One of the political principles of action in relation to external enemies at all times was the call: "Divide and rule!" Who said these words, under what circumstances they originated and how their semantic load has changed over the centuries, we will now try to figure it out. We will also consider those models of states that, roughly speaking, lend themselves to this statement, and try to trace historical course events within their borders.

Where did these words come from and when did they appear

To begin with, let's try to delve into the very origin of the term "Divide and Conquer". Who said it is not completely known, since the phrase itself in its pure form appeared in legal written sources only in the 19th century. She was present in the letter of the German author Heinrich Heine, where he points out that for the first time this phrase was uttered by the famous ruler of Macedonia, Philip, the father of Alexander the Great. However, it is difficult to attribute this political principle purely to the Macedonian ruling elite of those distant times, since it took place in many other countries that existed in antique period. For example, according to the generally accepted version, historians believe that such a policy occupied a fundamental position in the politics of the Roman Empire, since the very expression "divide et impera" in most sources sounds exactly in Latin. It is believed that this was the most common form of government of the Roman Senate, their creed in life.

Where is the origin of this term?

Since these words have become a kind of political stronghold for many powers that were on the earth's map earlier, today many peoples rewrite them on the pages of their own history. Well, let's consider another version of the ownership of the phrase "Divide and Conquer". Who said these words, the French know, or at least think they know. According to their version, it was King Louis XI in his lifetime (and he lived and ruled in the 15th century) who said: “Diviser pour regner”, which translates as “divide in order to reign”.

However, in the 19th century, this phrase was also slightly altered by a French philosopher who said exactly “Divide and rule” in Latin. He often sneered at this term, arguing that by sharing, you will become rich, you will become a king, you will be able to conquer all people and laugh at justice.

A rather paradoxical exception

It is important to know that, according to all existing documentary sources, this political formulation cannot have ancient roots. “Divide and rule” in Latin was first heard from the lips of the Frenchman Proudhon, and in all the documentation and laws related to the period of the existence of the Roman Empire, there are no such words. The only thing that makes historians think that this information was simply lost is the full compliance with these words of the very policy of the ancient senate. After all, it was in those days that she conquered states that were distinguished by separatist social aspects. It was these words in their direct or slightly modified form that underlay the conduct of politics by all the emperors and procurators of this powerful state.

The meaning and essence of this term in political science

If we talk about this statement exclusively at the level of theory, that is, describe the principle of its operation, the foundations and prerequisites, then we can come to the following conclusion. The political principle of "divide and rule" is a form of sovereign rule mainly in those countries that consist of various parts. These parts, in turn, may differ from each other in ethnic composition population, culture and traditions, or even origin (if the state consists of previously separate existing countries that were conquered by one person). This policy says that to keep such a "colossus" under control is possible only by constantly maintaining conflicts between all existing parties in the state. It should also be noted that most often this tactic is secretive, that is, the incitement and maintenance of conflicts of the political and social level is carried out secretly. Deceptively, local authorities and the masses are involved in this.

What does "Divide and Conquer" mean in history?

Observing the events that took place during the existence of the Roman Empire, one can most accurately trace the principle of action of these words. The countries that submitted to this ancient Latin people often waged internecine wars, they observed skirmishes of people belonging to different cultural strata, to different communities and cultures. Among these, the most a prime example is Egypt, which was completely conquered by its northern maritime neighbor. The Roman Empire annexed many territories in the Middle East. Almost the entire Eastern Mediterranean was at the complete disposal of the procurators, and at the same time, Roman culture, religion, customs and political system were added as a counterweight to their civil clashes and inconsistencies.

How does this principle work today?

According to modern political scientists, the ability to most powerfully and authoritatively control large groups of people is precisely the theory that sounds like "Divide and rule." Who said that a large association can be defeated by a small group of people who are at the head of the state? Exactly, it is much easier to manage separate groups of the people, who, proving to each other their significance and superiority, will gradually exhaust their resources, therefore, will become weaker and weaker. Having placed representatives of local authorities in each region (as the Romans once appointed procurators in their provinces), who are completely subordinate to the central government, it is much easier to keep everyone and everything under control, while not fearing an uprising.

