Power-sharing

This chapter opens Democratic Politics – II, the Class 10 political science book, and the first of three linked chapters. Last year’s book (Class 9) showed that in a democracy power does not rest with any one organ of government. Here NCERT carries that idea forward: power-sharing. It starts with two stories — Belgium, which shared power among its language communities, and Sri Lanka, where the majority community did not — draws general lessons about why power-sharing is desirable, and then lists the forms it takes. The next two chapters develop two of those forms: federalism (jess402) and the accommodation of gender, religion and caste (jess403); a later one turns to political parties (jess404).

• Live pages to pair with: keps201 (Constitution: Why and How — limiting power, separation of powers, checks and balances), keps203 (elections and reserved constituencies), keps204–keps206 (executive, legislature, judiciary — the horizontal division), keps207 (federalism — the vertical division in India), keps208 (local governments), keps108 (secularism and minority rights), leps103 (Contemporary South Asia — Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict and India’s role), leps102 (the European Union, headquartered in Brussels), leps207 (regional aspirations within India), leps208 (coalition governments in India) and lesy106 (The Challenges of Cultural Diversity).
• Links within Class 10: jess402 (Federalism) continues the vertical division; jess301 (nationalism in Europe) shows how language and nation were tied together in the nineteenth century.
• UPSC: Polity is among the most heavily tested areas in Prelims and is the core of GS2 (constitutional design, separation of powers, federalism, comparison of constitutions); diversity, regionalism and communalism appear in GS1 and the Essay. This chapter is the simple foundation. Direct questions are few but real: the best safeguard of liberty in a liberal democracy — separation of powers (Prelims 2021); the TULF’s demand for a separate Tamil state (Prelims 1985); and whether India follows strict separation of powers or checks and balances (GS2 2019).

• Power-sharing = power is spread among organs, levels, groups and parties, not concentrated; the chapter answers the doubt ‘sharing = dividing = weakening’.
• Belgium (NCERT): Dutch 59%, French 40%, German 1%; Brussels 80% French, 20% Dutch. The richer French-speaking minority was resented; tensions in the 1950s–60s.
• Belgian model: four amendments, 1970–93; equal Dutch and French ministers; special laws need a majority in each language group; regional governments not subordinate; Brussels parity; community government.
• Sri Lanka (NCERT): Sinhala 74%, Tamils 18% (Sri Lankan 13%, Indian 5%). Independence 1948; Sinhala the only official language (1956); preferences; state to protect and foster Buddhism.
• Tamil alienation → demands for Tamil as official language, autonomy, equal opportunity → Tamil Eelam demand by the 1980s → civil war, ended 2009.
• Why share power: prudential (less conflict, more stability) and moral (spirit of democracy). Forms: horizontal (checks and balances), vertical (federal, local), social groups, parties and pressure groups.

Belgium is a small European country — NCERT compares it with Haryana: smaller in area, with a population of a little over one crore, about half of Haryana’s. It borders France, the Netherlands, Germany and Luxembourg. Its ethnic make-up is complex: NCERT says 59 per cent live in the Flemish region and speak Dutch, 40 per cent live in Wallonia and speak French, and 1 per cent speak German. In the capital, Brussels, 80 per cent speak French and 20 per cent Dutch. The French-speaking minority was relatively rich and powerful; the Dutch-speakers, who gained from economic development and education much later, resented this. Tensions between the two communities ran high in the 1950s and 1960s, most acutely in Brussels — where the Dutch-speakers, a majority in the country, were a minority.

Sri Lanka is an island nation a few kilometres off Tamil Nadu’s southern coast, with about two crore people. Its major groups are Sinhala-speakers (74 per cent) and Tamil-speakers (18 per cent). Tamils form two sub-groups: Sri Lankan Tamils (13 per cent), natives of the country, concentrated in the north and east; and Indian Tamils, whose forefathers came from India as plantation workers in the colonial period. Most Sinhala-speakers are Buddhists; most Tamils are Hindus or Muslims; about 7 per cent are Christians, both Tamil and Sinhala. NCERT then imagines the danger in both places: in Belgium the Dutch majority could force its will on the others, pushing towards a messy partition with both sides claiming Brussels; in Sri Lanka the Sinhala community had an even bigger majority with which to impose its will.

Sri Lanka became independent in 1948. NCERT’s account: leaders of the Sinhala community sought to secure dominance over government by virtue of their majority, and the democratically elected government adopted a series of majoritarian measures to establish Sinhala supremacy. In 1956 an Act recognised Sinhala as the only official language, disregarding Tamil. Governments followed preferential policies favouring Sinhala applicants for university places and government jobs. A new constitution stipulated that the state shall protect and foster Buddhism.

