Divide and conquer

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.{{cite web | url=https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=divide |title=The American Heritage Dictionary entry: Divide}}{{cite web |url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/divide%20and%20conquer |title=Definition of DIVIDE AND CONQUER}}{{cite book |url=https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191828836.001.0001/acref-9780191828836-e-104 | isbn=978-0-19-182883-6 |title=A Dictionary of African Politics | chapter=Divide and rule | date=24 January 2019 |publisher=Oxford University Press}} As a maxim, it is commonly recommended to political rulers.{{cite book | url=https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780198734901.001.0001/acref-9780198734901-e-561 | isbn=978-0-19-873490-1 | title=Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs | chapter=DIVIDE and rule | date=17 September 2015 | publisher=Oxford University Press }} 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." The exact wording of the idiom in English is varied,{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EuvqPkAq2bkC&pg=PA112 | title=Early American Proverbs and Proverbial Phrases | isbn=978-0-674-21981-6 | last1=Whiting | first1=Bartlett Jere | date=1977 | publisher=Harvard University Press }} including divide and rule (mainly in British English but rarely used),{{cite web | url=https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/divide-and-conquer | title=Divide and conquer}} divide and conquer (in American, the most common variation),{{cite web | url=https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/divide-and-rule | title=Divide and rule }} divide and govern, and divide so that you may rule.{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rT5PEAAAQBAJ | title=Dictionary of European Proverbs | isbn=978-1-134-86461-4 | last1=Strauss | first1=Emanuel | date=12 November 2012 | publisher=Routledge}}

The phrase divide and conquer (from the latin divide et impera) first appeared in English around 1600.

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."){{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=K2pOAAAAYAAJ&q=Divide+and+rule,+has+been+rejected,+since+the+root+and+the+summit+of+authority+are+confirmed+by+the+consent+of+the+subjects.%22 | title=The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke | isbn=978-0-86597-313-8 | last1=Coke | first1=Sir Edward | date=2003 | publisher=Liberty Fund }}{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1cRwEAAAQBAJ&dq=Divide+and+rule%2C+has+been+rejected%2C+since+the+root+and+the+summit+of+authority+are+confirmed+by+the+consent+of+the+subjects.%22&pg=PA213 | title=The American Colonies and the British Empire, 1607-1783, Part II | isbn=978-1-000-17333-8 | last1=Greene | first1=Jack P. | date=29 May 2022 | publisher=Taylor & Francis }}

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,{{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}} which summarized the thesis of Federalist No. 10:{{cite web|url=http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm|title=The Federalist #10|work=constitution.org}} "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."{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9nd2vRt1JGMC&dq=the%20reprobated%20axiom%20of%20tyranny&pg=PA207 | title=Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution | isbn=978-1-4299-2366-8 | last1=Holton | first1=Woody | date=14 October 2008 | publisher=Farrar, Straus and Giroux }}{{cite journal | url=https://doi.org/10.2307/3491599 | doi=10.2307/3491599 | jstor=3491599 | last1=Holton | first1=Woody | title="Divide et Impera": "Federalist 10" in a Wider Sphere | journal=The William and Mary Quarterly | date=2005 | volume=62 | issue=2 | pages=175–212 | url-access=subscription }}

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"):{{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|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 }} Kant refers this tactic when describing the traits of a "political moralist."{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xMB7BsT_w4gC&dq=kant%20%22Si%20fecisti%2C%20nega%22&pg=PA120 | title=Political Writings | isbn=978-0-521-39837-4 | last1=Kant | first1=Immanuel | date=1991 | publisher=Cambridge University Press }}

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.{{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.

The principle "divide et impera" is cited as a common in politics by Traiano Boccalini in La bilancia politica.1 [https://archive.org/details/imgGI273MiscellaneaOpal/page/n151 §136] and 2 [https://books.google.com/books?id=w36PM_6gDOoC&pg=PA225 §225]

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.{{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}}

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.{{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.}}

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."{{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}} 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.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. 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:{{cite web |author1=Markandey Katju |url=https://www.nation.com.pk/02-Mar-2013/the-truth-about-pakistan |publisher=The Nation |title=The truth about Pakistan|date=2 March 2013 |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|url-status=live |author1-link=Markandey Katju }}

{{blockquote| Up to 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 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 ‘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.}}

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.History of India, John Keay, pp. 464, 2010}}

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:

{{quotation|The undivided army was a unique institution set up by the British in India... [A]ll combat units, except Gorkhas and 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.The Partition of Soldiers, General S.K. Sinha, The Asian Age, 2015, [https://www.pressreader.com/india/the-asian-age/20150129/281943131290027]}}

{{Excerpt|Kabyle myth|paragraphs=1-2}}

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.{{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.}}

