section 1 |publisher=[[Perseus Project]] |access-date=2011-08-27}}</ref> that the [[Achaean League]] was gradually dissolved when it became part of the [[Macedonia (Roman province)|Roman province of Macedonia]], as the Romans treated the various states differently, wishing to preserve some and to destroy others.{{citation needed|date=May 2021}}<!-- This level of detail is not contained in the source cited above -->
-Elements of this technique involve:
-* creating or encouraging divisions among the subjects to prevent alliances that could challenge the sovereign and distributing forces that they overpower the other.
-* 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
-==Uses of the phrase==
-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 its rule. [[Niccolò Machiavelli]] identifies a similar application to military strategy, advising in Book VI of ''[[The Art of War (Machiavelli book)|The Art of War]]'' (1521).<ref>{{Cite book|last=Machiavelli|first=Niccolo|url=http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/machiavelli/niccolo/m149a/chapter6.html|title=The Art of War|publisher=The University of Adelaide Library|year=2003|editor-last=Thomas|editor-first=Steve|volume=6|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070625213056/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/machiavelli/niccolo/m149a/chapter6.html|archive-date=2007-06-25|url-status=dead}}</ref> (''L'arte della guerra''):<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITA1109/_P7.HTM|title=Dell'arte della guerra: testo – IntraText CT|work=intratext.com}}</ref> a Captain should endeavor with every act to divide the forces of the enemy. Machiavelli advises that this act should be achieved 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]].{{Citation needed|date=August 2021}}  It was utilised by the Roman ruler [[Julius Caesar]]{{citation needed|date=November 2021}} and the French emperor [[Napoleon]] (together with the maxim ''divide ut regnes)''.{{citation needed|date=November 2021}}
-The strategy of division and rule has been attributed to sovereigns, ranging from [[Louis XI of France]] to the [[House of Habsburg]]. [[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 [[House of Lords|Lords]] and [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|Commons]] what might be a principal motive for them to have good success in [[Parliament of England|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.] In a minor variation, [[Francis Bacon|Sir Francis Bacon]] wrote the phrase "separa et impera" in a letter to [[James VI and I|James I]] of 15 February 1615. [[James Madison]] made this recommendation in a letter to [[Thomas Jefferson]] of 24 October 1787,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch17s22.html |title=Constitutional Government: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson |publisher=Press-pubs.uchicago.edu |access-date=2011-08-27}}</ref> which summarized the thesis of ''[[Federalist Papers|The Federalist#10]]'':<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm|title=The Federalist #10|work=constitution.org}}</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." 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'' (If you commit a crime, deny it).<ref>{{cite web|title=Immanuel Kant: Perpetual Peace: Appendix I|url=https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/latta-perpetual-peace-a-philosophical-essay-1917-ed|url-status=live|access-date=11 October 2021|website=Online Library of Liberty|publisher=Online Library of Liberty|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201218192525/https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/latta-perpetual-peace-a-philosophical-essay-1917-ed |archive-date=18 December 2020 }}</ref>
-[[Immanuel Kant]] refers this tactic in the Appendix I of his [[Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch|Perpetual Peace]] when describing the traits of a ''political moralist.''
-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>{{Cite book|last=Webber|first=Harry|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6DtxbznhRYsC|title=Divide and Conquer: Target Your Customers Through Market Segmentation|date=1998-06-19|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|isbn=978-0-471-17633-6|language=en}}</ref>
-==Foreign policy==
-Divide and rule can be used by states to weaken enemy military [[alliance]]s. This usually happens when [[propaganda]] is disseminated within the enemy states in an attempt to raise doubts about the alliance. Once the alliance weakens or dissolves, a vacuum will allow the state to achieve [[hegemony|military dominance]].
