Power-sharing — RBSE Class 10 (Political Science)
Two small countries, two different choices. Belgium had a complicated mix of Dutch-, French- and German-speakers and chose to share power so carefully that everyone felt secure. Sri Lanka had a clear Sinhala majority and chose majority rule at the expense of the Tamil minority — and slid into a civil war. The difference between peace and conflict, this chapter argues, often comes down to one idea: how power is shared.
1. Two stories: Belgium and Sri Lanka
Belgium — a small European country. Of its people, about 59% live in the Flemish region and speak Dutch, about 40% live in Wallonia and speak French, and 1% speak German; the capital Brussels has a French-speaking majority but a Dutch majority in the country. The French-speaking minority was richer and more powerful, breeding tension. Between 1970 and 1993 Belgian leaders amended the constitution four times to work out an arrangement so that everyone could live together. Its features:
- Equal number of Dutch- and French-speaking ministers in the central government.
- Many powers given to state governments of the regions.
- Brussels has a separate government with equal representation for both communities.
- A community government (elected by people of one language group, wherever they live) controls cultural, educational and language matters.
Sri Lanka — an island nation. The Sinhala-speakers are the majority (about 74%); Tamils are the minority (Sri Lankan Tamils ~13% plus Indian Tamils). In 1956 an Act made Sinhala the only official language, gave preference to Sinhala applicants and protected Buddhism — a policy of majoritarianism (the belief that the majority community should rule as it wishes). Feeling discriminated against and denied their language and rights, the Tamils launched struggles for autonomy; the result was a bitter civil war that cost thousands of lives.
The contrast: Belgium accommodated differences and stayed united; Sri Lanka's majoritarianism led to alienation and conflict.
2. Why is power-sharing desirable? Two sets of reasons
Prudential reasons (about benefits/wise outcomes):
- Power-sharing reduces conflict between social groups and the possibility of violence.
- It ensures the stability of political order; tyranny of the majority is dangerous even for the majority itself.
Moral reasons (about what is intrinsically right):
- Power-sharing is the very spirit of democracy. A truly democratic government rests on sharing power with those affected by its exercise and with those who must live with its effects.
- People have a right to be consulted on how they are to be governed; a legitimate government is one where citizens, through participation, acquire a stake in the system.
3. The four forms of power-sharing
(a) Horizontal distribution — among organs of government. Power is shared among the legislature, executive and judiciary. Each is placed at the same level, and a system of checks and balances lets each organ check the others, so no one organ can exercise unlimited power.
(b) Vertical distribution — among levels of government. Power is shared between a central (general/union) government and state/provincial governments, and further down to local bodies. This is federalism (developed in the next chapter). The constitution specifies what each level can do.
(c) Among different social groups. Power is shared among different social groups — religious and linguistic — for example through community government in Belgium or 'reserved constituencies' in legislatures. This gives minority communities a fair share and a voice in government.
(d) Among political parties, pressure groups and movements. In a democracy, parties compete for power (the alternation of parties through elections), and coalitions, pressure groups and interest groups also influence decisions. This too is a kind of power-sharing — power is not concentrated in one hand for long.
4. Closing thought
The word that ties this chapter together is accommodation. Belgium succeeded not because it had fewer differences than Sri Lanka, but because it chose to accommodate them through carefully shared power; Sri Lanka had a simpler social map and still failed, because it chose domination over sharing.
Power-sharing, the chapter concludes, is good for two reasons at once — it is prudent (it keeps the peace and the system stable) and it is moral (it is the very spirit of democracy). And it happens in four ways — across organs, across levels, across social groups, and across parties.
For the RBSE board, be ready to compare Belgium and Sri Lanka, to separate prudential from moral reasons, and to list the four forms with one example each — these three are the chapter's standard questions.
