Power sharing means distributing political power among different organs, levels of government, social groups and political parties or groups so that power does not remain concentrated in one person or group.
Power sharing is presented as an important feature of democratic government.
About 59% of Belgium's population lives in the Flemish region and speaks Dutch, about 40% lives in Wallonia and speaks French, and about 1% speaks German. In Brussels, about 80% speak French and 20% speak Dutch.
Brussels had the unusual situation in which the Dutch-speaking community was the majority in the country but a minority in the capital.
The French-speaking minority was relatively rich and powerful, while the Dutch-speaking community received the benefits of economic development and education later. This created tensions, especially during the 1950s and 1960s, with Brussels being a particularly sensitive area.
Belgium's leaders later addressed these tensions through constitutional power-sharing arrangements.
The major groups are Sinhala-speakers, about 74% of the population, and Tamil-speakers, about 18%. Sri Lankan Tamils were about 13%, while Indian Tamils, whose ancestors came as plantation workers during colonial rule, formed the other Tamil group. About 7% of the population were Christians, belonging to both Tamil and Sinhala communities.
Sri Lankan Tamils were concentrated mainly in the north and east.
Majoritarianism is the belief that the majority community should be able to rule a country in whichever way it wants, while disregarding the wishes and needs of the minority.
The chapter uses Sri Lanka to show how majoritarian policies can alienate minority communities.
In 1956, Sinhala was recognised as the only official language. Government policies favoured Sinhala applicants for university positions and government jobs, and the Constitution gave the state the responsibility to protect and foster Buddhism.
These policies contributed to a feeling of alienation among Sri Lankan Tamils.
They demanded recognition of Tamil as an official language, regional autonomy and equality of opportunity in education and employment. Later, several organisations demanded an independent Tamil Eelam in the northern and eastern parts of Sri Lanka.
The conflict eventually developed into a civil war that ended in 2009.
Distrust between Sinhala and Tamil communities developed into widespread conflict and civil war. Thousands were killed, many families became refugees and many lost their livelihoods. The conflict caused serious social, cultural and economic damage.
The chapter contrasts this outcome with Belgium's accommodation of linguistic diversity.
The Constitution provided for an equal number of Dutch- and French-speaking ministers in the central government. Many central powers were given to regional governments that were not subordinate to the Centre. Brussels received a separate government with equal representation of both major communities. A community government was also created for each language community to deal with cultural, educational and language-related matters.
Belgium amended its Constitution four times between 1970 and 1993 to develop these arrangements.
It is a government elected by people belonging to one language community—Dutch, French or German—regardless of where they live. It has powers concerning cultural, educational and language-related matters.
It is a distinctive feature of Belgium's federal power-sharing arrangement.
Power is shared through several institutions: the central government, regional governments and community governments, with special arrangements for Brussels and linguistic representation. This creates a complex structure, but the chapter notes that the arrangements have helped prevent linguistic conflict and possible division of the country.
Brussels was later chosen as the headquarters of the European Union.
Belgium recognised regional and linguistic differences and created mutually acceptable power-sharing arrangements. Sri Lanka adopted majoritarian measures that favoured the Sinhala majority and did not adequately accommodate Tamil demands, contributing to prolonged conflict.
The two cases illustrate contrasting ways of managing social diversity in democracies.
The first is the prudential reason: power sharing reduces the possibility of conflict and political instability. The second is the moral reason: power sharing is the spirit of democracy because people affected by decisions have a right to participate in how they are governed.
Prudential reasons focus on better outcomes; moral reasons value power sharing as a democratic principle in itself.
Power sharing reduces the possibility of conflict between social groups. Since social conflict can lead to violence and political instability, sharing power can help maintain political stability and national unity.
The chapter warns that imposing the will of a majority may appear attractive in the short run but can undermine unity in the long run.
Power sharing is considered valuable because democracy involves sharing power with people who are affected by its exercise. Citizens should have a voice in how they are governed, giving them a stake in the political system.
