- Two stories open the chapter: Belgium (which shared power wisely) and Sri Lanka (where the majority refused to share, leading to civil war).
- Majoritarianism — the belief that the majority community may rule as it wishes, ignoring the minority — tore Sri Lanka apart.
- Accommodation in Belgium — the constitution was amended four times (1970–1993) to give equal say to Dutch, French and German speakers, holding the country together.
- Power sharing is desirable for two kinds of reasons: prudential (it reduces conflict and gives stability) and moral (it is the very spirit of democracy).
- Four forms of power sharing: horizontal (among organs), vertical (among levels), among social groups, and among parties / pressure groups.
- Board weightage: ~3 marks/year — usually 1–2 MCQs plus one short answer on reasons or forms of power sharing.
1. What this chapter is about
Last year you learnt that in a democracy all power does not rest with any one organ of government — an intelligent sharing of power among the legislature, executive and judiciary is central to a democracy’s design. This chapter carries that idea forward through two real stories — Belgium and Sri Lanka — about how democracies deal with demands for power sharing. From these stories we draw general conclusions about why power sharing is needed, and then list the different forms power sharing can take.
The key word to remember is power sharing: distributing power among different organs, levels, social groups and political actors so that no single one holds it all.
2. Belgium — an ethnically complex country
Belgium is a small country in Europe, smaller in area than the state of Haryana, bordering France, the Netherlands, Germany and Luxembourg. Its ethnic composition is very complex. (Ethnic = a social division based on shared culture; people of the same ethnic group believe in a common descent because of similarities of physical type or culture, and need not share the same religion or nationality.)
• 59% live in the Flemish region and speak Dutch.
• 40% live in Wallonia and speak French.
• 1% of Belgians speak German.
• In the capital, Brussels: 80% French-speaking, 20% Dutch-speaking.
The minority French-speaking community happened to be relatively rich and powerful. This was resented by the Dutch-speaking community, who got the benefit of economic development and education much later. This sparked tensions between the two communities during the 1950s and 1960s. The tension was sharpest in Brussels: the Dutch-speakers were a majority in the country but a minority in the capital.
3. Sri Lanka — the diverse island nation
Sri Lanka is an island a few kilometres off the southern coast of Tamil Nadu, with about two crore people. Its major social groups are:
• Tamil-speakers — 18% (mostly Hindus or Muslims), split into two sub-groups:
— Sri Lankan Tamils — 13% (natives, concentrated in the north and east).
— Indian Tamils — whose forefathers came from India as plantation workers during the colonial period.
• About 7% Christians, who are both Tamil and Sinhala.
The danger of the majority forcing its will: In Belgium, the Dutch community could use its numeric majority to dominate the French and German speakers, which could push the country towards a messy partition (both sides would claim Brussels). In Sri Lanka, the Sinhala community had an even bigger majority and could impose its will on the entire country. Let us see what each country actually did.
4. Majoritarianism in Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka became independent in 1948. The leaders of the Sinhala majority sought to secure dominance over government by virtue of their numbers. The democratically elected government adopted a series of majoritarian measures to establish Sinhala supremacy.
Majoritarianism = a belief that the majority community should be able to rule a country in whichever way it wants, by disregarding the wishes and needs of the minority.
The majoritarian measures taken:
- 1956 — an Act recognised Sinhala as the only official language, disregarding Tamil.
- Governments followed preferential policies favouring Sinhala applicants for university positions and government jobs.
- A new constitution stipulated that the state shall protect and foster Buddhism.
These measures, coming one after another, gradually increased the alienation of Sri Lankan Tamils. They felt that no major political party led by Buddhist Sinhala leaders was sensitive to their language and culture; the constitution and government policies denied them equal political rights, discriminated against them in jobs and ignored their interests. They launched parties and struggles for recognition of Tamil as an official language, for regional autonomy, and for equality of opportunity in education and jobs. As their demand for autonomy was repeatedly denied, by the 1980s several organisations were demanding an independent Tamil Eelam (state) in the north and east. The distrust turned into widespread conflict — a civil war (a violent conflict between opposing groups within a country so intense that it appears like a war). Thousands were killed, families fled as refugees, and the social, cultural and economic life of the country suffered terribly. The civil war ended in 2009.
5. Accommodation in Belgium
The Belgian leaders took a different path. They recognised the existence of regional differences and cultural diversities. Between 1970 and 1993 they amended their constitution four times to work out an arrangement that would let everyone live together within the same country. The arrangement is very innovative. Its main elements:
1. The number of Dutch and French-speaking ministers shall be equal in the central government. Some special laws need the support of a majority of members from each linguistic group — so no single community can decide alone.
2. Many powers of the Central Government have been given to the State Governments of the two regions; the State Governments are not subordinate to the Central Government.
3. Brussels has a separate government in which both communities have equal representation. The French-speakers accepted equal representation in Brussels because the Dutch-speakers accepted equal representation at the centre.
