Fabián Campos is a Business Economist who graduated from Universidad Metropolitana and serves as the Coordinator of Scenarios for the Datanálisis Multisectorial Business Survey.
Guacamaya, January 11, 2026. Divide et Impera (“Divide and Conquer”) is a strategy with military origins that can also be applied to politics, psychology, and other social sciences. The essence of this principle can be summarized as follows: It is easier to defeat or control a group when it is divided into smaller factions that compete against each other, rather than allowing it to stay united with a common goal.
It’s ironic that the success of such an effective strategy stems from three fundamental actions:
1. Foster discord: Create or heighten rivalries among groups.
2. Prevent alliances: Ensure that small groups do not come together to form a strong front.
3. Offer selective benefits: Provide privileges to a specific group so that they feel superior or aligned with the dominant group, creating “resentment” among the others.
Although this reflects a key aspect of modern politics, its roots can be traced back to the 4th century BC, when Philip II of Macedonia established it as a pivotal military strategy in history. So impactful was this approach that even his son, Alexander the Great, made it one of his foundational strategic and military principles.
In reflecting on our recent history and the implications of Divide et Impera, it becomes evident that we have unwittingly allowed the oldest trick in the book to be used against us. This recognition can shed light on how we have formed as a society and how we arrived at our current state. The evidence suggests that for a long time, we have succumbed to the “temptations” of those three actions.
Initially, we began emphasizing our differences and downplaying our similarities. We became rich or poor; business owners or employees; “right-wing” or “left-wing”; “Adecos” or “Copeyanos”; “reds” or “blues”; and the list continues. We polarized issues, forgetting that life has an infinite array of “gray” in between, each with its subtleties, advantages, and disadvantages, which are not “mutually exclusive.”
Then we overlooked the notion that “there is strength in unity.” We sidelined alliances and began to pursue our own individual “agendas.” Our focus shifted to accumulating and expanding, while neglecting to contribute. At times, we brushed against greatness and managed to become a society that added to one another, but we failed to recognize that we were straying further away from being able to multiply. In terms of companies, the most successful ones establish more enduring agreements with their production chain links, relying more on the competitiveness of those chains than on their own capabilities. Distrust settled into our psyche, affecting our behaviors, leading us to count more adversaries than allies. We started to “play alone,” letting survival of the fittest reveal the worst in us.
The icing on the cake was our acceptance of a modus operandi and a set of rules that directly set us against one another. By placing importance on creating vertical connections “with those in power” instead of horizontal ties among equals, similar to tribal societies. We allowed the notion that who you know was more vital than what you know; we took things for granted, and we started to feel entitled to everything “because it’s my turn now.”
If we were to engage in this exercise of self-reflection, instead of crafting justifications, we might ask ourselves: when did we permit ourselves to be “divided and conquered”?
There will be time for experts, the so-called know-it-alls, for planning and decision-making, for coming together, for speculation, for shrewd maneuvers, for moving forward, for placing our trust in others. There will be time to think through what we have done right and, more importantly, to analyze what has been done wrong. There will be moments for self-blame and for identifying scapegoats. There will be time to demand accountability and be held accountable. There will be time to continue what we’ve been so good at for so long: polarizing everything.
But now, it appears that the nation calls for a different approach from all of us. To align in what we think, feel, and do. To embody and understand how to be Team Venezuela. It is a call to accept and tolerate those who have not thought, do not think, or will not think like us. To realize that there is beauty in the gray areas and that this endeavor belongs to us all.
Remaining divided would only lead us to repeat past mistakes and signify a nod to a culture that has turned us into our own critics. Today, Venezuela cannot afford to keep subtracting, as it demands the best from us. It seems it is time to adopt a new strategy: Unite et vincite (“Unite and Conquer”).