A similar form of government - in a secret, however, form, is observed in many large countries of our globe.

How our difficult world works ...

It should be noted that the rulers began to divide and rule from the moment the state itself was born, and this phenomenon was observed in all regions of our world. It can be said with full confidence that this tactic is a political, social and psychological stronghold, thanks to which not only exist, but also develop the largest states and empires of our world. The principle of "Divide and Conquer" is most pronounced in those societies where three or more noble families compete with each other, a large number of communities, each with its own history and traditions.

The most paradoxical thing is that the participants of such a competition themselves agree with this statement. Since they are all under the auspices of one single top, no one can become more priority and better in this endless cold struggle. And at the same time, the "common" power itself wins - the masses and representatives of local government will never rise up against it. They are too busy proving to each other their worth and importance.

Take a closer look at each country, its regions and districts - and you will certainly find in all this a cultural split, over which one king wisely rules.

Divide and conquer - a wise, vile rule human relations. It is easier to control, lead, manage individuals than a team, therefore “divide and rule” is the principle that all bosses try to adhere to, from the smallest to the largest, especially since people are “happy to be deceived themselves” and share with pleasure - whether by nationality, religion, age, income level, education, place of birth, nose shape, eye shape, skin color, political, ethical preferences, and ... you can continue indefinitely.

rule "divide and rule" opposed to the other: "as long as we are united, we are invincible" . But the first has taken root and is considered indisputable and omnipotent, and the second owns the minds of a small part of humanity, called idealists, dreamers and romantics, and, alas, does not affect the life of society in any way.

The name of the creator of the “divide and rule” rule is buried in the darkness of centuries, because people five thousand years ago were intelligent, observant and cynical to no lesser extent than today, and they acted the same way and preached the same thing. So the statement that the principle of "divide and rule" was first publicly and openly proclaimed as a policy by the Roman Senate: Divide et impera (Divide ut regnes) Divide and conquer, divide to reign, hardly true. Just like the message of the German poet Heinrich Heine in a letter from Paris dated January 12, 1842 that the formula "divide and rule" was first compiled by the Macedonian king Philip (359-336 BC), father of Alexander Macedonian. Other sources attribute authorship to the Italian thinker, diplomat and writer Niccolo Machiavelli, which is doubtful for the same reasons mentioned above.

Ukraine as an example of the use of the "divide and conquer" rule today

It was the most calm, friendly and stable country in the post-Soviet space. Someone did not like it very much, and the people of Ukraine were divided along national, linguistic, religious, and ethical lines. Outcome: war, hatred of some citizens of Ukraine to others, thousands of dead, millions of deformed destinies, poverty, uncertainty about the future.

The use of phraseology "divide and conquer"

- "Saint Bruno himself does not lift a finger to refute both of his opponents, he knows a more convenient way to get rid of them, he leaves them - divide et impera - to their own strife"(Karl Marx)
- “... This was done in order to set the provinces against each other, in order to use in the interests of the patriarchal-feudal despotism the national enmity between Germans and Slavs, as well as the local hatred of each tiny German province for all neighboring provinces. "Divide et imperial"(K. Marx and F. Engels)
- “The disintegration of man with nature, like a driven wedge, breaks little by little everything into opposite parts, even the very soul of man - this is the divide et impera of logic, the path to the true and eternal combination of the bifurcated”(A. herzen)
- “I don't like your policy. In Mahiaveli you are no good with your divide…..”(A. Herzen)
- “And in order to break the power of the clans, the government has always followed the political rule divide et impera”(T. Smollet "Humphrey Clinker's Journey")
- “There is no place for humility in politics, but only boundless simplicity (both holy and sly simplicity) can mistake the primordial police trick for humility: divide et impera, divide and rule, give in to the unimportant in order to preserve the essential…”(V. I. Lenin)
- The disgusting "internal policy" of the Russian titled petty-bourgeois imperialists left in the hearts of people a painful memory of national oppression and bloody persecution of foreigners - "foreigners" - a memory of that vile method of strengthening the power of parasites, which is expressed by the words "divide - rule!" and which is equally amiable, equally indispensable to all capitalist states"(M. Gorky)

Good begets good.