-==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">{{Cite journal | doi=10.1080/03017605.2016.1199629 |title = Divide et Impera: Vertical and Horizontal Dimensions of British Imperialism|journal = Critique: Journal of Socialist Theory|volume = 44|issue = 3|pages = 221–231|year = 2016|last1 = Xypolia|first1 = Ilia|hdl = 2164/9956|s2cid = 148118309|hdl-access=free| url=https://aura.abdn.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/2164/9956/Xypolia_Divide_et_Impera_Vertical_and_Horizontal_imperialism.pdf}} p. 221.</ref>
-The principle "''divide et impera''" is cited as a common in politics by [[Traiano Boccalini]] in ''La bilancia politica''.<ref>'''1''' [https://archive.org/details/imgGI273MiscellaneaOpal/page/n151 §136] and '''2''' [https://books.google.com/books?id=w36PM_6gDOoC&pg=PA225 §225]</ref>
-==Psychopathy in the workplace==
-{{Main|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.<ref name=Boddy>Boddy, C. R. [https://books.google.com/books?id=C0l9DAAAQBAJ Corporate Psychopaths: Organizational Destroyers] (2011)</ref>
-==Historical examples==
-===Asia===
-====Mongol Empire====
-While the [[Mongols]] imported [[Islam in Central Asia|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>{{cite journal|jstor=41930343|journal=Journal of Asian History|volume= 13|number=2|date=1979|pages=137–8|publisher=Harrassowitz Verlag|title=Sino-Khitan Administration in Mongol Bukhara|last1=Buell|first1=Paul D.}}</ref>
-====Indian subcontinent====
-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 [[Mountstuart Elphinstone|Lord Elphinstone]] who said that "''Divide et impera'' was the old Roman maxim, and it should be ours."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Tharoor |first=Shashi |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=atcqMQAACAAJ |title=Inglorious Empire: What the British Did to India |date=2017 |publisher=Hurst |isbn=978-1-84904-808-8 |pages=101 |language=en}}</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|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> 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 (Pakistan)|The Nation]]'' in 2013:<ref name="Katju2013">{{cite web |author1=Markandey Katju |url=http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/columns/02-Mar-2013/the-truth-about-pakistan |publisher=[[The Nation (Pakistan)|The Nation]] |title=The truth about Pakistan|access-date=29 January 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131110103720/http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/columns/02-Mar-2013/the-truth-about-pakistan |archive-date=10 November 2013 |language=en|author1-link=Markandey Katju }}</ref>
-{{blockquote|  Up to [[Indian Rebellion of 1857|1857]], there were no communal problems in India; all communal riots and animosity began after 1857. No doubt even before 1857, there were differences between Hindus and Muslims, the Hindus going to temples and the Muslims going to mosques, but there was no animosity. In fact, the Hindus and Muslims used to help each other; Hindus used to participate in [[Eid al-Fitr|Eid]] celebrations, and Muslims in [[Holi]] and [[Diwali]]. The Muslim rulers like the [[Mughals]], [[Nawab of Awadh]] and [[Murshidabad]], [[Tipu Sultan]], etc. were totally secular; they organised [[Ramlilas]], participated in Holi, Diwali, etc. [[Ghalib]]'s affectionate letters to his Hindu friends like Munshi Shiv Naraln Aram, Har Gopal Tofta, etc. attest to the affection between Hindus and Muslims at that time. In 1857, the ‘[[Indian Rebellion of 1857|Great Mutiny]]’ broke out in which the Hindus and Muslims jointly fought against the British. This shocked the British government so much that after suppressing the Mutiny, they decided to start the policy of divide and rule (see online "History in the Service of Imperialism" by B.N. Pande). All communal riots began after 1857, artificially engineered by the British authorities. The British collector would secretly call the Hindu [[Pandit]], pay him money, and tell him to speak against Muslims, and similarly he would secretly call the [[Maulvi]], pay him money, and tell him to speak against Hindus. This communal poison was injected into our body politic year after year and decade after decade.<ref name="Katju2013"/>}}
-On the other hand, the [[Hindutva]] movement, allied to recent Indian governments, stresses strongly Hindu-Muslim conflict going back centuries before the arrival of the British.
-Likewise, historian [[John Keay]] takes a contrary position regarding British policy, writing:
-{{blockquote|Stock accusations of a wider Machiavellian intent to 'divide and rule' and to 'stir up Hindu-Muslim animosity' assume some premonition of a later partition. They make little sense in the contemporary context. 'Divide and rule' as a governing precept supposes the pre-existence of an integrated entity. In an India politically united only by British rule – and not yet even by the opposition which it generated – such a thing did not exist. Division was a fact of life. As [[Maulana Muhammad Ali]] would later put it, 'we divide and you rule'. Without recognising, exploring and accommodating such division, British dominion in India would have been impossible to establish, let alone sustain. Provoking sectarian conflict, on the other hand, was rarely in British interest.<ref>''History of India'', John Keay, pp. 464, 2010</ref>}}