4. Apart from the central and state governments, there is a third kind — the ‘community government’ — elected by people of one language community (Dutch, French or German), no matter where they live. It has power over cultural, educational and language matters.
The Belgian model looks complicated, but it has worked well. It helped avoid civic strife between the two major communities and a possible division of the country on linguistic lines. When many European countries came together to form the European Union, Brussels was chosen as its headquarters.
6. What the two stories teach us
Both Belgium and Sri Lanka are democracies, yet they handled power sharing very differently:
In Belgium, leaders realised that the unity of the country is possible only by respecting the feelings and interests of different communities and regions. This led to mutually acceptable arrangements for sharing power. In Sri Lanka, the opposite happened: a majority community wanted to force its dominance over others and refused to share power — and this undermined the unity of the country. The lesson: respecting diversity and sharing power keeps a country together; majoritarianism breaks it apart.
7. Why power sharing is desirable
Two different sets of reasons can be given in favour of power sharing.
(a) Prudential reasons (prudential = based on prudence, i.e. careful calculation of gains and losses):
- Power sharing helps reduce the possibility of conflict between social groups. Since social conflict often leads to violence and political instability, power sharing is a good way to ensure the stability of political order.
- Imposing the will of the majority over others may look attractive in the short run, but in the long run it undermines the unity of the nation.
- Tyranny of the majority is not just oppressive for the minority — it often affects the majority adversely as well.
(b) Moral reason — the deeper reason:
- Power sharing is the very spirit of democracy. A democratic rule involves sharing power with those affected by its exercise, and with those 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, through participation, acquire a stake in the system.
8. Forms of power sharing
The idea of power sharing emerged in opposition to the old notion that all power must rest in one person or group at one place. With the rise of democracy came a new principle: people are the source of all political power, so power should be distributed among as many citizens as possible. In modern democracies, power sharing takes four main forms:
Power is shared among the legislature, executive and judiciary. They are placed at the same level and exercise different powers. This is horizontal distribution because each organ checks the others — ministers are responsible to Parliament/Assemblies; judges (appointed by the executive) can check the executive and the laws made by the legislature. This is called a system of checks and balances.
Power is shared among a general (central/union) government for the whole country and governments at the provincial / state level, and even lower levels like the municipality and panchayat. The constitution clearly lays down the powers of each level. This is called federal division of power, and the division involving higher and lower levels is vertical division. (Done in Belgium; refused in Sri Lanka.)
Power is shared among social groups such as religious and linguistic groups. Belgium’s ‘community government’ is a good example. In some countries there are constitutional and legal arrangements whereby socially weaker sections and women are represented in legislatures and administration — e.g. the system of ‘reserved constituencies’ in India. This gives a fair share to minority communities and groups who would otherwise feel alienated.
Power sharing is also seen in the way political parties, pressure groups and movements control or influence those in power. Citizens are free to choose among various contenders, so power is shared among different parties over time. Sometimes this is direct — two or more parties form an alliance, and if elected they form a coalition government. Pressure / interest groups (traders, businessmen, industrialists, farmers, workers) also get a share in power by participation in government committees or by influencing the decision-making process.
9. NCERT Exercises — fully answered (Q1–Q4)
Q1. What are the different forms of power sharing in modern democracies? Give an example of each.
- Among organs of government (horizontal): legislature, executive and judiciary share power and check one another. Example: in India the judiciary can declare a law made by the legislature unconstitutional.
- Among governments at different levels (vertical / federal): central, state and local governments. Example: the Central Government and State Governments in India; or central and state governments in Belgium.
- Among social groups: religious and linguistic groups share power. Example: ‘community government’ in Belgium; reserved constituencies in India.
- Among political parties, pressure groups and movements: Example: coalition governments in India formed by an alliance of parties.
Q2. State one prudential reason and one moral reason for power sharing with an example from the Indian context.
- Prudential reason: power sharing reduces conflict between social groups and ensures political stability. Indian example: sharing of power between the Centre and the States (e.g. linguistic states) has kept India’s many language communities united and reduced conflict.
- Moral reason: power sharing is the very spirit of democracy — people have a right to be consulted in how they are governed. Indian example: the panchayati raj system gives ordinary people a real say in local decisions.
Q3. Three students drew different conclusions. Which do you agree with, and why? (about 50 words)
- Thomman: “Power sharing is necessary only in societies with religious, linguistic or ethnic divisions.”
- Mathayi: “Power sharing is suitable only for big countries that have regional divisions.”
- Ouseph: “Every society needs some form of power sharing even if it is small or has no social divisions.”
Answer: Ouseph is correct. Power sharing is needed by every society — large or small, divided or not — because it is the very spirit of democracy. Even without social divisions, power must be shared among organs of government and political parties so that no one holds unlimited power and citizens are consulted.
Q4. The Mayor of Merchtem (a town near Brussels) defended a ban on speaking French in the town’s schools, saying it would help non-Dutch speakers integrate. Is this in keeping with the spirit of Belgium’s power sharing? (about 50 words)
Answer: No. Belgium’s power sharing model is built on respecting all language communities equally — equal ministers, equal representation in Brussels, and a community government for cultural and language matters. Banning French goes against this spirit because it tries to impose one language and disrespects the French-speaking community, which can revive the very tension the model was designed to avoid.
