Essay on "Divide and Conquer" is a wise rule, but "Unite and Guide" is even better. (AND

"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 power, 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 elections 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 had the right, through a plebiscite, 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. Nevertheless, by pursuing an indefinite policy (a fairly successful political strategy, the main goal of which is to win adherents of all opinions to his side), he retained the support of the entire 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.

Splitting 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 independent Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches), Protestantism (divided into Baptists, Calvinists, Lutherans, Seventh Day Adventists, Anglicans, Pentecostals and others) and Orthodox Church(many independent and fighting each other for spheres of influence of local patriarchates), each of which claims independence and its 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 (from .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: Much has been said in recent weeks about the promotion by the current Ukrainian and Crimean authorities to the Council of Representatives of the Crimean Tatar people under the President of Ukraine, oppositional to the Mejlis and more loyal to the current government, 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 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.

To the question "Divide and conquer". Who said it and when? given by the author Caucasian the best answer is Divide and Conquer (lat. divide et impera) - the formula of the Roman Senate, the principle of its foreign policy towards most enemies; expresses the principle of state power, which is often resorted to by governments of states consisting of heterogeneous parts, according to which the best method of governing such a state is to incite enmity between its parts. The author of the formula is not exactly known. Heinrich Heine, in a letter from Paris dated January 12, 1842, without indicating the source, names the Macedonian king Philip (father of Alexander the Great, 359-336 BC) as the author.

Answer from Nik Filimonov[newbie]
Lukashenka)

Answer from philosopher[newbie]
This is Caesar, how stupid you are, the Internet is still illiterate and stupid ... I heard in 93 at the age of 5 and I will not forget, you are not developed all people, I am a radical and my like-minded people, together with me, will soon destroy all of you to a single insignificance.

Answer from electric welder[active]
Obama said so! and Bush and even Clinton seem.

Answer from Ismail[newbie]
Machiavelli

Answer from Artem Pavlov[newbie]
Divide and conquer is a wise rule, but unite and lead is even better. Johann Wolfgang Goethe

Answer from Alex nforced[guru]
Caesar for sure. Varvarov pitted against each other.
As a result, what is in Iraq now: Sunnis against Shiites, the pro-American population against the rebels .... Who is Caesar today is clear ...
This principle is at the heart of the Middle East crisis, as a result - half a century of instability in a region rich in hydrocarbons ...

Answer from Jenny[active]
From Latin: Divide et impera [divide et impera].
It is generally accepted that this was the motto of the foreign policy of Ancient Rome, but no evidence of this was found from ancient authors. The German poet Heinrich Heine (letter from Paris dated January 12, 1842) believed that the author of this motto was the Macedonian king (359-336 BC) Philip, (382-336 BC), father of Alexander the Great .
It is believed that the first ruler to officially use this phrase was the French king Louis XI (1423-1483), who said: "Diviser pour regner" - "Divide to reign."
The expression became widely known thanks to the French economist and philosopher Pierre Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865), who sneered: “Divide et impera, divide and rule, divide and you will reign, divide and you will become rich; share, and you will deceive people, and you will blind their minds, and you will mock justice.”

Answer from Yörgey[master]
machiavelli

Answer from Love[active]
Machiavelli

Answer from KUKA[newbie]
Goloshchekin!

Answer from Andrew[guru]
Ludwig XII
Subsequently, this term was widely used to characterize the Roman politics of the II-I centuries BC. e. Often erroneously attributed to Caesar (at least nowhere in the literature did he find mention of him as a primary source), due to the wide application of this principle in the Gallic War
There is another theory: for the first time the phrase was said by Philip (father of Alexander the Great)

Answer from viniko[guru]
"Divide et impera" (Caesar) - "divide and conquer" - a political principle applied in states consisting of heterogeneous national elements.

