Rule by division

Diversity — demographic, ideological, cultural, ethnic or linguistic — if reconciled, adds to a nation's inclusivity, prosperity and strength. When individuals and groups have a say in decisions and feel valued, society develops and strengthens. Yet it can also be a weakness if exploited. Thus, it is a double-edged sword. Societies that integrate and use their diversity prosper. However, those that weaponise and magnify divisions fracture along economic, ethnic, racial, sectarian, regional and ideological lines, enabling rulers to sustain power through 'divide and rule.'

Interestingly, in such societies, it's not just the sensitised divisions that serve the rulers, but also their timely consolidation. This thereby leaves society oscillating between chaos (or critical junctures) and the fleeting calm before the next onset of chaos. The rule by division — where rulers and ruled are perennial winners and losers, respectively — is rarely a mere accident or due to a lack of competence, vision or skills; rather, it stems from their presence thereof, manifesting in selective and ironic ways.

First, vision is key to the rule. That is, a ruler who is empathetic and envisions inclusive, sustainable prosperity for their subjects is unlikely to succeed in pursuing brute desires and gluttony. Nor would a statesman disillusioned about their ill-earned stakes and estates can sustain themselves alongside politically educated, homogenised and self-sufficient masses. Without clear vision, strategy and practices, the architects of division would not have been so effective, nor would they have succeeded in ruling. The only difference is that their vision is sharply focused and funnelled and rarely sees beyond the narrow interests of the ruling elite.

Similarly, one in the midst of cultivated divisions and the disadvantaged public's plight questions the competence of our rulers and their ability to rule. The cynics and critics who question the respectable ruling elite — the dynastic despots, civil and military bureaucracy, judges, media, clergy, capitalist elite and their sympathisers — often forget that handling the public's many challenges is rarely possible without conscious efforts, competence and ability, which, fortunately, selectively and exclusively benefits the architects, abettors and beneficiaries of the dis(order).

Regarding the empathy and skill required, few historical counterparts, a contention you may share, could outperform ours in successfully and sustainably ruling through division. The capacity to wedge societal diversity and divisions, and skilfully pit them against each other, can rarely be achieved without rulers' calculated empathy and strategic insight.

Consider yourself the principal player in the ruling elite: sensitising demographic fault lines; courting and empowering the group that best serves your interests so as to rule through it; or, alternatively, disowning those you've empowered should they defy you, co-opting the other side, and — in cases where all fragments of the divide defy you — tactfully pitting them against one another, ceding and seizing the vacuum and ossifying your stakes to rule independently or reclaim the most accommodating faction. Such manoeuvres could rarely succeed without mastering statesmanship. Could they?

One might wonder if the supposed 'you' alone would be the key architect and enforcer of the rule of division from without and its exclusive and ultimate beneficiary at the cost of the rule. For the brute rarely operates in the absence of the brutalised; you alone would rarely reign over the ruin in the most profitable manner. Therefore, without the cultivated group's consent and benefit, the supposed 'you' couldn't divide and rule over them.

Of all the groups sensitised, broken or rebuilt throughout history, the one with which you would form the most lasting camaraderie, at the least bargain, and sustainably employ in the cycle of brokering, breaking, building and rebuilding divisions, would be the clergy. Wouldn't it?