Details — Power-sharing

Book: Democratic Politics II (Class 10)
Chapter: 1 — Power-sharing

1. Introduction: Why Start with Power-sharing?

In a democracy, all power does not rest with any one organ of government. An intelligent sharing of power among legislature, executive and judiciary is central to democratic design. This chapter carries that idea further by asking how democracies handle demands for power-sharing among communities and regions.

A common wrong idea is: sharing power = dividing power = weakening the country. The chapter shows that the opposite is often true: sharing power can keep a country united.

2. Belgium: Complex Ethnic Composition

Belgium is a small country in Europe (smaller in area than Haryana), with borders with France, the Netherlands, Germany and Luxembourg. Population: a little over one crore (about half of Haryana’s).

Language / community breakdown

Community / region	Share / feature
Flemish region — Dutch-speaking	59% of population
Wallonia region — French-speaking	40% of population
German-speaking	1% of population
Brussels (capital)	80% French-speaking; 20% Dutch-speaking

Ethnic: A social division based on shared culture. People of the same ethnic group believe in common descent because of similarities of physical type or culture or both. They need not always have the same religion or nationality.

Source of tension

The minority French-speaking community was relatively rich and powerful.
The Dutch-speaking community got the benefit of economic development and education much later.
This led to tensions in the 1950s and 1960s.
Tension was more acute in Brussels: Dutch-speakers are a majority in the country but a minority in the capital.

Risk if unchecked: The Dutch majority could force its will on French and German speakers → deeper conflict → possible messy partition; both sides would claim Brussels.

3. Sri Lanka: Diverse Population

Sri Lanka is an island nation a few kilometres off the southern coast of Tamil Nadu. Population: about two crore (about the same as Haryana).

Major social groups

Group	Share / note
Sinhala-speakers	74%
Tamil-speakers	18%
Sri Lankan Tamils (natives)	13% of population; concentrated in north and east
Indian Tamils	Forefathers came from India as plantation workers during colonial period
Christians	About 7%; both Tamil and Sinhala

Most Sinhala-speaking people are Buddhists.
Most Tamils are Hindus or Muslims.

Risk if unchecked: The Sinhala community had an even bigger majority and could impose its will on the entire country.

4. Majoritarianism in Sri Lanka

Majoritarianism: A belief that the majority community should be able to rule a country in whichever way it wants, by disregarding the wishes and needs of the minority.

Path taken

Sri Lanka emerged as an independent country in 1948. Sinhala leaders sought dominance over government by virtue of majority. The democratically elected government adopted majoritarian measures to establish Sinhala supremacy.

Measure	What it did
1956 Act	Recognised Sinhala as the only official language, disregarding Tamil
Preferential policies	Favoured Sinhala applicants for university positions and government jobs
Constitutional provision	State shall protect and foster Buddhism

Consequences for Sri Lankan Tamils

They felt:

No major political party led by Buddhist Sinhala leaders was sensitive to their language and culture.
Constitution and policies denied equal political rights.
Discrimination in jobs and opportunities; interests ignored.

This increased alienation. Relations between Sinhala and Tamil communities strained.

Tamil response and civil war

Tamils launched parties and struggles for: recognition of Tamil as official language; regional autonomy; equality of opportunity in education and jobs.
Demand for more autonomy to Tamil-populated provinces was repeatedly denied.
By the 1980s, several organisations demanded an independent Tamil Eelam (state) in northern and eastern Sri Lanka.
Distrust → widespread conflict → civil war.

Civil war: A violent conflict between opposing groups within a country that becomes so intense that it appears like a war.

Results: Thousands killed from both communities; many families became refugees; many lost livelihoods; terrible setback to social, cultural and economic life. The civil war ended in 2009.

5. Accommodation in Belgium (Belgian Model)

Belgian leaders recognised regional differences and cultural diversities. Between 1970 and 1993, they amended their constitution four times to enable everyone to live together. The arrangement is innovative and different from other countries.

Elements of the Belgian model

Equal ministers at the centre
Constitution: number of Dutch and French-speaking ministers shall be equal in the central government. Some special laws require support of a majority of members from each linguistic group. No single community can decide unilaterally.
Powers to State Governments
Many powers of the Central Government given to State Governments of the two regions. State Governments are not subordinate to the Central Government.
Brussels government
Separate government with equal representation for both communities. French-speakers accepted equal representation in Brussels because Dutch-speakers accepted equal representation in the Central Government.
Community government
A third kind of government, elected by people of one language community—Dutch, French or German-speaking—no matter where they live. Powers: cultural, educational and language-related issues.