Answer from Eeryozhka Shcherbakov[active]
Actually I saw it in game of war craft, there was 100%

Answer from SOL-a[guru]
Caesar, like, when he needed to defeat his rivals in a struggle for power, maybe, or in some kind of war ... Bottom line - he did it all

Answer from User deleted[guru]
Gaius Julius Caesar

Answer from Alexey Alekseevich[guru]
Toli Nicolo Machiaveli Toli Aristotle to Alexander the Great. but like the first

Divide and conquer is a wise rule, but unite and guide even better

Fragment for review

Thus, the idea that "unite and guide" becomes the dominant principle is a much more pragmatic, useful and wise rule than the rule of "divide and conquer." In addition, in the implementation of the second principle, we will gain friends and associates, not enemies, each of which will hate us, which ultimately will unite them. The conclusion follows from this - our opponents will still unite, the whole question is whether they are against us or for us, so from this point of view this principle is very reasonable.

Kyiv work of Yaroslav the Wise and Boleslav the Brave

Yaroslavl State University.N.G. Demidov

Kyiv work of Yaroslav the Wise and Boleslav the Brave

S. V. Borovikov

Description of the events of the beginning of the 11th century, currently in many studies on the history of Russia and school textbooks. From a scientific point of view, the problem lies in understanding, having mastered more than a century of source study and historiographic material.

Among the authors of generalizing works on the history of Russia, one can distinguish V. N. Tatishchev, M. M. Shcherbatov, N. M. Karamzin, S. N. Glinka, N. I. Polevoy, N. G. Ustryalova, N. S. Artsybysheva , S. M. Solovyov, K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, D. I. Ilovaisky, N. I. Kostomarov, V. O. Klyuchevsky, M. K. Lyubavsky, S. F. Platonov, M. N. Pokrovsky . Many of them have been subjected to repeated rejection and condemnation, some are long outdated, however, they cannot be written and you must be aware.

It is important that the first special work on the history of relations between Ancient Russia and Poland - the book by I. Karlovich & "The Kyiv campaign of Boleslav the Great", written in the 60s of the XIX century, has not been translated into Russian 1.

M. S. Grushevsky began & "History of Ukraine-Russia"; in 10 volumes, this work and its ideas were very popular among Ukrainian nationalists. Criticism of Grushevsky's concept, built on absurd political disputes. The second volume presents the work of Boleslav with Yaroslav the Wise 2. In addition, this information is in the two-volume work of D. I. Doroshenko &";Essay on the history of Ukraine&"; 3.

Thirdly, it is &";Essays on the history of the USSR&"; in part, 1018, can be taken into account, one should not forget only that this book was published in 1953 and is full of statements by I. V. Stalin and views on the feudal parts, not to mention the Marxist-Leninist methodology 4. This shortcoming is B. D. Grekova, V. V. Mavrodina, V. T. Pashuto.

In the work of A. b. Golovko &";Ancient Russia and Poland in political relations of the 10th - the first third of the 13th century&"; indicates that back in the 17th century, the author of the Gustyn Chronicle, comparing information, chronicles of Polish authors with materials from ancient Russian chronicles, noted the tension and tendentiousness of the impact on the sources of increasing the results of the Prince of Poland in Russia

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 track the historical course of 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 a letter from 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 the ancient 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 of the population, in culture and traditions, or even in origin (if the state consists of previously separate 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 Latin ancient people often waged internecine wars, they observed skirmishes of people belonging to different cultural strata, to different communities and cultures. Among these, the most striking example is Egypt, which was completely conquered by its northern sea 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 in each region representatives of local authorities (as the Romans once appointed procurators in their provinces), who are completely subordinate to central authority management, 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 major countries 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 the largest states and empires of our world not only exist, but also develop. The Divide and Conquer principle is most clearly manifested in those societies where three or more noble families compete with each other, a large number of communities, each of which has 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" is a wise rule; but "unite and direct" is even better. Goethe

Well, finally, the next got out, hurray!

A democratic coalition in ten days - it will be an unprecedented success, the prime minister may leave - a kamikaze, although he himself is not going to ... Posts not according to quotas - hard to believe, well, God forbid, unite all the same, it will be possible quickly or a little slower, just don’t “swear” guys!

