Annotated bibliography

1

RENJU PETER

6587690

The Divide and Rule Policy in Colonialism and Its Importance in the Construction of

Democracy to Eradicate Racism

A divide and rule strategy seeks to keep someone in power by dividing groups of people

who would otherwise band together to oppose them. "Divide and rule" refers to an imperialist

force's deliberate attempt to foster or exploit racial, linguistic, cultural, tribal, or religious

divisions among the people of a colony under its control (Acemoglu, et al. 2004). Colonialism is

the process of establishing a full or fractional administrative governor over another nation,

settling there, and then economically exploiting that nation (Horvath, 1972). It is best to maintain

and obtain power through conflict (Arbatli, et al. 2021). Divide and rule tactics have been used to

undermine enemy military alliances, creating a vacuum that has allowed the state to establish

military superiority. This is accomplished by spreading propaganda in an attempt to cast doubt

on the relationship.

However, the divide and rule strategy does not take into account the potential for the

enrolment of new rebels or the potential for it to be abused by the political divisions among the

targeted population. Whether these distinctions are only ideological or if there are additional

2

factors involved, such as ethnic and natural variances (Fairclough, 2008). The goal of this study

is to uncover the issues that arise when the divide and rule strategy is put into practice.

Democracy in a divide and rule system is crucial because it fosters ideals like worker rights and

religious freedom, which also contribute to a more secure, stable, and successful world (Achen,

et al 2017). This is accomplished by a system of governance in which all of the eligible citizens

of a state, who are representatives, are elected.

Rationale

A divide-and-conquer method divides a problem into two or more sub-problems of the

same or closely related type until they are simple enough to solve on their own. The solutions to

the sub-problems are then combined to provide a solution to the main problem. It is important to

note that physical violence was not a factor in the selection of these cases, although violence

against marginalized groups can result from societal injustice. Although many of the cases

featured have historically or currently involved violence, and at least two are thought to have

progressed to crimes against humanity, this study focuses solely on the UN's involvement in

those instances based on anti-discrimination principles (Farooqui, 2015). We do not select cases

in which the UN intervened to deal with the aftermath of genocide (for example, Rwanda or

Guatemala), nor do we examine the use of UN procedures intended to prevent genocide or ethnic

cleansing in these situations. On those mechanisms, there is already a sizable and well-

established body of knowledge.

Additionally, To eliminate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related

intolerance, current laws, policies, programs, activities, needs, and human and institutional

resources will be taken into consideration in the baseline study. Disaggregated statistical data

3

will be gathered to uncover racism's patterns and the challenges that need to be overcome to

eradicate racism and discrimination, with a focus on new and developing forms of racial

prejudice. Xenophobia and Related Intolerance National Action Plan to Combat Racism, Racial

(Jana & Sarkar, 2021). Discrimination is done by ensuring that those who have been the victims

of racial discrimination have access to justice, by enforcing anti-discrimination programs, and by

increasing public awareness of the prohibition of racial discrimination among the general public

and potential victims.

Literature review

Ideally, Divide and conquer is a strategy used by both colonialism and democracy, but

democracy also employs multiparty government, which is equally dangerous. As a government,

it divides the elite into polarized political parties, with one serving as the ruling party and the

other as the opposition. The nation's intellectual elite is divided, and the proponents of

democracy move to subdue them. Deep schisms can occasionally erupt into physical violence

against one another. The natives, on the other hand, are blind to the true foe. The ruling party's

main focus is the struggle to maintain power at the expense of national development. Instead of

truly cooperating to strengthen their position and utilize their collective brainpower, the current

administration imprisons and executes its critics (King, 2002). Democracy thrives when the

president is surrounded by flatterers and acclaimed appraisers.

Additionally, one of the most pervasive myths of our time is that democracy is exercised

through voting by ordinary people who use their power to decide how they are governed. The

claim persists that by exercising their right to vote, voters have the power to end dangerous

policies of previous administrations, such as withdrawing American troops from Iraq and

4

Afghanistan, which were based on false intelligence from the start, closing the extremely

embarrassing Guantanamo Prison, guaranteeing a minimum wage for workers, and so on. It's all

pretentious nonsense. Ordinary people are frequently misled into believing they have electoral

power, although they do not have any power except through violent revolution.

In addition, the locals have been misled into believing that they practice democracy

because they have access to electricity. The world is ruled by autocracy or self-interested

authority. There are both institutionalized and individualized versions. While power is

institutionalized in Europe and North America, it has a history of taking on individualized forms

in Africa. Western institutions are very authoritarian, and their public relations directors are

frequently referred to incorrectly as Presidents or Prime Ministers. In reality, the holders of these

positions have no authority other than their own words and notoriety. The false assertion that

democracy includes not only elections but also other civic liberties and compassionate treatment

is embarrassingly out of date. African history is littered with civic regimes that have little to do

with how we currently define democracy. The notion that their democracy guarantees and

equates with humanity and civil liberties is not only problematically ahistorical but also a terrible

deception. Behind it is the claim that Africans have been duped and that their resources are being

taken right in front of their eyes.