-Similarly, [[Srinivas Kumar Sinha|General S.K. Sinha]], former Vice-Chief of Army Staff, writes that contrary to what the notion of divide and rule would predict, the Indian Army was effectively integrated:
-{{quotation|The undivided army was a unique institution set up by the British in India... [A]ll combat units, except [[Gurkha|Gorkhas]] and [[The Garhwal Rifles|Garhwalis]], had a mixed combination of Muslims and non-Muslims. They fought wars together and lived as friendly comrades in peace, owing loyalty to their regiments. Political developments with the emergency of the Congress and the Muslim League did not affect them. The Indian Army was totally apolitical till June 3rd 1947... In fact, during the Partition holocaust and till that date, both Muslim and non-Muslim soldiers remained totally impartial in dealing with communal violence. After June 3, 1947 things started changing.<ref>''The Partition of Soldiers'', General S.K. Sinha, ''The Asian Age'', 2015, [https://www.pressreader.com/india/the-asian-age/20150129/281943131290027]</ref>}}
-====Middle East====
-Some analysts assert that the [[United States]] is practicing the strategy in the 21st-century Middle East through their supposed escalation of the [[Shia–Sunni relations|Sunni–Shia conflict]]. British journalist [[Nafeez Ahmed]] cited a 2008 [[RAND Corporation]] study for the [[United States Armed Forces|U.S Armed Forces]] which recommended "divide and rule" as a possible strategy against the [[Arab world|Muslim world]] in [[War on Terror#Etymology|"the Long War"]].<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/pentagon-plan-divide-and-rule-muslim-world-1690265165|title=The Pentagon plan to 'divide and rule' the Muslim world|work=Middle East Eye|access-date=2018-06-29|language=en}}
-</ref> British historian [[Christopher Davidson]] argues that the current [[Yemeni Civil War (2015–present)|crisis in Yemen]] is being "egged on" by the [[Federal government of the United States|United States government]], and could be part of a wider covert strategy to "spur fragmentation in Iran allies and allow Israel to be surrounded by weak states”.<ref>{{Cite journal|last= Pernin|first=Christopher G.|display-authors=et al|date=2008|title=Unfolding the Future of the Long War|url=https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG738.pdf|journal=US Army Training and Doctrine Command's Army Capability Integration Center|via=RAND Arroyo}}</ref>{{not in citation given|date=November 2021}}
-===Ottoman Empire===
-The Ottoman Empire often used a divide-and-rule strategy, pitting [[Armenians]] and [[Kurds]] against each other. This strategy no longer worked in the [[Republic of Turkey]] because the Armenians were eliminated in the [[Armenian Genocide]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cheterian |first1=Vicken |title=Denial of violence. Ottoman past, Turkish present, and collective violence against the Armenians 1789–2009, Fatma Müge Göçek, New York, Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 656, US$78.00 (hardback), HC 978-0199334209 |journal=Nationalities Papers |date=2016 |volume=44 |issue=4 |pages=652–654 |doi=10.1080/00905992.2016.1158006 |s2cid=156252380 |quote=Yet, irony of history, instead of chasing the Armenians from the eastern provinces to make a new home for the Balkan Muslim refugees, they practically eliminated Armenians and consolidated an ethnic Kurdish presence in eastern Anatolia. Having lost the capacity to practice imperial policies of "divide and rule", today Turkey finds itself face-to-face with Kurdish nationalism.}}</ref>
-===Europe===
-* [[Herodotus]], ([[Histories (Herodotus)|Histories, 5.3]]) claimed that the [[Thracians]] would be the strongest nation in the world if they were united.
-* [[Classical Athens|Athenian]] historian [[Thucydides]] in his book [[History of the Peloponnesian War]] claimed that [[Alcibiades]] recommended to [[Achaemenid Empire|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 (book)|Germania. chapter 33]] writes "Long, I pray, may foreign nations persist in hating one another .... and fortune can bestow on us no better gift than discord among our foes."
-* The [[Roman Republic|Romans]] invaded the [[Macedonia (ancient kingdom)|Kingdom of Macedonia]] from the south and defeated [[Perseus of Macedon|King Perseus]] in the [[Battle of Pydna]] in 168 BC. Macedonia was then divided into four republics that were heavily restricted from relations with one another and other Hellenic states. A ruthless purge occurred, with allegedly anti-Roman citizens being denounced by their compatriots and [[Deportation|forcibly deported]] in large numbers.{{citation needed|date=November 2020}}
-* During the [[Gallic Wars]], [[Julius Caesar|Caesar]] was able to use a divide and conquer strategy to easily defeat the [[Gauls]], although the Gauls had conveniently pre-divided themselves, and probably no extra effort was needed by Caesar. By the time the Gauls united under [[Vercingetorix]], it was already too late for them.<ref name="EB_The_Roman_Conquest">{{cite web |url=http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/215768/France/41196/The-press |title=France: The Roman conquest |website=[[Encyclopædia Britannica]] |access-date=6 April 2015 |quote="Because of chronic internal rivalries, Gallic resistance was easily broken, though Vercingetorix's Great Rebellion of 52 bce had notable successes."}}</ref><ref name="The_first_triumvirate_and_the_conquest_of_Gaul">{{cite web |url=http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/88114/Julius-Caesar/9735/The-first-triumvirate-and-the-conquest-of-Gaul |title=Julius Caesar: The first triumvirate and the conquest of Gaul |website=[[Encyclopædia Britannica]] |access-date=15 February 2015 |quote="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."}}</ref>