10. NCERT Exercises — fully answered (Q5–Q9)
Q5. Read the passage on giving more power to panchayats and pick out a prudential reason for power sharing.
Answer: The prudential reason in the passage is: “Giving power to Panchayats is also a way to reduce corruption and increase administrative efficiency” (it eliminates corrupt middlemen). This stresses a better outcome from power sharing, which is exactly what prudential reasons do. (The line about “power belongs in the hands of the people” is a moral reason.)
Q6. Identify the arguments which are in favour of power sharing and select the correct code.
- A. reduces conflict among different communities — in favour
- B. decreases the possibility of arbitrariness — in favour
- C. delays decision making process — against
- D. accommodates diversities — in favour
- E. increases instability and divisiveness — against
- F. promotes people’s participation in government — in favour
- G. undermines the unity of a country — against
Answer: (a) A, B, D, F.
Q7. Consider the statements about power sharing in Belgium and Sri Lanka and choose which are correct.
- A. In Belgium, the Dutch-speaking majority tried to impose domination on the minority French-speaking community. — Incorrect (Belgium accommodated; it did not impose).
- B. In Sri Lanka, the policies of the government sought to ensure the dominance of the Sinhala-speaking majority. — Correct.
- C. The Tamils in Sri Lanka demanded a federal arrangement to protect their culture, language and equality of opportunity in education and jobs. — Correct.
- D. The transformation of Belgium from unitary government to a federal one prevented a possible division of the country on linguistic lines. — Correct.
Answer: (d) B, C and D.
Q8. Match List I (forms of power sharing) with List II (forms of government).
- 1. Power shared among different organs of government → B. Separation of powers
- 2. Power shared among governments at different levels → D. Federal government
- 3. Power shared by different social groups → A. Community government
- 4. Power shared by two or more political parties → C. Coalition government
Answer: (d) 1-B, 2-D, 3-A, 4-C.
Q9. Consider the two statements and choose which are true / false.
- A. Power sharing is good for democracy. — True.
- B. It helps to reduce the possibility of conflict between social groups. — True.
Answer: (b) Both A and B are true.
“Let us revise” matching (in-text): Bombay High Court ordering the Maharashtra government → horizontal (judiciary checks executive); Ontario’s land settlement with the aboriginal community → among social groups; Russia’s two parties uniting for elections → among political parties; Nigerian states demanding the revenue-sharing formula from the federal government → vertical / federal (between levels of government).
11. Common confusions cleared
- Power sharing ≠ weakening the country. Sharing power actually strengthens unity (Belgium); refusing to share weakens it (Sri Lanka).
- Prudential vs moral: prudential = better outcomes (stability, less conflict); moral = power sharing is right in itself (the spirit of democracy).
- Horizontal vs vertical: horizontal = organs at the same level (legislature/executive/judiciary); vertical = governments at different levels (centre/state/local).
- Majority vs majoritarianism: a majority simply having more numbers is normal; majoritarianism is the wrong belief that the majority may rule by ignoring the minority.
- Belgium did not become weaker by giving Brussels a separate government — equal representation there is exactly what kept the two communities together.
- ‘Community government’ is chosen by language community, not by region — it handles culture, education and language no matter where members live.
12. Quick revision checklist
- Belgium: 59% Dutch (Flemish), 40% French (Wallonia), 1% German; Brussels 80% French, 20% Dutch.
- Sri Lanka: Sinhala 74%, Tamil 18% (Sri Lankan Tamil 13% + Indian Tamil), Christian 7%.
- Sri Lanka’s majoritarian steps: Sinhala-only (1956), job/university preference, Buddhism fostered → alienation → civil war (ended 2009).
- Belgium amended its constitution 4 times (1970–1993): equal ministers, powerful states, separate Brussels government, community government.
- Why share power: prudential (less conflict, stability) + moral (spirit of democracy).
- Four forms: horizontal (organs), vertical (levels/federal), social groups, parties & pressure groups.
- Wallonia
- Flemish region
- Brussels
- Luxembourg
- 59%
- 18%
- 74%
- 13%
- Federalism
- Majoritarianism
- Coalition
- Secularism
- 1948
- 1956
- 1970
- 2009
- 1948–1956
- 1970–1993
- 1980–2009
- 1956–1970
- Vertical distribution
- Horizontal distribution
- Community government
- Coalition
- different organs
- different levels of government
- different social groups
- political parties
- Prudential
- Economic
- Moral
- Geographical
- 1983
- 2000
- 2009
- 1995
- organs of government
- levels of government
- social groups
- political parties
- horizontal division
- vertical (federal) division
- checks and balances
- majoritarianism
- Tamil Nadu
- Tamil Eelam
- Wallonia
- Eelam Pradesh
Book a free demo class