These measures, one after another, deepened the alienation of Sri Lankan Tamils. They felt that none of the major parties, led by Buddhist Sinhala leaders, was sensitive to their language and culture, and that the constitution and government policies denied them equal political rights, discriminated against them in jobs and opportunities, and ignored their interests. Relations between the communities grew strained. Tamils launched parties and struggles for Tamil as an official language, for regional autonomy and for equality of opportunity in education and jobs; their demand for more autonomy for Tamil-populated provinces was, NCERT says, repeatedly denied. By the 1980s several organisations were demanding an independent Tamil Eelam (state) in the north and east. Distrust turned into widespread conflict and then a civil war: thousands on both sides were killed, many families became refugees, many more lost their livelihoods, and the country’s social, cultural and economic life suffered a terrible setback. The war ended in 2009.

Belgium’s leaders, NCERT says, took a different path. They recognised the existence of regional differences and cultural diversities, and between 1970 and 1993 amended the constitution four times to work out an arrangement that would let everyone live together in the same country — an arrangement NCERT calls different from any other and very innovative. Its elements:

• Equality at the centre: the constitution prescribes an equal number of Dutch- and French-speaking ministers in the central government; some special laws require the support of a majority of members from each linguistic group — so no single community can decide unilaterally.
• Powers to the regions: many powers of the central government have gone to the State (regional) governments, which are not subordinate to the central government.
• Brussels: a separate government with equal representation of both communities. The French-speakers accepted parity in Brussels because the Dutch-speakers had accepted parity 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, with powers over cultural, educational and language issues.

NCERT admits the model is very complicated, even for Belgians. But it has worked so far: it helped avoid civic strife between the two major communities and a possible division of the country on linguistic lines. And when many European countries came together to form the European Union, Brussels was chosen as its headquarters.

Both countries are democracies, yet they handled power-sharing differently. In Belgium, leaders realised that the country’s unity was possible only by respecting the feelings and interests of different communities and regions, which produced mutually acceptable arrangements. Sri Lanka shows the contrast: if a majority community forces its dominance on others and refuses to share power, it can undermine the unity of the country. So the classroom doubt — ‘sharing power = dividing power = weakening the country’ — is turned around: refusing to share power was what threatened division.

NCERT gives two sets of reasons. Prudential reasons stress outcomes: power-sharing reduces the possibility of conflict between social groups; since social conflict often leads to violence and political instability, sharing power is a good way to keep the political order stable. Imposing the majority’s will may look attractive in the short run but in the long run undermines national unity; the tyranny of the majority is not only oppressive for the minority but often harms the majority as well. Moral reasons go deeper: power-sharing is the very spirit of democracy. Democratic rule means sharing power with those affected by its exercise, who have to live with its effects; people have a right to be consulted on how they are governed; and a legitimate government is one in which citizens, through participation, acquire a stake in the system. Prudential reasons value the better results; moral reasons value the act of sharing itself.

In NCERT’s story, told in the frame of Vikram and Vetal, Khalil lives in Beirut; his father is an Orthodox Christian and his mother a Sunni Muslim. Lebanon’s communities lived together in the cosmopolitan capital yet fought a bitter civil war, in which Khalil’s uncle was killed. NCERT says that at the end of the war Lebanon’s leaders agreed basic rules for sharing power among communities. Khalil, popular and ambitious, practises neither parent’s religion and finds the top post closed to him; he asks why Lebanon cannot simply let everyone contest and make the winner president. His elders, who saw the bloodshed, reply that the present system is the best guarantee of peace. Vetal asks Vikram: keep the old rules, adopt Khalil’s ‘regular’ rules, or do something else?

Power-sharing grew up against the older idea of undivided political power: for a long time it was believed that all of a government’s power must reside in one person or group in one place, because dispersed power would make quick decisions and enforcement impossible. Democracy changed this. Its basic principle is that people are the source of all political power; they rule themselves through institutions of self-government; diverse groups and views deserve respect; everyone has a voice in public policy — so political power should be distributed among as many citizens as possible. In modern democracies power-sharing takes four common forms.