-* In [[Revolutions of 1848]], the governments which were being revolted against used this tactic to counter the rebels.<ref>{{Cite web | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RSHEDwAAQBAJ&q=divide+et+impera | title=The Revolutionary Movement of 1848-9 in Italy, Austria-Hungary, and Germany: With Some Examination of the Previous Thirty-three Years| last1=Edmund Maurice| first1=C.| date=11 December 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Z0mKRsElYNkC&q=1848+%22divide+et+impera%22&pg=PA435 |title = A History of Ukraine: The Land and Its Peoples, Second Edition|isbn = 9781442698796|last1 = Magocsi|first1 = Paul Robert|date = 18 June 2010}}</ref>
-* The [[Salami strategy]] of Hungarian Communist leader, [[Mátyás Rákosi]].{{Citation needed|date=August 2007}}
-* The colonial authorities in [[British Cyprus]] often stirred up the [[Turkish Cypriots|Turkish minority]] in order to neutralize agitation from the [[Greek Cypriots|Greek majority]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Grob-Fitzgibbon|first1=Benjamin|title=Imperial Endgame: Britain's Dirty Wars and the End of Empire|date=2011|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|isbn=978-0-230-30038-5|page=285}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Jordan|first1=Preston Lim|title=The Evolution of British Counter-Insurgency during the Cyprus Revolt, 1955–1959|date=2018|publisher=Springer|isbn=9783319916200|page=58}}</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 [[Cyprus dispute|divided to this day]] after an invasion by [[Turkey]] to establish the state of [[North Cyprus]] (which is only [[Diplomatic recognition|diplomatically recognized]] by Turkey).<ref>{{cite web|title=International Justice: The Case of Cyprus|date=13 May 2016 |url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/constantine-tzanos/international-justice-the_b_9934090.html|publisher=The [[HuffPost]]|access-date=1 November 2017|location=Washington, D.C.}}</ref>
-*The [[Partition of Ireland|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>{{Cite news|last=McGreevy|first=Ronan|title=100 years ago today the partition of Ireland was made official|url=https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/100-years-ago-today-the-partition-of-ireland-was-made-official-1.4444655|access-date=2021-01-04|newspaper=The Irish Times|language=en}}</ref> The [[Stanford University|Stanford]] historian [[Priya Satia]] claims that the partition of Ireland was in ways a patch-test for the [[Partition of India|partition of India in 1947]].<ref>{{Cite web|last=University|first=Stanford|date=2019-03-08|title=Partition of 1947 continues to haunt India, Pakistan|url=https://news.stanford.edu/2019/03/08/partition-1947-continues-haunt-india-pakistan-stanford-scholar-says/|access-date=2021-01-04|website=Stanford News|language=en}}</ref>
-===Mexico===
-{{Main article|Chiapas conflict}}
-===United States===
-Harry G. Broadman opined in ''[[Forbes]]'' regarding President [[Donald Trump]]: "[a]s in his campaign, the President has been successfully—at least to date—pursuing a divide and conquer strategy domestically and internationally to try to achieve his goals. The result is an absence of a robust set of checks and balances to ensure that the best economic interests of the U.S. and the world will be served."<ref>{{cite web|author=Harry G. Broadman|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybroadman/2018/06/29/we-all-should-worry-about-trumps-divide-and-conquer-trade-policy/|title=We All Should Worry About Trump's 'Divide And Conquer' Trade Policy|magazine=[[Forbes]]|date=29 June 2018|accessdate=27 May 2021}}</ref>
-== See also ==
-{{columns-list|colwidth=14em|
-* [[Ad hominem]]
-* [[Agent provocateur]]
-* [[Apartheid]]
-* [[Astroturfing]]
-* [[Black propaganda]]
-* [[Critical theory]]
-* [[False flag]]
-* [[Front organization]]
-* [[Gerrymandering#Tactics|Cracking]]
-* [[Hate speech]]
-* [[Demographic engineering]]
-* [[Defeat in detail]]
-* [[Destabilisation]]
-* [[Identity politics]]
-* [[Pork barrel]]
-* [[Promoting adversaries]]
-* [[Psychological warfare]]
-* [[Red herring]]
-* [[Salami slicing tactics]]
-* [[Smear campaign]]
-* [[Smoke screen]]
-* [[Social exclusion]]
-* [[Social undermining]]
-* [[Strategy of tension]]
-* [[Triangulation (psychology)]]
-* [[Wedge issue]]
 }}
-==References==
-{{Reflist}}
-{{Workplace}}
-{{DEFAULTSORT:Divide And Rule}}
-[[Category:1st-millennium BC introductions]]
-[[Category:Conflict (process)]]
-[[Category:Latin words and phrases]]
-[[Category:Machiavellianism]]
-[[Category:Organizational conflict]]
-[[Category:Philip II of Macedon]]
-[[Category:Political terminology]]
-[[Category:Power (social and political) concepts]]
-[[Category:Strategy]]
-[[Category:Workplace]]