Moreover, the eulogy Slavoj Zizek wrote for Nelson Mandela after his passing captures

the predatory peril of democracy. A conclusion is that Mandela failed in his efforts to redistribute

land and lift apartheid victims out of the economic ghetto. Zizek discusses the complex conflict

between capitalism and democracy, including how leaders are mocked, fought as authoritarians,

and occasionally even slain. A leader or party gets elected with widespread support and promises

of a "new world," but sooner or later, they face the crucial choice of whether to touch the

5

workings of capitalism or to "play the game." Market turbulence, economic turmoil, and other

"punishments" come extremely quickly if one upsets these mechanisms (Michalopoulos &

Papaioannou, 2011). Although Zizek discusses outright hostility from capitalists, we must

acknowledge that capitalism's exploitative nature has thrived with "democracy" as its most

important enabler, its mechanism that most critically divides and diverts resistance to

exploitation.

The three parts of the government's responsibility for upholding human rights are

promotion, protection, and the prevention of violations, sometimes known as the "3Ps" or

prosecution, protection, and prevention. The State is expressly obligated by the elected

government's constitution to uphold, defend, and advance the rights guaranteed by the Bill of

Rights. States are required by international law to respect, safeguard, and uphold the human

rights of every individual who resides on their territory or is subject to their authority, without

any form of discrimination (Morrock, 1973). Additionally, States, including all divisions within

them, are primarily responsible for promoting and upholding all human rights, including

preventing their abuses. States have a responsibility to guard against violations of human rights

by outside parties, especially private actors. States may violate their commitments under

international human rights law if they don't take the necessary action to stop, look into, punish,

and address abuse by private actors.

Problem statement

The phrase "divide-and-rule" refers to a tactic used by tyrants to maintain control by

taking advantage of coordination issues among potential enemies. Rulers can disrupt competing

power blocs by issuing discriminatory offers or fines or by obliterating communication lines

6

between possible rivals. Using original data on cabinet changes, I shall examine the effects of

"divide-and-rule" politics in this essay. In the empirical analysis, I specifically examine whether

cabinet changes have an impact on the likelihood that a ruler will be overthrown in a coup d’état

and the likelihood that a coup attempt will occur (Urbinati, 2014). The data shows that the

likelihood of a successful coup is reduced when there are frequent government changes. Even

after adopting an instrumental variable technique to account for econometrics, this conclusion

showed to be reliable. The outcomes also revealed that leaders run the risk of increasing the

likelihood of coup attempts if they frequently reshuffle their ministries (Ray, 2018). The

likelihood of a coup attempt is positively correlated with cabinet volatility, which is determined

by the number of cabinet shuffles within six months.

Moreover, in democracy creation, It is unclear what the relationship between "divide-

and-rule" politics and political instability is. When considering the impact of each change as a

separate event, the data show no consistent relationship between cabinet changes and the

likelihood of a successful coup (Dixon, et al 2015). However, a cabinet reshuffle appears to

significantly increase the likelihood of a revolt. When divide-and-rule politics is framed as a

leadership quality and the variable is quantified as the average number of cabinet shuffles a

leader carried out each year while in office, the results become more understandable. Leaders

who frequently change their cabinet appear to be less vulnerable to a coup during their rule.

Reference Bibliography

7

Acemoglu, D., Verdier, T., & Robinson, J. A. (2004). Kleptocracy and divide-and-rule: A model

of personal rule. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2(2-3), 162-192.

Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2017). Democracy for realists. In Democracy for Realists.

Princeton University Press.

Arbatli, E., & Rosenberg, D. (2021). United we stand, divided we rule: how political polarization

erodes democracy. Democratization, 28(2), 285-307.

Fairclough, A. (2008). Race & democracy: the civil rights struggle in Louisiana, 1915-1972.

University of Georgia Press.

Fairclough, A. (2008). Race & democracy: the civil rights struggle in Louisiana, 1915-1972.

University of Georgia Press.

Farooqui, A. (2015). 'Divide and Rule? Race, Military Recruitment and Society in Late

Nineteenth Century Colonial India. Social Scientist, 43(3/4), 49-59.

Horvath, R. J. (1972). A definition of colonialism. Current Anthropology, 13(1), 45-57.

Jana, T., & Sarkar, S. (2021). A Nation within a Nation: English Education as a Tool of Divide

and Rule Policy in Colonial India. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in

Humanities, 13(1).

King, D. S. (2002). Making Americans: Immigration, race, and the origins of the diverse

democracy. Harvard University Press.

Michalopoulos, S., & Papaioannou, E. (2011). Divide and Rule or the Rule of the Divided?

Evidence from Africa (No. w17184). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Mishra, V., & Hodge, B. (2015). □ What is Post (-) colonialism? In Colonial discourse and post-

colonial theory (pp. 276-290). Routledge.

8

Morrock, R. (1973). Heritage of Strife: The Effects of Colonialist “Divide and Rule” Strategy

upon the Colonized Peoples. Science & Society, 37(2), 129–151.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40401707

Ray, S. (2018). Beyond divide and rule: Explaining the link between British colonialism and

ethnic violence. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 24(4), 367-388.

Sandhu, A. H. (2009). Reality divide and Rule'in British India. Pakistan Journal of History &

Culture, 30(1).

Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., Thomae, M., Tredoux, C., Kerr, P., & Quayle, M. (2015). Divide and

rule, unite and resist: Contact, collective action and policy attitudes among historically

disadvantaged groups. Journal of Social Issues, 71(3), 576-596.

Urbinati, N. (2014). Democracy disfigured. In Democracy Disfigured. Harvard University Press.