• 1. Among organs of government — legislature, executive and judiciary. NCERT calls this the horizontal distribution of power: organs at the same level exercise different powers, so none has unlimited power; each checks the others, producing a balance of power. Ministers and officials exercise power but are responsible to Parliament or the State Assemblies; judges are appointed by the executive yet can check the executive and laws made by legislatures. This is a system of checks and balances.
• 2. Among governments at different levels — a general government for the whole country (the federal government; in India, the Central or Union Government) and governments at the provincial or regional level (in India, State Governments). Not all countries have them; where they exist, the constitution lays down each level’s powers — done in Belgium, refused in Sri Lanka. This is the federal division of power, which can extend lower, to municipalities and panchayats. NCERT calls division between higher and lower levels the vertical division of power (developed in jess402).
• 3. Among social groups — religious and linguistic groups, for example. Belgium’s community government is one example; others are constitutional and legal arrangements that represent socially weaker sections and women in legislatures and administration, such as India’s reserved constituencies. The aim is to give space to groups that might otherwise feel alienated and a fair share of power to minorities (developed in jess403).
• 4. Among political parties, pressure groups and movements — citizens must be free to choose among contenders for power; today this means competition among parties, which ensures power does not stay in one hand and, in the long run, is shared among parties representing different ideologies and groups. Sharing can be direct, when parties form an alliance and, if elected, a coalition government. Interest groups — traders, businessmen, industrialists, farmers, industrial workers — also share power through government committees or by influencing decisions (developed in jess404).

The chapter’s side questions in page order. Short outlines follow.

Nine questions, pages 10–12. The answer keys for the four multiple-choice items are given with reasons; none is seriously disputed, but note the comments.

Numbers

One-liners

• Power-sharing spreads power among organs, levels, groups and parties.
• Belgium accommodated its language groups through four amendments between 1970 and 1993.
• Belgium has equal Dutch- and French-speaking ministers at the centre.
• Belgium’s community governments handle culture, education and language.
• Brussels has a government with equal representation of both communities.
• Sri Lanka made Sinhala its only official language in 1956.
• Majoritarianism means the majority community rules disregarding minorities.
• Tamil alienation led to the demand for Tamil Eelam and a civil war that ended in 2009.
• Prudential reasons: power-sharing reduces conflict and ensures stability.
• Moral reasons: power-sharing is the very spirit of democracy.
• Horizontal distribution: among legislature, executive and judiciary, with checks and balances.
• Vertical division: among Union, State and local governments.
• Coalition governments and interest groups are forms of power-sharing too.

Traps to avoid

• Belgium has three regions and three communities, not ‘two regions’.
• Belgian ministerial parity may exclude the Prime Minister (Art. 99).
• NCERT’s 40% ‘in Wallonia’ is the French-speaking share; Wallonia holds about 31% of Belgians.
• Brussels’ 80/20 split is an estimate — Belgium abolished its language census in 1961.
• Brussels hosts the EU’s main institutions, but the European Parliament’s official seat is Strasbourg.
• Sri Lankan Muslims (Moors) are a separate ethnic group, though most speak Tamil.
• The Tamil Eelam demand dates from the 1976 Vaddukoddai Resolution, before ‘the 1980s’.
• Lebanon’s fixed top posts date from the 1943 National Pact, not the end of the civil war (Taif, 1989).
• Ontario is a Canadian province, not a state.
• In Exercise 7, statement A is false: Belgium’s Dutch majority did not impose domination.
• India follows checks and balances, not strict separation of powers.
• Separation of powers, not ‘a committed judiciary’, is the safeguard of liberty (Prelims 2021).

Prelims — what UPSC asks

• Asked so far: the best safeguard of liberty in a liberal democracy — separation of powers (2021; also on keps201); the TULF’s demand for a separate Tamil state (1985; also on leps103). Likely in future: horizontal vs vertical division; matching forms of power-sharing with community, federal and coalition government; Belgium’s community government; Sri Lanka’s 1956 Act; the Indian provisions in the table (Arts. 50, 75(3), 243D, 330, 332; the 106th Amendment).
• Use the trap list: Belgium’s three regions and three communities, the EU’s seat, the Tamil Eelam timeline, Lebanon’s 1943 Pact and Taif (1989), and ‘committed judiciary’ are the details most likely to be mis-stated.

Mains — where it appears and how to answer

• GS2 constitutional design: separation of powers versus checks and balances in India (2019): define horizontal division (Montesquieu), show Indian overlap (parliamentary executive, ordinances, judicial review, Art. 50) and conclude with ‘functional separation with checks’. Federalism questions (keps207, jess402) can open with this chapter’s vertical division and Belgium as a ‘holding-together’ federation.
• GS1 and Essay — diversity: regionalism, linguistic and ethnic demands, unity in diversity. Use Belgium (accommodation) and Sri Lanka (majoritarianism) as attributed comparative examples, add Lijphart’s consociational and Horowitz’s integrative approaches, and the prudential and moral reasons. Keep foreign cases factual and dated; do not comment on current governments.

Tap an option. NCERT's own exercise questions come first; the rest test the figures and common confusions.

Open any question to attempt it in the Question bank — your attempt is saved to your progress.