Tuesday, July 1, 2025

Divide and Conquer Strategy in Politics: Meaning, Application, and Democratic Implications

Divide and Conquer Strategy in Politics: Meaning, Application, and Democratic Implications

Introduction

The "divide and conquer" strategy is a well-known political and military tactic to gain and maintain power by creating divisions among groups that might otherwise unite against a common adversary. In politics, this strategy is employed by leaders, governments, or dominant groups to weaken opposition by fostering distrust, rivalry, or conflict among different factions, ethnicities, social classes, or political groups. While divide and conquer can be an effective tool for securing political control, it raises serious questions about its compatibility with democratic principles and long-term social cohesion.

Understanding the Divide and Conquer Strategy

The essence of divide and conquer (Latin: divide et impera) lies in breaking potential alliances that could challenge the power of the ruling authority. Historically, the Roman and British empires effectively used this strategy to dominate large, diverse populations. In modern politics, it appears more subtly: manipulating identity politics, promoting misinformation, exploiting social cleavages, and fostering internal divisions within opposition movements.

Key techniques include:

Exaggerating social, ethnic, or political differences to prevent collective action.

Providing unequal benefits or privileges to specific groups to create dependency and loyalty.

Encouraging infighting within opposition coalitions.

Controlling narratives and spreading propaganda to instil fear and mistrust.

Political Applications and Examples

The divide and conquer strategy has been widely observed in authoritarian regimes, colonial administrations, and even in some democratic societies:

Colonial Powers: European colonial rulers in Africa and Asia often fueled ethnic divisions to prevent unified resistance. For example, British colonialists in India and Africa empowered minority groups over majority populations to maintain control.

Autocratic Governments: In many authoritarian regimes, rulers sustain power by creating divisions among ethnic groups, political parties, or religious communities, making collective opposition nearly impossible.

Modern Democracies: Even in democratic settings, politicians sometimes manipulate social issues such as race, religion, immigration, or class to divide voters and consolidate their own support base.

Is Divide and Conquer Anti-Democracy?

The divide-and-conquer strategy is fundamentally anti-democratic in its intent and impact. Democracy is built on popular participation, social cohesion, mutual respect, and majority rule, balanced by protecting minority rights. Its success relies on an informed electorate capable of forming alliances across differences to hold leaders accountable and pursue common interests.

Divide and conquer strategies undermine these core values:

Erosion of Trust: They destroy the social trust necessary for democratic dialogue and cooperation.

Suppression of Collective Will: The ruling elite can suppress popular movements that demand change by keeping people divided.

Manipulation and Polarisation: They often rely on misinformation, fear, and emotional manipulation, which weakens rational debate and informed decision-making.


When political actors prioritise division over unity, they hollow out democratic institutions, making elections superficial while real power remains concentrated in the hands of a few.

The Long-Term Consequences

While divide and conquer may deliver short-term political victories, it often produces long-term societal harm, including:

Chronic political instability.

Social fragmentation and ethnic or sectarian conflict.

Distrust in public institutions and democratic processes.

Economic stagnation due to societal disunity.


History shows deeply divided societies are more vulnerable to internal collapse, civil war, or authoritarian resurgence.

Conclusion

In summary, the divide and conquer strategy is a manipulative political tool that seeks to weaken opposition by fostering divisions. While it can be tactically effective for those in power, it is fundamentally at odds with democratic ideals of unity, cooperation, and public participation. Democracies thrive when citizens overcome divisions to hold leaders accountable and pursue shared goals collectively. A politics based on division may win battles, but it ultimately undermines the fabric of a healthy, stable, and inclusive society. Therefore, citizens, political leaders, and civil society must resist divide and conquer tactics and work towards fostering solidarity, trust, and dialogue across differences.

The National Question and Class Struggle in Ethiopia: An Academic Reflection on Tumtu Lencho’s Contribution

 

"Ethiopia is not a single nation, but a confluence of peoples, each with their own identity. To deny this is to deny justice.” July 1971 by Tumtu Lencho. 
Picture from Google Photos: Lencho Leta and Andreas Eshete. 