Power is strength, the manifestation of one's will in relation to other people. In order to keep power in his hands, no matter state or group, the leader chooses his own tactics: peacemaking or dictatorial. So, in the first case, power rests on the charisma of the leader, on the ability to convince and lead the group. This power is more stable than the second. It rests on fear and the unquestioning obedience of society to the leader, it happens when, due to the discontent of citizens, coups occur and the dictator is overthrown. Which tactic is more effective?

An example of a dictator is the personality of Joseph Stalin. The process of seizing power was lengthy, he tactfully used his allies to destroy opponents.

Won the political race after Lenin's death by eliminating other contenders, slowly but productively Stalin removed all candidates for the post of party leader from his path. The cult of personality of Stalin is the desire to strengthen positions by maintaining the cult of the leader. Praising the leader of the side of the inner circle, holding holidays in his honor. During his lifetime, Stalin was a great man, whose merits to his homeland were undeniable, but in 1953 Stalin dies. After Stalin's death, the process of "destanilization" began, the destruction of the "personality cult", Stalinism. So, because of narcissism and the cult of personality, Stalin made a number of mistakes that led to the death of people (the Great Patriotic War) If Stalin had listened to his assistants, Zhukov, then thousands of lives could have been saved.

Many examples from the history of our country confirm the author's idea that communication, that is, direct communication, listening to another opinion, is an important factor in government. One of the most peaceful and calm times was in Russia during the reign of A. A. Romanov (1881-1894).

Thus, humanism, mutual understanding are factors in the productive functioning of society, the presence of a common goal and interests unites people, leads to purposeful activity. No dictator can hold power forever, so "unite and direct" - The best way communication between authorities and subordinates.

I am the boss, you are...

"Divide and conquer" is a wise rule,
but "unite and direct" is even better.
Johann Goethe

Our lives are filled with conflicts. Every day we face situations where we need to defend our positions and get what we want. But what if in a controversial situation you have to disconnect from your emotions and make a decision to achieve the goal not only in your own interests? And this must be done every day, because you are the boss? Let's see if we take the right position and know how to be effective leaders?

Any conflict is a war where each side defends its interests, being absolutely convinced of the guilt of the enemy and the need for his punishment. Neither side will admit they were wrong until peace is signed. And this is the best! A third-party explanation of the "objective" situation only leads to a "cooling" of the conflict, but not to its resolution. At the same time, both sides will remain unconvinced and will accumulate forces and "weapons" for the successful resumption of hostilities.

Every day, leaders at all levels become both one of the parties to the conflict and the force that resolves this conflict. The key to the success of this solution is only its managerial effectiveness. That is why the manager should not forget for a minute that each employee is an individual, a professional who knows the value of his experience and his opinion. The price of the issue is the automatic deprivation of the company of an incredible amount, which determines the decrease in the psychological motivation of a professional employee. A competent leader does not sort things out - he works! His goal is to get the maximum effect out of any situation. Otherwise, he may accuse himself of incompetence, consider himself simply "distracting the soul" in a sharp dialogue with a subordinate.

The battlefield is the office!

In the relationship "leader - subordinate" the conflict is inherent from the very beginning. Different powers, different skills, different areas of responsibility - all this gives rise to countless clashes between hierarchical levels.
Statistical data state that 70% of all interpersonal conflicts in teams are occupied by conflicts "leader - subordinate". At the same time, unlike “horizontal” relations, they are overwhelmingly professional in nature and most often arise on issues of ensuring the quality of activities, evaluating work results and introducing innovations.

The frequency of conflicts is associated with an increase in the intensity of communication during the periods of fulfillment of the main tasks of the year, higher inspections, certifications, debriefing, etc. At this time, about 60% of all conflicts “vertically” occur, while May and January are considered especially “acute” months, and June is the most “calm”.

Relations of direct subordination account for about 55% of all conflicts, while large quantity of them occurs between positions close in official position, respectively, with an increase in the status distance, the frequency of conflicts decreases.

Where does conflict come from?

It is no secret that controlling the work of subordinates is much more difficult than organizing them. What do bosses usually dislike about their subordinates? According to surveys, managers most often reproach employees for lack of initiative, passivity and inattention in the performance of their work. Also, the exclusively performing position of subordinates, unwillingness to improve their work, inability to foresee the problem, limitedness and lack of ideas are not understood. Stupidity, laziness and the desire to argue on any issue irritate all leaders without exception.

