Class 10 Political Science · Chapter 1 NotesPower-sharing

In a democracy, all power does not rest with one organ of government. Power is shared among the legislature, executive and judiciary, and also among different levels and groups. The chapter opens with the idea that sharing power does not weaken a country; instead, it strengthens unity. Two stories from Belgium and Sri Lanka show how democracies handle demands for power-sharing. Belgium chose accommodation, while Sri Lanka chose majoritarianism. These stories help us draw general conclusions about why power-sharing is desirable and what forms it can take.

• Democracy involves sharing power, not concentrating it.
• Power-sharing helps accommodate diversity and prevent conflict.

Belgium is a small European country with a complex ethnic composition. Of its total population, 59 per cent lives in the Flemish region and speaks Dutch, 40 per cent lives in Wallonia and speaks French, and 1 per cent speaks German. In Brussels, 80 per cent speak French and 20 per cent Dutch. The French-speaking minority was relatively rich and powerful, which the Dutch-speaking community resented. Tensions grew in the 1950s and 1960s. Belgian leaders amended the constitution four times between 1970 and 1993 to create an innovative power-sharing model. This included equal number of Dutch and French-speaking ministers in the central government, special laws requiring majority support from each linguistic group, and many powers given to state governments of the two regions. Brussels has a separate government with equal representation. A third kind of government, the community government, is elected by people of one language community and handles cultural, educational and language issues. These arrangements helped avoid civic strife and possible division of the country.

• Ethnica social division based on shared culture.
• Belgium amended its constitution four times between 1970 and 1993.
• Community government handles cultural, educational and language-related issues.

Sri Lanka became independent in 1948. The Sinhala community, being the majority, sought to dominate the government. In 1956, an Act was passed making Sinhala the only official language, disregarding Tamil. Preferential policies favoured Sinhala applicants for university positions and government jobs. A new constitution stated that the state shall protect and foster Buddhism. These measures increased the alienation of Sri Lankan Tamils, who felt denied equal political rights and discriminated against. They demanded recognition of Tamil as an official language, regional autonomy and equality of opportunity. Their demands were repeatedly denied. By the 1980s, several political organisations demanded an independent Tamil Eelam in the north and east. The distrust turned into a civil war, causing thousands of deaths, refugees and loss of livelihoods. The civil war ended in 2009 and caused a terrible setback to the country's social, cultural and economic life.

• Majoritarianismbelief that the majority community should rule as it wants, disregarding minorities.
• Civil warviolent conflict between opposing groups within a country.
• Sri Lankan Tamils are concentrated in the north and east.

There are two sets of reasons for power-sharing. Prudential reasons stress that power-sharing helps reduce the possibility of conflict between social groups, ensures stability of political order, and prevents the tyranny of the majority. Imposing the will of the majority may look attractive in the short run but undermines national unity in the long run. Moral reasons emphasise that power-sharing is the very spirit of democracy. A democratic rule involves sharing power with those affected by its exercise and who have to live with its effects. People have a right to be consulted on how they are governed. A legitimate government is one where citizens acquire a stake in the system through participation.

• Prudentialbased on careful calculation of gains and losses.
• Moralemphasises the act of power-sharing as valuable in itself.
• Tyranny of the majority affects both minority and majority adversely.

Power-sharing can take different forms. One form is among different organs of government: legislature, executive and judiciary. This is called horizontal distribution of power because the organs are at the same level and each checks the others, resulting in a balance of power. This system is called checks and balances. Another form is among governments at different levels: a general government for the entire country (federal or union government) and governments at provincial or regional level (state governments). This is called vertical division of power. In India, we have the Union Government and State Governments, and the same principle extends to municipalities and panchayats. Belgium followed this federal arrangement, while Sri Lanka refused it.

• Horizontal distributionamong legislature, executive and judiciary.
• Vertical divisionamong different levels of government.
• Federal division of powerpowers clearly laid down for each level.

Power can also be shared among different social groups such as religious and linguistic groups. The community government in Belgium is an example. In some countries, constitutional and legal arrangements ensure representation of socially weaker sections and women in legislatures and administration. Reserved constituencies in India are an example. Another form is power-sharing among political parties, pressure groups and movements. In a democracy, citizens choose among various contenders for power, and competition among parties ensures that power does not remain in one hand. Sometimes parties form alliances and coalition governments. Interest groups of traders, businessmen, industrialists, farmers and workers also influence decision-making through participation in governmental committees or by bringing influence on the process.

• Community government in Belgium shares power among linguistic groups.
• Reserved constituencies give space to weaker sections and women.
• Coalition government is a form of power-sharing among parties.

The two stories show contrasting outcomes. Belgium respected the feelings and interests of different communities and regions, leading to mutually acceptable power-sharing arrangements. Sri Lanka shows that if the majority community forces its dominance and refuses to share power, it can undermine the unity of the country. The chapter concludes that power-sharing is good for democracy because it reduces conflict and is the very spirit of democratic rule. It also introduces the idea that power-sharing arrangements can take many forms, which will be studied in later chapters.

• Belgium avoided civic strife through accommodation.
• Sri Lanka faced civil war due to majoritarianism.
• Power-sharing is both prudentially and morally desirable.