The National Question and Class Struggle in Ethiopia: An Academic Reflection on Tumtu Lencho’s Contribution

Abstract

This article revisits Tumtu Lencho’s pivotal contribution to the Ethiopian student movement’s discourse on the national question. By arguing that Ethiopia is not a homogenous nation-state but a conglomeration of distinct nationalities, Lencho advanced a transformative framework that integrated the right to national self-determination with the broader socialist struggle. His intervention remains foundational to ongoing debates about federalism, national identity, and self-governance in Ethiopia.

1. Introduction

The Ethiopian student movement of the 1960s and 1970s was a fertile ground for revolutionary thought and political reimagination. One of the most profound contributions to this intellectual wave came from Tumtu Lencho, the pseudonym of Andreas Eshete. His article, published in Challenge in July 1971, permanently shifted the student movement’s engagement trajectory with the national question. Tumtu Lencho’s analysis clarified the political and theoretical relationship between class struggle and national self-determination in Ethiopia, a country historically dominated by imperial narratives that ignored the existence of multiple nations within its borders.

2. Ethiopia as a Nation of Nations

Central to Tumtu Lencho’s argument is the rejection of the myth of Ethiopian homogeneity. He insisted that Ethiopia is not a single nation but a composite of diverse countries with distinct languages, cultures, and historical experiences.

> “Ethiopia is not a single nation, but a confluence of peoples, each with their own identity. To deny this is to deny justice.”

This assertion directly challenged the dominant imperial ideology, which had long conflated the Ethiopian state with a singular, often Amhara-centric national identity. Tumtu Lencho argued that failing to recognise the multi-national character of the Ethiopian state would fatally undermine any revolutionary agenda.

3. National Self-Determination as a Political Imperative

Tumtu Lencho explicitly supported the right of all nations within Ethiopia—including Eritrea, Oromia, Tigray, Sidama, Somali, and others—to self-determination, including secession.

This was a groundbreaking position in the Ethiopian student movement, which had previously struggled with the Eritrean question and had been hesitant to fully endorse national self-determination in practice.

 “If Eritrea, Oromia, Tigray, and others are not free to determine their paths, then no socialist transformation is just.”

For Tumtu Lencho, this right was not an abstract principle but a non-negotiable political demand. He argued that no revolutionary transformation could be legitimate or enduring unless all nationalities could choose their futures.

4. Integrating Class Struggle and National Struggle

A key contribution of Tumtu Lencho’s work was his rejection of the idea that the national question should be subordinated to class struggle. Instead, he proposed that class and nationality are intertwined struggles in Ethiopia.

He argued that the oppression of nationalities was not merely a cultural or linguistic issue but was structurally tied to the feudal and imperial class order.

 “True liberation demands both class equality and national dignity. Class struggle cannot proceed without recognising nationality.”

Tumtu Lencho emphasised that ignoring the national question would fracture the revolutionary movement and isolate the oppressed nationalities from the broader struggle for social justice.

5. Political Strategy and Ideological Discipline

In addition to his theoretical contributions, Tumtu Lencho cautioned against superficial, emotional nationalism. He called for disciplined, ideologically grounded political programs that systematically address nationalities' demands while advancing the socialist cause.

He warned that vague slogans about unity would collapse without structural change and the genuine participation of oppressed national groups.

6. Conclusion: 
Lasting Relevance

Tumtu Lencho’s intervention in 1971 permanently altered the Ethiopian student movement’s approach to national identity. His analysis provided the intellectual foundation for:

The rise of ethnic-based political organisations such as the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF).

The eventual constitutional recognition of ethnic federalism in post-1991 Ethiopia.

Ongoing debates about the meaning of national unity, autonomy, and the right to secession.

His insistence on the right to self-determination as a revolutionary necessity continues to resonate in Ethiopia’s political landscape, where the tension between national integrity and national rights remains unresolved.

References

Tumtu Lencho. (1971). The Question of Nationalities and Class Struggle in Ethiopia. Challenge, July 1971.