But even simple questions of the leader are often perceived by the performer as distrust or criticism and already cause a defensive reaction. This is how the initial tension in the relationship arises, which subsequently turns into conflict. From this situation, the leader must always emerge victorious. He must be able to direct the energy of the impending conflict in a positive direction and use the situation to move towards the intended goal.

"Effective" manager of the eyes of subordinates

Regardless of the causes of conflicts, the leader must cope with his task - to prevent and constructively resolve conflicts. What distinguishes a successful leader from a loser who barely manages to patch up personnel gaps, losing the best employees and recruiting the first candidates that come across? First of all, competent management in the established rules of hierarchical conflict. Successful organizers do not initially deny the possibility of conflict and always use it as a means to develop the organization.

First of all, the leader must have some kind of managerial authority, which they obey on duty, without sabotaging or resisting. However, we do not, as a rule, obey those bosses in whom we feel managerial weakness. It manifests itself in the behavior of the leader himself: can he organize himself, does the word disagree with the deed, how does he behave with his immediate superiors, etc. And as soon as such shortcomings of the leader in the eyes of subordinates gain a “critical mass”, the performers will be able to relax and afford a lot, as if “mirroring” the unprofessionalism of their leader.

According to polls, the main shortcomings of leaders are the inability to clearly set goals, unwillingness to delve into problems and consider other people's points of view, excessive authoritarianism, suspicion and detachment from the team. Moreover, the higher the position of the most subordinate, the more scrupulously he treats the personal characteristics of the boss. The negative reaction is caused by the incompetence and suspicion of the boss, as well as his lack of taste. On the other hand, this category of employees is more loyal to exactingness and corrosiveness, unlike line personnel.
Another serious "puncture" of leaders in the eyes of subordinates is the manifestation of rudeness in conflicts. Often subordinates describe the conflict as the following situation: the leader calls to his office and begins to express his indignation. At the same time, the subordinate does not have the right to express his opinion, and even more so to point out to the leader the incorrectness of communication. In extreme cases, he may try to justify himself by shifting the blame on someone else. Studies show that this picture is formed in 30% of conflicts.

Of course, the causes of low authority can be serious problems that do not depend on personal qualities leader. For example, if he is not sufficiently provided with everything necessary for the implementation of managerial decisions for objective reasons, or has recently assumed a leadership position and is experiencing difficulty in social and professional adaptation in the role of a manager. But even such reasons will not be able to justify the boss in front of higher management if the conflicts that arise in his unit cause problems for the entire business process.

10 Rules for an “Effective” Leader

A necessary condition for the “health” of an organization is the corporate culture that its leaders create. How should a leader behave in a decision conflict situations? Let's try to briefly formulate recommendations:

1. Take time and listen to the subordinate, because it is he who has the necessary information, which may not be enough for acceptance right decision. Try to delve into the concerns of the subordinate: a reasonable attitude towards his interests makes the subordinate less conflict and compromise.

2. Express your criticism calmly and concisely, directing it to specific actions, not to a person.

3. Argument your requirements for a subordinate with convincing arguments and legal norms.

4. Interest the subordinate in your vision of resolving the conflict. You can influence his motivation by explaining his mistakes, persuading him, making some concessions, etc.

5. Act confidently, express complete control of yourself and the situation. Keep a working distance, do not allow familiarity, rudeness and raised tones in conversation. Increased emotionality reduces the degree of objectivity and correctness of opponents.

6. Do not allow abuse of your official position by increasing the workload, creating difficulties, applying disciplinary sanctions, etc. This will not only embitter the subordinate and make it difficult to resolve the conflict, but also allow him to point out your bias and unprofessionalism.

7. Do not escalate the conflict without special need, it worsens interpersonal relationships and increases the level of negative emotions.

8. Use the support of higher management or the team only to resolve the conflict, and not to increase pressure on the subordinate.