A legitimate government is one in which citizens participate in governance.
Prudential reasons are based on the practical calculation of gains and losses and emphasise better outcomes. Moral reasons consider power sharing valuable because it is an essential principle of democratic participation.
The word 'prudential' means based on careful consideration of practical consequences.
1. Among different organs of government. 2. Among different levels of government. 3. Among different social groups. 4. Among political parties, pressure groups and movements.
A useful memory trick is O-L-S-P: Organs, Levels, Social groups, Political groups.
Power is shared among organs of government at the same level, such as the legislature, executive and judiciary. Each organ checks the others, preventing unlimited concentration of power.
This is called a system of checks and balances.
Power is divided between the government for the entire country and governments at the provincial or state level. In countries with further levels, power may also be shared with municipalities and panchayats.
This is called federal division of power or vertical division of power.
Power may be shared among religious and linguistic communities. Constitutional and legal arrangements may also provide representation to socially weaker sections and women, including reserved constituencies.
Belgium's community government is a major example of power sharing among social groups.
Citizens choose among competing political parties. Different parties may form alliances, and if an alliance wins, the parties may jointly form a coalition government. Pressure groups and movements can also influence decision-making.
Coalition governments involve direct sharing of governmental power among political parties.
A coalition government is formed when at least two political parties come together, usually through a political alliance and a common programme, to form a government.
The chapter uses Germany's grand coalition as an example of parties with different positions jointly governing.
It illustrates horizontal power sharing because the judiciary—the Bombay High Court—exercised its authority in relation to the executive government of Maharashtra.
The example demonstrates institutional checks and balances.
It illustrates power sharing among social groups because the government works with an aboriginal community in settling a land claim.
The example highlights accommodation and cooperation between government and a social group.
It illustrates power sharing among political parties because two political organisations agreed to unite into a coalition and contest elections together.
Coalition-building is one way political parties share political power.
It illustrates power sharing among different levels of government because state governments were collectively seeking information and a fairer revenue-distribution arrangement from the federal government.
The example shows the federal dimension of power sharing.
Every democratic society contains different interests, institutions, political parties and groups. Power sharing prevents excessive concentration of authority and gives different sections opportunities to participate in governance.
The chapter's four forms show that power sharing can exist even where there are no major ethnic or linguistic divisions.
The need for power sharing is not determined simply by geographical size. Democratic institutions can distribute power among organs, levels, social groups and political parties in countries of any size.
Belgium itself is a small country but developed an elaborate federal power-sharing system.
The comparison shows that accommodating diversity through power sharing can help maintain unity and reduce conflict, whereas majoritarian policies that disregard minority interests can deepen alienation and conflict.
The chapter uses these two cases as contrasting models for handling social diversity.
The measure conflicts with the spirit of Belgium's power-sharing model if it denies linguistic communities the accommodation and representation that Belgium's arrangements are designed to provide. Belgium's system was built around recognising linguistic diversity rather than imposing one community's language on another.
The answer should focus on the principles of accommodation and respect for linguistic diversity.
Giving power to Panchayats can reduce corruption and increase administrative efficiency because local people can participate in planning and implementation and exercise greater control over development schemes.
This is prudential because it points to practical benefits from decentralised participation.
A, B, D and F support power sharing. Therefore, the correct option is (a) A B D F.
C, E and G describe possible objections or negative claims rather than the reasons presented in the chapter.
1. Different organs — Separation of powers (B); 2. Different levels — Federal government (D); 3. Different social groups — Community government (A); 4. Two or more political parties — Coalition government (C). Thus the correct code is (a) D A B C.
Remember: Organs = separation; Levels = federal; Social groups = community; Parties = coalition.
Both statements are true: power sharing is good for democracy, and it helps reduce the possibility of conflict between social groups. Therefore, the correct option is (b).
These are the two central reasons developed in the chapter.