• 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.Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 8.46.2
• During the Gallic Wars, Caesar was able to use a divide and conquer strategy to easily defeat the Gauls, exploiting their fractious nature of their tribal society. Although the remaining Gauls were later united under Vercingetorix their resistance was not enough to stop the 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."}}{{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."}}
• 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."{{cite web | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qxcMAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22I%20pray%2C%20ever%20retain%20if%20not%20love%20for%20us%22&pg=PA112 | title=The Agricola and Germany of Tacitus: And the Dialogue on Oratory | last1=Tacitus | first1=Cornelius | date=1877 }}{{cite web | url=https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0083%3Achapter%3D33 | title=Cornelius Tacitus, Germany and its Tribes, chapter 33 }}
• In Revolutions of 1848, the governments which were being revolted against used this tactic to counter the rebels.{{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}}{{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| publisher=University of Toronto Press }}
• The colonial authorities in British Cyprus often stirred up the Turkish minority in order to neutralize agitation from the Greek majority.{{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}}{{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}} 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).{{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.}}
• 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.{{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}} The Stanford historian Priya Satia claims that the partition of Ireland was in ways a patch-test for the partition of India in 1947.{{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}}

According to Richard Morrock, four tactics of divide and rule practiced by Western colonialists are:{{Cite journal |last=Morrock |first=Richard |date=1973 |title=Heritage of Strife: The Effects of Colonialist "Divide and Rule" Strategy upon the Colonized Peoples |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/40401707 |journal=Science & Society |volume=37 |issue=2 |pages=129–151 |jstor=40401707 |issn=0036-8237}}

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.

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".{{Cite news |title=The Pentagon plan to 'divide and rule' the Muslim world |language=en |work=Middle East Eye |url=http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/pentagon-plan-divide-and-rule-muslim-world-1690265165 |access-date=2018-06-29}}

{{Campaignbox Fatah–Hamas conflict}}

{{anchor|Hamas}}

{{main|Israeli support for Hamas}}

Professor Avner Cohen, a former Israeli religious affairs official, publicly acknowledged that Hamas was "Israel's creation."{{cite news |last1=Higgins |first1=Andrew |title=How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas - WSJ |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123275572295011847 |access-date=1 May 2024 |work=WSJ |date=24 January 2009 |archive-date=26 September 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090926212507/http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html |url-status=live }} Similar statements have been made by Yasser Arafat.{{cite news |title=How Israel went from helping 'create' Hamas to bombing it |url=https://www.tbsnews.net/hamas-israel-war/how-israel-went-helping-create-hamas-bombing-it-718378 |access-date=1 May 2024 |work=The Business Standard |date=14 October 2023 |language=en |archive-date=1 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240501014540/https://www.tbsnews.net/hamas-israel-war/how-israel-went-helping-create-hamas-bombing-it-718378 |url-status=live }}

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.

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.{{cite news |last1=Sayedahmed |first1=Dina |title=Blowback: How Israel Went From Helping Create Hamas to Bombing It |url=https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/ |access-date=30 April 2024 |work=The Intercept |date=19 February 2018 |archive-date=1 December 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231201211111/https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/ |url-status=live }}

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.{{cite news |last1=Mazzetti |first1=Mark |last2=Bergman |first2=Ronen |title='Buying Quiet': Inside the Israeli Plan That Propped Up Hamas |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html |access-date=30 April 2024 |work=The New York Times |date=10 December 2023 |archive-date=1 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240501235259/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html |url-status=live }} Bezalel Smotrich, a far-right lawmaker and finance minister under Netanyahu Government, called the Palestinian Authority a "burden" and Hamas an "asset".{{cite news |title=Israeli far-right Minister Bezalel Smotrich described Hamas as 'asset' in unearthed tweet |url=https://www.thenationalnews.com/mena/palestine-israel/2024/01/23/israel-bezalel-smotrich-hamas-asset/ |access-date=1 May 2024 |work=The National |date=23 January 2024 |language=en |archive-date=1 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240501014540/https://www.thenationalnews.com/mena/palestine-israel/2024/01/23/israel-bezalel-smotrich-hamas-asset/ |url-status=live }}

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,{{Cite book |last=Reddaway |first=Peter |author-link=Peter Reddaway |title=Russia's domestic security wars: Putin's use of divide and rule against his hardline allies |publisher=Palgrave Pivot |year=2018 |isbn=978-3319773919}} it is used abroad in Russian disinformation campaigns to achieve "regime security, predominance in Russia’s near abroad, and world-power status for Russia".{{Cite journal |last=Karlsen |first=Geir Hågen |date=2019-02-08 |title=Divide and rule: ten lessons about Russian political influence activities in Europe |journal=Palgrave Communications |language=en |volume=5 |issue=1 |pages=1–14 |doi=10.1057/s41599-019-0227-8 |issn=2055-1045|doi-access=free }}

{{Wiktionary|divide and conquer}}

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

{{Reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Divide And Rule}}

Category:1st-millennium BC introductions

Category:Conflict (process)

Category:Latin words and phrases

Category:Organizational conflict

Category:Political terminology

Category:Power (social and political) concepts

Category:Strategy

Category:Concepts in political philosophy