9. Don't prolong the conflict. Over time, the likelihood of conflict resolution decreases due to the transition of the problem into the emotional sphere. The maximum result can be achieved at the very beginning of the process or during the recession. The most difficult solution to a conflict is during a period of aggravation and, with even less probability, during a period of repeated aggravation. In addition, we must not forget that the time spent on conflict resolution can be safely deleted from the work schedule.

10. Don't be afraid to compromise, especially if you're not sure you're right. Find the courage to admit this to yourself, and if necessary, without unnecessary witnesses, apologize to your subordinate.

Remember: no matter how the situation develops, you bear a great responsibility in it. The main qualities of an “effective” leader are not to hide their “head in the sand”, to be fair, demanding of themselves and subordinates, solve problems, and not just aggravate relations. You should not look for the guilty, but find out and eliminate the cause of the conflict. And then, thanks to your competent actions, discord in the company can disappear forever, and the psychological climate in the office will become another factor in motivating subordinates.

"Divide and conquer" is a wise rule,

but “unite and direct” is even better.

The USA in the 1860s is a political example: Abraham Lincoln (pictured left) is rightfully considered the most prominent US President. During his presidency, he abolished slavery, which made the United States a modern and dynamic country and opened up new horizons for development, centralized federal government, led anti-slavery forces to victory over the Confederacy of the Southern States in civil war 1861-65 years. And he probably would have done a lot more useful if it were not for the mortal wound on April 14, 1865 from a shot fired point-blank from a pistol by actor John Booth, who sympathized with the southerners. Meanwhile, Lincoln nearly lost his first presidential election in 1860. The Republican Party, which he represented, was at that time a minority party - its leader Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 presidential race was supported by only 40% of the population. And Lincoln might not have become president if the far-sighted policy of the mid-60s had not split the Democrats into 2 warring factions. As well as being an excellent orator, Lincoln also divided and ruled.

The main issue dividing Republicans and Democrats at the time was the attitude towards slavery. The Republican Party was strongly opposed to slavery throughout the country. The Democratic Party, supported by an absolute majority in the slave-owning southern states and a minority in the northern ones, was more moderate on this issue and was the majority party. Its leader, Stephen Douglas (pictured bottom right), a senator from Illinois, believed that the people of each state, through a plebiscite, had the right to decide for themselves whether to prohibit or maintain slavery in their state (the doctrine of popular sovereignty). Most Democrats agreed with him, but not the radical slaveholders of the South. However, pursuing an indefinite policy (a fairly successful political strategy, the main objective which to win over adherents of all opinions), he retained the support of the whole party.

The main political move that secured Lincoln the presidency in 1860 was to force Douglas to take a clear stand on the issue of slavery. During the elections to the Illinois Senate, Lincoln challenged Douglas to a debate and forced him to take a clear position that gave the inhabitants of the states the right to decide for themselves the issue of slavery. This position secured Douglas a victory in the Senate from the northern anti-slavery state of Illinois, but alienated from him all adherents from the slave-holding South, who considered this position "treason" to their political interests. At the pre-election national convention of the Democratic Party on April 23, 1860, the delegations of the southern states demanded an ultimatum from the entire party to adopt a pro-slavery platform. Douglas, forced to be consistent after the debate with Lincoln, again spoke in favor of the doctrine of popular sovereignty. In response, on April 30, delegations from the states of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Texas left the convention, and the delegates from Georgia joined them the next day. They, having gathered on June 18 in Baltimore, proclaimed the presidential candidate incumbent Vice President John Breckenridge (pictured on the top right), a native of Kentucky and an apologist for slavery.

Thus, Lincoln's far-sighted strategy brought him success. Stephen Douglas was able to win only in the northern state of New Jersey, completely losing in the southern states to Breckenridge, and Lincoln, gaining 39.8% of the vote, entered the White House and History as the 16th President of the United States. Meanwhile, in total, more voters voted for Douglas and Breckenridge (29.5% for Stephen Douglas and 18.1% for John Breckenridge) and if the Democratic Party was divided into northern and southern factions, Lincoln would not have won the election.

