LEADERSHIP BY TERROR 181The consequence of such information (mis)management was that
Shaka ’ s followers divided themselves into factions that fought among
each other constantly, weakening their own positions. This was exactly
what Shaka had planned. By bestowing favors on one group, then on
another, he made sure that none of the factions got the upper hand.
With this delicate balancing act, he monopolized all the decision -
making power, effectively destroying any internal opposition to his
rule.
Shaka rotated his key advisors, reshuffl ing them whenever he thought
they were becoming too comfortable. This kept them from learning too
much about any one thing and prevented them from building their own
regional power base. In order to keep people in positions of power under
his thumb, he summoned district chiefs to be members of his council at
the royal kraal. With their family left behind, vulnerable to Shaka ’ s long
arm, they would think twice before harboring any subversive thoughts,
and many times more before acting on them.
While Shaka appeared to seek the counsel of his advisors, in reality
their role was purely perfunctory. In the manner of all despots, he would
state his opinion and expect his advisors to agree. On the rare occasions
when there was opposition to his plans, he would convene another
council to get the feedback he wanted. As we saw earlier, council meet-
ings could not be held without his presence, since that would be an
invitation to conspiracy. Shaka ’ s advisors went along with this, as they
did with everything else he did. They knew too well the cost of
disobedience.
Shaka manipulated his military advisors as much as his civil advisors,
using the same divide - and - conquer technique with his generals to
prevent them arriving at a common opinion that could be used against
him. As far as Shaka was concerned, the generals ’ only function was to
execute his orders. Any opposition to his way of leading the nation was
quashed immediately. As a result, most members of his inner circle —
military or otherwise — applauded Shaka ’ s actions and even encouraged
him to be more violent.
By playing one constituency against another, Shaka made sure that
no single person or group ever knew exactly what was happening in his
regime. His ability to form and shift alliances depending on the expedi-
ency of the situation, his talent at eliminating actual and imagined
enemies, and his aptitude for maintaining overlapping networks of spies
to discover, intimidate, and undermine any form of opposition served
him well. The divide - and - conquer leadership style that these combined
strategies comprised — the style favored by despots everywhere — put
Shaka, like a spider, in the middle of a web of information.