Dali be

BPP is for a new constitution, the main thing is a constitutional majority, we will do decentralization with it, come on with the 2020 strategy, and at the end we will join the European Union, Narfront is already prime ministerial and give professionals and do not forget about merits, Self-help about immunity, down with officials, give deregulation and business support...

Not from that

And most importantly, to raise salaries, no, not to the people, to the chosen ones themselves, because they should be free from temptation ... Usually this was done “on the sly”, but someone could not stand it anymore, could not wait, how could such injustice be.

But is it okay that most of the people are in poverty, have no work and wages in general, stand on the porch and ask for alms, wild prices and a communal apartment? But they chose the “worthy”, so be so kind as to wear them in your arms, like the senators of ancient Rome?

How familiar all this is, but when will our chosen ones stop stepping on this rake (the foreheads of the people hurt): we will enter, we will adjust, we will reduce, we will improve, we will defend ... (and we will raise ourselves).

Already the whole world is waiting for concrete steps and even suggest and show where to start (in the magazine "Economist" they focused on one of the main problems that is eating away Ukraine - corruption, we will not be sadder about the other).

What awaits the new society from the point of view of the layman:

officials they are waiting for this obsession to finally end, these lustrations, reductions, and when they will say specifically: what should they do, and not be extras on the dreams of economic growth at the top and answers to complaints about cold batteries at the bottom.

businessmen they are already “losing” faith in stability, they think that everyone there will finally agree and divide posts at the top so that they can just work below. When it will be possible to plan at least a year ahead, they will establish clear taxes and conditions under which you can simply pay salaries and part of the income for the country, and not think about something else ... someone very smart and talented still can't do without them.

Employees and pensioners, when there will be salaries and pensions on which you can live and eat to your heart's content, and not pawn your soul ... to buy a simple TV.

Motorists so that there are roads, not directions, so that a full tank of gasoline is not a dream, and no one is waiting in the bushes ...

state employees when they will be on an equal footing with everyone, and not subsidized, residual and semi-entrepreneurs, and here it’s dumb, and it’s impossible there ...

People so that there is a simple job where you can go every day, work and earn not only for bread, but at least for a cinema (TV has already become an endless, boring series about “choose me”), and not be listed in the fondzan and collect plastic from garbage tanks.

Of course, hundreds of laws have already been prepared in the minds of each chosen one, and all urgent ones, of course, include all the "obitsyanki" for the people from the fight against villains, roads to the renaming of villages (which are still alive).

All of them (laws), of course, are important and necessary.

If you want change in the future, be that change in the present. Mahatma Gandhi

But there is one such small T-law, which, as it were, can give a fulcrum, a start, direction for real changes in the country, incl. and fulfill all strategies, promises, and most importantly, once again not deceive expectations:

1. A simple plan for the development of the country, which creates work and wages, pensions, taxes and budgets - the material benefits of society.

2. Replace the meager salaries of officials and other state employees with salaries according to the result, not increase them to a decent amount, as you want, but earn money - connect it with the standard of living of an ordinary citizen. The standard of living of people (those who elected) rises - and the deputy, official rises, .. falls, well, if you please. Maybe then someone will start thinking about the people, and the salary itself will catch up with these wise thoughts.

3. Distribute common "no man's" material goods (budgets, taxes, resources, subsoil) according to a unique formula: not so much and not only towards especially talented people (you can’t do without it), but also for other ordinary inhabitants, ordinary citizens of this richest country .

The name of this T-law, that is, the real instruments of change, is the transition of the country to the Third Solidary Economic Model (T-model), which will not build roads, will not send golden budgets from the sky, but will establish new, logical, fair rules for work, life, relationships in a society where government, business and society will work for one result - a high standard of living for this ordinary citizen.

So can we finally move on from "rule" promise and dream of the distant future to direction changes for the whole country in the present?