Bahru Zewde. The Quest for Socialist Utopia: The Ethiopian Student Movement c. 1960–1974. Addis Ababa University Press.

John Young. Peasant Revolution in Ethiopia: The Tigray People’s Liberation Front, 1975–1991.

Foreign Languages Press. Like Ho Chi Minh!

Oromo Ultra-Nationalist Group Manifesto


Oromo Ultra-Nationalist Group Manifesto


Preamble

As conscious sons and daughters of the Oromo nation, we, the undersigned, come together to issue this collective declaration. We represent a generation that refuses to compromise Oromummaa. We stand united in our unwavering commitment to the Oromo people's cultural, political, and ethical sovereignty.

We are Oromo ultra-nationalists. We are not ashamed, we are not afraid, and we are not for sale.


I. The Unapologetic Assertion of Oromummaa

We affirm that Oromummaa is non-negotiable.
It is not a flexible identity to be redefined for the convenience of external powers. Oromummaa fully expresses our language, culture, history, worldview, and national aspiration.

We will not dilute our identity for the sake of false unity.
Oromummaa is our right, our shield, and our path.


II. The Absolute Right to Self-Determination

We, as a people, have the inalienable right to self-determination.
We claim:

  • The right to govern ourselves in Oromia.
  • The right to develop our language, culture, and indigenous knowledge systems.
  • The right to decide our political destiny without interference.

No external entity—local or foreign—shall dictate the future of the Oromo nation.


III. The Sovereignty of Afaan Oromo and Oromo Culture

Afaan Oromo is the crown of our nation.
We demand:

  • Afaan Oromo is to be the dominant and official language in all sectors of Oromia: administration, education, judiciary, and media.
  • Protect and promote Oromo cultural practices, institutions, festivals, and traditional governance.

We reject the systematic marginalisation of our language and culture.


IV. Oromummaa as an Ethical Commitment: Safuu as Our Guiding Principle

Our nationalism is not hatred—it is justice.
We are guided by Safuu, the Oromo moral law that compels us to:

  • Fight oppression, but do not become oppressors.
  • Seek justice, not revenge.
  • Defend the weak and respect life.

We will resist domination with unshakable firmness, but we will not trample on the dignity of other nations.


V. The Rejection of Assimilationist Politics

We categorically reject:

  • Token representation without real power.
  • False federalism that masks centralist domination.
  • Narratives that seek to subsume Oromummaa into a homogenised national identity.

Our demand is genuine autonomy, genuine equality, and genuine recognition.


VI. The Oromo Diaspora: A Strategic Force

The Oromo diaspora is an essential pillar of the national struggle.
We call upon the diaspora to:

  • Preserve the Oromo language and culture across generations.
  • Provide intellectual, financial, and diplomatic support to the Oromo cause.
  • Challenge the global misrepresentation of the Oromo struggle.

Oromo communities abroad are not spectators—they are active participants in the liberation of Oromia.


VII. The Youth: Vanguard of the Oromo Revolution

We call on Qeerroo and Qarree to:

  • Defend Oromummaa boldly and without apology.
  • Organise, educate, and mobilise for justice and self-determination.
  • Reject fear, reject silence, and reject submission.

You are the generation that must finish the work that others began.


VIII. Our Position Toward Other Nations and Peoples

We seek cooperation, not subjugation.
We value mutual respect, not dominance.
We believe in peaceful coexistence, but never at the expense of Oromo rights.

Our friendship is open, but our dignity is non-negotiable.


IX. Final Declaration

We stand as Oromo ultra-nationalists committed to:

  • Defending our language
  • Preserving our culture
  • Pursuing self-governance
  • Living by Safuu
  • Uplifting Oromummaa without apology

We shall not bow.
We shall not retreat.
We shall not forget.
We shall build the Oromo nation with our hands and on our own terms.

Oromummaa is our flag.
Oromummaa is our shield.
Oromummaa is our future.


Signed:
The Oromo Ultra-Nationalist Group
Committed to Oromummaa—Now and Forever