Chapter 1: Power Sharing

Political Science · CBSE Class 10 · Democratic Politics-II

📖 Chapter 1: Power Sharing (CBSE Class 10 Political Science — Democratic Politics-II). Belgium & Sri Lanka, majoritarianism, accommodation, why power sharing is desirable, and forms of power sharing.

1. Two Stories: Belgium & Sri Lanka

🇧🇪 Belgium — Ethnic Composition

Region / City	Language & share
Flemish region	59% — Dutch
Wallonia region	40% — French
Whole country	1% — German
Capital Brussels	80% French, 20% Dutch

The minority French-speaking community was relatively rich and powerful — resented by the Dutch-speaking community (who got economic development & education later). Tension was most acute in Brussels (Dutch = majority in country, but minority in capital).

🇱🇰 Sri Lanka — Social Groups

Sinhala-speakers 74%, Tamil-speakers 18% (Sri Lankan Tamils 13% + Indian Tamils 5%). Most Sinhala are Buddhist; most Tamils are Hindu/Muslim; ~7% Christians. Sri Lankan Tamils concentrated in north & east.

2. Majoritarianism in Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka became independent in 1948. The Sinhala leaders sought dominance via majority → a series of majoritarian measures:

• 1956 Act — Sinhala made the only official language (disregarding Tamil).
• Preferential policies for Sinhala in university seats & government jobs.
• New constitution — state shall protect and foster Buddhism.

These increased alienation among Sri Lankan Tamils → demand for Tamil as official language, regional autonomy, equal opportunity. Demands repeatedly denied → by 1980s demand for a separate state Tamil Eelam → distrust → civil war (thousands killed, refugees; ended 2009).

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

3. Accommodation in Belgium

Belgian leaders recognised regional & cultural diversity → amended the constitution four times (1970–1993). The innovative Belgian model:

1. Equal number of Dutch & French ministers in central government; some laws need majority support from each linguistic group — no single community can decide unilaterally.
2. Many powers of Central Govt given to State Governments of the two regions (not subordinate to centre).
3. Brussels has a separate government with equal representation of both communities.
4. A third kind — Community Government — elected by people of one language community (Dutch/French/German) regardless of where they live; handles cultural, educational & language issues.

Result: avoided civic strife & division on linguistic lines. Brussels became HQ of the European Union.

4. Why Power Sharing is Desirable?

Prudential reason	Moral reason
Reduces conflict between social groups; ensures stability of political order. (Tyranny of majority harms minority AND majority.) → stresses better outcomes.	Power sharing is the very spirit of democracy. People have a right to be consulted; a legitimate govt gives citizens a stake. → stresses the act itself as valuable.

5. Forms of Power Sharing

Form	Description & Example
(1) Among organs of government — Horizontal	Legislature, Executive, Judiciary — placed at same level. Each checks the others = checks and balances. (Separation of powers)
(2) Among different levels — Vertical	Union / Central ↔ State ↔ Local (municipality, panchayat). Constitution lays down powers = federal division. (Done in Belgium, refused in Sri Lanka)
(3) Among social groups	Religious / linguistic groups — e.g. Belgium's Community Government; India's reserved constituencies.
(4) Among parties / pressure groups / movements	Competition among parties; coalition governments; interest groups (traders, farmers, workers) influencing power.

🧠 Remember: Belgium = accommodation (success). Sri Lanka = majoritarianism (civil war). Prudential (outcomes) vs Moral (spirit). 4 forms: Horizontal (organs), Vertical (levels/federal), Social groups, Parties/pressure groups.

📘 NCERT Textbook Exercise Answers

1What are the different forms of power sharing in modern democracies? Give an example of each.

(i) Horizontal — among organs of govt (legislature, executive, judiciary); e.g. in India the judiciary can check laws made by the legislature (checks & balances).
(ii) Vertical / Federal — among different levels; e.g. Union, State and local governments in India.
(iii) Among social groups — e.g. Community Government in Belgium; reserved constituencies in India.
(iv) Among political parties/pressure groups/movements — e.g. coalition governments formed by alliances in India.

2State one prudential and one moral reason for power sharing with an Indian example.

Prudential: Power sharing reduces conflict between social groups and ensures political stability — e.g. reservation of seats for SC/ST/OBC reduces social tension. Moral: Power sharing is the very spirit of democracy — e.g. the three-tier Panchayati Raj system lets ordinary people share in governance.

3Three students drew conclusions — which do you agree with (Thomman / Mathayi / Ouseph)?

I agree with Ouseph — "Every society needs some form of power sharing even if it is small or does not have social divisions." Power sharing is not only to resolve social divisions (prudential) but is also the spirit of democracy (moral), so it is needed by every society. Thomman and Mathayi see only the prudential side, so their views are incomplete.

4The Mayor of Merchtem banned French in schools — is this in keeping with the spirit of Belgium's power sharing?

No. The ban goes against the spirit of Belgium's power sharing. The Belgian model is built on mutual respect and accommodation of all linguistic communities. Banning French denies equal rights to French speakers and promotes majoritarianism of Dutch speakers in that town — exactly what Belgium sought to avoid.

