Chapter 1: Power-sharing

Key idea 1: The people of Sri Lanka — Sri Lanka is an island just off the southern coast of Tamil Nadu with about two crore people. Sinhala-speakers are 74 per cent and Tamil-speakers 18 per cent. The Tamils have two groups: Sri Lankan Tamils (13 per cent, natives, living mostly in the north and east) and Indian Tamils, whose forefathers came from India as plantation workers in colonial times. Most Sinhala-speakers are Buddhists, most Tamils are Hindus or Muslims, and about 7 per cent are Christians, both Tamil and Sinhala.

Key idea 2: Steps that made Tamils feel left out — After 1948 the elected government took one majoritarian step after another. In 1956 an Act made Sinhala the only official language, ignoring Tamil. Sinhala applicants got preference for university seats and government jobs. A new constitution said that the state shall protect and foster Buddhism. Tamils felt that no major party led by Buddhist Sinhala leaders cared for their language, culture and equal rights, so the distrust grew.

Key idea 3: Demands, conflict and civil war — Sri Lankan Tamils started parties and struggles for Tamil as an official language, regional autonomy and equal chances in education and jobs. Their demand for more autonomy for Tamil-populated provinces was repeatedly denied. By the 1980s several organisations demanded an independent Tamil Eelam in the north and east. The distrust became a civil war: thousands of people of both communities were killed, many families fled as refugees, and many lost their livelihoods. The war ended in 2009.

• Easy: Which language did the 1956 Act make the only official language? — Sinhala.
• Medium: Name the two groups of Tamils in Sri Lanka. — Sri Lankan Tamils and Indian Tamils.
• Exam-type: A government gives jobs first to one language group only. Which idea is this and what may follow? — Majoritarianism; the other group may feel alienated and distrust can grow, as it did in Sri Lanka.

In the figure: Sinhala-speakers are about three-fourths of the people, so they could easily impose their will.

Spot the difference

Key idea 1: The problem in Belgium — Belgium is a small European country, smaller than Haryana, with a little over one crore people. About 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 richer and more powerful, which the Dutch-speaking community resented. Tension rose in the 1950s and 1960s, most of all in Brussels, where Dutch-speakers are a majority in the country but a minority in the capital.

Key idea 2: The Belgian model: Centre, regions and Brussels — Belgian leaders accepted regional and cultural differences. (1) The Constitution says the central government must have an equal number of Dutch- and French-speaking ministers, and some special laws need the support of a majority of each language group, so no community can decide alone. (2) Many powers of the central government were given to the State Governments of the two regions, which are not subordinate to the Centre. (3) Brussels has a separate government in which both communities are equally represented. French-speakers accepted this because Dutch-speakers accepted equal representation in the central government.

Key idea 3: Community government and the result — (4) Besides the Central and State Governments there is a third kind, the community government. It is elected by people of one language community — Dutch, French or German-speaking — wherever they live, and it handles cultural, educational and language matters. The model is complicated even for Belgians, but it has worked well: it avoided civic strife between the two big communities and a possible split of the country on language lines. Brussels was even chosen as the headquarters of the European Union.

• Easy: How many times did Belgium amend its constitution between 1970 and 1993? — Four times.
• Medium: Why did French-speakers accept equal representation in Brussels? — Because Dutch-speakers accepted equal representation in the central government.
• Exam-type: A club has two language groups and a rule that language decisions need a majority from each group. Which Belgian idea is this? — Needing the support of each language group so that no community decides alone.

In the figure: The Dutch-speaking community is the majority in the country, yet leaders still chose sharing, not domination.

Spot the difference

Key idea 1: Prudential reasons — Prudential means based on careful calculation of gains and losses. Power-sharing reduces the possibility of conflict between social groups. Social conflict often leads to violence and political instability, so sharing power keeps the political order stable. Imposing the majority’s will may look attractive in the short run, but in the long run it weakens the unity of the nation. The “tyranny of the majority” hurts the minority and often the majority as well.

Key idea 2: Moral reasons — Power-sharing is the very spirit of democracy. A democratic rule means sharing power with those who are affected by it and have to live with its effects. People have a right to be consulted on how they are governed. A government is legitimate when citizens, by taking part, gain a stake in the system. Prudential reasons stress better outcomes; moral reasons say the act of sharing power is valuable in itself.

Key idea 3: A real example: Lebanon — After a bitter civil war, the leaders of Lebanon agreed on rules to share power between communities. The President must be from the Maronite sect of Catholic Christians, the Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim, the Deputy Prime Minister an Orthodox Christian and the Speaker a Shi’a Muslim. Christians agreed not to seek French protection and Muslims agreed not to seek union with Syria. The pact is still respected, even though Muslims are now clearly the majority. Some young people ask why Lebanon cannot simply hold an election like other democracies; the elders reply that these rules guarantee peace.

• Easy: Give one prudential reason for power-sharing. — It reduces conflict between social groups.
• Medium: A village asks every hamlet before planning a new well, so people feel heard. Prudential or moral? — Moral, since it respects people’s right to be consulted (it also avoids quarrels).
• Exam-type: Why is the “tyranny of the majority” harmful even to the majority? — It destroys unity and stability, so everyone suffers in the long run.

In the figure: Prudential reasons look at results; moral reasons look at the value of sharing itself.

Spot the difference

Key idea 1: Among organs and among levels of government — (1) Horizontal: power is shared among the legislature, executive and judiciary at the same level. None can use unlimited power, and each checks the others; this is called checks and balances. For example, judges are appointed by the executive but can check the executive and the laws of the legislature. (2) Vertical: power is shared among governments at different levels — a general government for the whole country (the Central or Union Government in India) and governments at the regional level (State Governments in India). The constitution clearly lays down the powers of each level. The same can extend to lower levels such as the municipality and the panchayat. Belgium accepted this; Sri Lanka refused it.

Key idea 2: Among social groups, parties and pressure groups — (3) Among social groups: Belgium’s community government is an example. In India, reserved constituencies in Parliament and the assemblies, and other arrangements to represent weaker sections and women, give space to groups who might otherwise feel alienated. (4) Among parties, pressure groups and movements: citizens can choose among competing parties, so power does not stay in one hand; in the long run it is shared among parties that represent different ideas and groups. Two or more parties may form an alliance, win together and form a coalition government. Interest groups of traders, businessmen, industrialists, farmers and workers also share power by joining government committees or influencing decisions.

• Easy: Which form of power-sharing is “checks and balances”? — Horizontal, among the legislature, executive and judiciary.
• Medium: A gram panchayat has its own powers under the Constitution. Which form? — Vertical (levels of government).
• Exam-type: Two parties contest an election together, win, and run the government jointly. Which form and what is it called? — Sharing among parties; coalition government.

In the figure: Power is shared at the same level, across levels, among communities and among competing parties and groups.

Spot the difference