Outcome

Arrangements are complicated, even for Belgians, but have worked well so far.
Helped avoid civic strife and a possible division of the country on linguistic lines.
When many European countries formed the European Union, Brussels was chosen as its headquarters.

6. Lesson from the Two Stories

Aspect	Belgium	Sri Lanka
Both are	Democracies	Democracies
Approach	Respect feelings and interests of different communities and regions	Majority tries to force dominance; refuses to share power
Result	Mutually acceptable power-sharing	Undermines unity; civil war

Core conclusion: Unity is possible only by respecting different communities; majoritarian dominance can destroy unity.

7. Why Power-sharing Is Desirable

Two sets of reasons:

A. Prudential reasons

Power-sharing reduces possibility of conflict between social groups.
Social conflict often leads to violence and political instability.
Power-sharing helps ensure stability of political order.
Imposing majority will may look attractive short run, but long run undermines national unity.
Tyranny of the majority is oppressive for minority and often harms the majority as well.

Prudential: Based on prudence, or careful calculation of gains and losses (contrasted with purely moral decisions).

B. Moral reasons

Power-sharing is the very spirit of democracy.
Democratic rule involves sharing power with those affected by its exercise.
People have a right to be consulted on how they are governed.
A legitimate government is one where citizens, through participation, acquire a stake in the system.

Type	Stresses
Prudential	Better outcomes (stability, less conflict)
Moral	The act of power-sharing as valuable in itself

8. Forms of Power-sharing in Modern Democracies

Basic democratic principle: people are the source of all political power. In a good democracy, diverse groups and views get due respect; everyone has a voice in shaping public policies. So political power should be distributed among as many citizens as possible.

Older belief (opposed by power-sharing): all power must reside in one person/group in one place for quick decisions. Democracy changed this idea.

Form 1 — Among different organs of government (Horizontal)

Shared among legislature, executive, judiciary.
Called horizontal distribution because organs are at the same level.
None can exercise unlimited power; each checks the others → balance of power.
Ministers/officials responsible to Parliament or State Assemblies.
Judges appointed by executive can still check executive and laws of legislatures.
This is the system of checks and balances.

Form 2 — Among governments at different levels (Vertical / Federal)

General (federal / Central / Union) government for the whole country + provincial/regional (State) governments.
Not followed in all countries; many have no provincial governments.
Where levels exist, the constitution clearly lays down powers of each level.
Done in Belgium; refused in Sri Lanka.
Called federal division of power.
Same principle can extend lower: municipality and panchayat.
Division involving higher and lower levels = vertical division of power.

Form 3 — Among different social groups

Example: community government in Belgium.
Constitutional/legal arrangements for representation of socially weaker sections and women.
India’s reserved constituencies in assemblies and Parliament (studied earlier).
Gives minority communities a fair share in power so they do not feel alienated.

Form 4 — Among political parties, pressure groups and movements

Citizens must be free to choose among contenders for power.
Competition among parties ensures power does not remain in one hand.
Long run: power shared among parties representing different ideologies and social groups.
Direct sharing: alliance → if elected, coalition government.
Interest groups (traders, businessmen, industrialists, farmers, industrial workers) share power through committees or by influencing decision-making.

9. Useful Classroom / Textbook Situations (for understanding)

Annette (Belgium) vs Selvi (Sri Lanka): Parents seeking French vs Tamil as medium of instruction—Annette’s demand is more likely to succeed under Belgium’s community/language arrangements; Sri Lanka’s majoritarian path was less accommodating of Tamil language demands.

Lebanon story (Khalil’s dilemma): After civil war, leaders fixed top posts by community (President—Maronite Catholic Christian; PM—Sunni Muslim; Deputy PM—Orthodox Christian; Speaker—Shi’a Muslim). Shows power-sharing for peace, even if it looks “un-normal” compared to open contest for the top post.

Germany 2005 (cartoon context): Christian Democratic Union and Social Democratic Party formed a grand coalition because neither got clear majority—example of parties sharing power despite rivalry.

10. Exam-Oriented Significant Statements

Sharing power does not necessarily weaken a country; it can strengthen unity.
Both Belgium and Sri Lanka are democracies, yet outcomes differed because of how they handled power-sharing.
Prudential reasons = better outcomes; moral reasons = democratic value of sharing itself.
Horizontal = organs at same level; vertical = higher and lower levels of government.