5Read the passage — pick one prudential reason for power sharing (Panchayati Raj).

Prudential reason: "Giving power to Panchayats is a way to reduce corruption and increase administrative efficiency" — because when people participate they control the schemes and eliminate corrupt middlemen. (This stresses a better outcome — hence prudential.)

6Identify arguments in favour of power sharing (codes).

(a) A B D F — Power sharing reduces conflict (A), decreases arbitrariness (B), accommodates diversities (D), promotes people's participation (F). [C, E, G are arguments against.]

7Which statements about Belgium & Sri Lanka are correct?

(d) B, C and D. Statement A is wrong — in Belgium the Dutch majority did NOT impose domination; they accommodated the minority. B (Sinhala dominance), C (Tamils demanded federal arrangement) and D (Belgium's shift prevented division) are correct.

8Match List I (forms of power sharing) with List II (forms of government).

(c) 1-B, 2-D, 3-A, 4-C. Organs of govt → Separation of powers (B); different levels → Federal government (D); social groups → Community government (A); two/more parties → Coalition government (C).

9Two statements on power sharing — which true/false?

(b) Both A and B are true. Power sharing is good for democracy (A) and it helps reduce conflict between social groups (B); B is in fact a reason supporting A.

🔥 Extra Practice — Very Difficult / HOTS (competency-based, source & case-based, assertion-reason)

A. Case / Source-Based

1Source: "The President must be a Maronite Christian, the PM a Sunni Muslim, the Deputy PM an Orthodox Christian and the Speaker a Shi'a Muslim." (Lebanon pact) — (i) Which form of power sharing is this? (ii) Is it prudential or moral? (iii) One limitation.

(i) Power sharing among different social groups (religious communities). (ii) Mainly prudential — it was adopted after a civil war to guarantee peace and stability. (iii) Limitation: it fixes top posts by community, so a capable person (like Khalil) outside the fixed communities can never reach the top — it can freeze political mobility and may not reflect changed population ratios.

2Case: A newly independent country has 70% speakers of Language X and 30% of Language Y, concentrated in one province. The ruling party makes X the sole official language and reserves all state jobs for X-speakers. (i) Name the tendency. (ii) Predict two likely consequences. (iii) Suggest a power-sharing remedy.

(i) Majoritarianism. (ii) Consequences — growing alienation of Y-speakers, demand for autonomy/separate state, possible agitation or civil war; brain-drain/economic setback. (iii) Remedy — recognise both languages, federal (vertical) division giving the Y-province autonomy, reserved representation, and accommodation on the Belgian model.

B. Assertion–Reason (choose: a-both true & R explains A; b-both true, R doesn't explain; c-A true R false; d-A false R true)

3A: In Belgium the unity of the country was preserved. R: Belgian leaders imposed the will of the Dutch majority on the French minority.

(c) A is true but R is false. Unity was preserved, but NOT by imposing the Dutch majority's will — it was preserved by accommodation and equal representation.

4A: Power sharing can delay decision-making. R: Power sharing distributes power among many hands.

(a) Both true and R correctly explains A. Because power is distributed among many hands (R), reaching a common decision can take longer (A) — this is a recognised argument against power sharing.

C. Statement / Analytical

5"Power sharing makes a country more powerful, not weaker." Defend this statement using the Belgium–Sri Lanka contrast. (5 marks)

The person who equates "sharing power = dividing = weakening" is proved wrong by the two cases. Belgium shared power among communities, regions and a community government; this avoided civil strife, kept the country united, and Brussels even became the EU headquarters — the country gained strength and prestige. Sri Lanka refused to share power (majoritarianism), which caused Tamil alienation, a demand for Eelam, and a devastating civil war that set back its social, cultural and economic life for decades. Hence sharing power strengthens a country by ensuring stability, legitimacy and unity, while refusing to share power weakens it.

6Differentiate horizontal and vertical power sharing, with one Indian example each, and state which one involves 'checks and balances'.

Horizontal — power shared among organs at the SAME level (legislature, executive, judiciary); example — the Supreme Court can strike down an unconstitutional law of Parliament. This is the one that involves checks and balances. Vertical — power shared among DIFFERENT levels (Union → State → Local); example — the division of subjects between the Union and State governments (Union, State, Concurrent lists).

7HOTS: "Tyranny of the majority is not just oppressive for the minority; it often ruins the majority as well." Explain with reasoning.

When a majority dominates and disregards the minority, it breeds resentment, alienation, agitation and even civil war (as in Sri Lanka). The resulting instability, violence, loss of life, refugees and economic setback hurt EVERYONE in the country — including the majority community, whose own peace, economy and future are damaged. So majoritarian tyranny is self-destructive, not only unjust.

8Picture-the-scenario: A coalition of three parties forms a government after no party gets a majority. Classify the power sharing, and explain how it keeps power from staying in one hand.

This is power sharing among political parties (direct sharing through a coalition/alliance). Since several parties with different ideologies and support bases jointly run the government, no single party can monopolise power; decisions require negotiation and consensus, so power effectively remains distributed among the coalition partners.