Breaking up major religions into branches - a religious example: I have no doubt that the goal of all religions of any denominations is the well-being of man and society, ethical, moral and economic. It would seem that it could be more logical to unite societies with different faiths around these common goals? Unfortunately, the problem is precisely in the fact that each denomination sees its own path to prosperity. This applies both to the major world religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism) and to their subdivisions. The fragmentation of the main religions into branches is impressive in its scope. Christianity is split into the Catholic Church (the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches are independent of each other), the Protestant Church (divided into Baptists, Calvinists, Lutherans, Seventh-day Adventists, Anglicans, Pentecostals and others) and the Orthodox Church (many independent and struggling friends). with a friend for the spheres of influence of local patriarchates), each of which claims independence and its own rightness. In Islam, there are also a lot of currents: Sunnis, Shiites, Sufis, Kharijites, Ismailis, Wahhabis, Muridites, Salafis, 4 madhhabs, many sects, jamaats and tarikats. Each branch and its subdivisions differ from each other in their view of the essential issues of theology, the paths to the "general welfare".

The worst of the evils is that, forgetting about the common goals of prosperity and even many commandments, interpreting their sacred books in their own way and egging on fanatics, religions with weapons in their hands attacked in the struggle for world domination as "gentiles" (numerous Crusades and jihads, modern terrorism and the fight against it), and on those that broke away from their own branch (the Huguenot wars, St. Bartholomew's night, the persecution of the Baptists in England, the caliphate's wars with the Kharijites, the murder of the 4th and last Caliph, nephew and son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad ( s.a.s.), Khazreti Ali, historical and modern censure of the Wahhabis). You can talk for a long time about who benefited from these wars, who conquered new lands, expanded their power and filled the treasury with gold for some reason in this world, and not the next. But this will make little sense.

"Vanity is my favorite sin," says Al Pacino's character Satan in the brilliant film The Devil's Advocate. I think it is safe to add greed and bigotry to the list of Satan's favorite sins as well.

“The kingdom of heaven is in your heart and mind,” said Balian, the character of Orlando Bloom, implying that it cannot be obtained either by fire, or by a sword, or by a martyr’s belt, in Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven.

The Council of Representatives of the Crimean Tatars under the President of Ukraine is a topical example: On the promotion by the current Ukrainian and Crimean authorities to the Council of Representatives of the Crimean Tatar people under the President of Ukraine, figures opposed to the Mejlis and more loyal to the current government in recent weeks a lot was said, and not always in friendly tones. The Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people categorically ignores the Council, believing that all seats in the Council of Representatives should be taken by members of the Mejlis as the only representative body of the Crimean Tatars, as it was before. “Milli Firka” (I will speak first of all about it as the most significant and public of the organizations that took part in the Council, but my arguments can be fully extended to other participants) in the person of chairman Vasvi Abduraimov declares 5 issues that they are going to supervise in Council of Representatives. And these questions, I must say, fully correspond to the interests of the Crimean Tatars.

The cornerstone of the criticism of the Mejlis against the Council of Representatives is the illegitimacy of its members as representatives of the Crimean Tatar people, which is what the spring nationwide direct elections to the Kurultai are intended to prove. The argument is weighty, especially if the members of the Council of Representatives are not on the list of Kurultai delegates. Whether the authorities that appoint members of the Council of Representatives will listen to him is the most fundamental of the questions. I wondered if in revenge Milli Firka criticizes the Majlis’s disregard for the Council of Representatives from the position of “Why don’t you use every opportunity to benefit the people?” often bending the stick at the same time. However, after reading the latest articles on their website, I did not find such criticism. Vasvi Abduraimov, in his interview to Arguments of the Week, even quite correctly "calls on representatives of the Mejlis to get involved in this work." Nevertheless, I doubt that he sincerely wants this: the participation of the Mejlis in the Council will now confuse his cards, because if Milli Firke as part of the Council manages to positively resolve the declared issues, they will begin to take away the votes of the Crimean Tatars from the Mejlis. For some reason, it seems to me that the current authorities of Crimea will not mind and can contribute to this. And as soon as something starts to turn out, we can expect a series of publications on the topic “But you see, we, unlike the Mejlis, are really working.” Well, if nothing happens, then neither the Council of Representatives, nor talk about it, nor the efforts of the current government and members of the Council will be worth a damn - they will turn out to be just another soap bubble.