Power sharing is the very spirit of democracy. A democratic rule involves sharing power with those affected by its exercise, and those who have to live with its effects. In a democracy, people rule themselves through institutions of self-governance, and power is shared among different organs of government, among different levels of government, among different social groups, and among political parties, pressure groups and movements. This chapter examines the concept of power sharing, the different forms of power sharing, and the case study of Belgium and Sri Lanka, which illustrates the importance of power sharing in a peaceful democracy.
The chapter begins with the story of Belgium and Sri Lanka, two countries with deep ethnic and linguistic divisions, to show how they dealt with their diversity. Belgium, which faced the threat of disintegration due to the conflict between the Dutch-speaking and French-speaking communities, adopted a model of power sharing that accommodated both communities. Sri Lanka, in contrast, adopted a majoritarian model that excluded the Tamil minority, leading to a bitter civil war. The comparison teaches a profound lesson about the importance of accommodation and power sharing in democracy.
For the board examination, students must understand the meaning and importance of power sharing, the four forms of power sharing in a democracy, the Belgian and Sri Lankan models, the reasons for power sharing, and the majoritarianism versus accommodation debate. The chapter is the foundation of the Civics section, and its concepts recur in the chapters on federalism and other topics.
Belgium is a small country in Europe, with a population of a little over one crore, and it has a complex ethnic composition. About 59 per cent of the population lives in the Flemish region and speaks Dutch, while about 40 per cent lives in the Wallonia region and speaks French, and the remaining 1 per cent speaks German. The French-speaking people, though a minority in the country, were rich and powerful, and this created tensions in the country, especially in the capital city of Brussels, where the French-speakers were in a majority.
The tension between the Dutch-speaking and the French-speaking communities became acute in the 1950s and 1960s, and the country faced the danger of disintegration. The leaders of Belgium recognised the problem and amended their constitution, making a series of changes to accommodate both communities. The constitution provided for the equal representation of both communities in the central government, the establishment of the state governments that were not subordinate to the central government, the separate government for Brussels, and the community governments for the cultural, educational and language-related issues.
Sri Lanka, on the other hand, is an island nation with a population of about two crore, and its main social groups are the Sinhala-speakers, who form about 74 per cent of the population, and the Tamil-speakers, who form about 18 per cent of the population. The Sinhala community had an island-wide majority, and the democratically elected governments pursued a policy of majoritarianism, which meant that the Sinhala community enjoyed the dominance and the Sinhala language and the Buddhism were given a special status. The government passed the Act of 1956 recognising Sinhala as the only official language, and the preferential policies for the Sinhala community in the universities and the government jobs, which alienated the Tamils.
The democratically elected government of Sri Lanka, dominated by the Sinhala community, adopted a series of majoritarian measures in 1956. The official language act recognised Sinhala as the only official language, which disregarded the Tamil language. The government also adopted the preferential policies that favoured the Sinhala applicants for the university positions and the government jobs. The constitution provided for the state protection and the fostering of the Buddhist religion, and the new constitution of 1972 further strengthened the majoritarian model, reducing the chances of the Tamil people to get into the universities and the government jobs.
The policies of the majoritarian model alienated the Tamil community, and the relations between the Sinhala and the Tamil communities deteriorated over the years. The Tamils felt that the democratic election of the majority was being used to deny them their rights, and many Tamil organisations began to demand a separate state, known as the Eelam, in the northern and the eastern parts of Sri Lanka. The distrust between the communities turned into a bitter civil war, which lasted for decades, and it caused a great deal of suffering, the loss of life and the displacement of the people.
The civil war in Sri Lanka and the pain it caused is a warning against the majoritarian model of democracy. The lesson is that the majority community cannot simply use its power to dominate the minority; a democracy must accommodate the diverse interests and the identities of all its people. The Sri Lankan experience shows what happens when the majority ignores the feelings and the rights of the minority, and it is a contrast to the accommodative model of Belgium.
Power sharing is desirable for two main sets of reasons: prudential and moral. The prudential reasons are that power sharing is good because it helps to reduce the possibility of conflict between the social groups, and because social conflict often leads to violence and political instability. Power sharing is a good way to ensure the stability of the political order, and the imposition of the will of the majority community over the minority may look like an attractive option in the short run, but it is a short-sighted policy that undermines the unity of the nation in the long run.
The moral reasons are more important. Power sharing is the very spirit of democracy, as a democratic rule involves sharing power with those affected by its exercise, and those who have to live with its effects. People have the right to be consulted on how they are to be governed, and this is why the democratic governments are the legitimate governments. The legitimate government is one where the citizens, through their participation, acquire a stake in the system.
The two reasons together show that power sharing is not only a practical necessity but also a moral imperative of democracy. A democratic government is the best government only when it is a legitimate government, and a government is legitimate only when the people have a say in it. Power sharing, therefore, is the very essence of democracy, and the chapter stresses that the people have a right to be heard in the decisions that affect their lives.
Power sharing in a democracy takes many forms. The first form is power sharing among the different organs of government, such as the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, which is known as the horizontal distribution of power, because it allows different organs of government placed at the same level to exercise different powers. In this system, each organ checks the others, and this results in a balance of power among various institutions, such as the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. This arrangement is called the system of checks and balances.
The second form is power sharing among the governments at different levels, which is known as the federal division of power, or the vertical division of power. In this system, a general government for the entire country and the governments at the provincial or the regional level are placed in the same system, and the constitution clearly lays down the powers of the different levels of government. This system is followed in India, where the Union government and the state governments share the power, and in the federal systems of the world.
The third form is power sharing among the different social groups, such as the religious and the linguistic groups. The system of the reserved constituencies in India, which reserves seats in the assemblies and the parliament for the weaker sections of the society, is an example of this form of power sharing. The fourth form is power sharing among the political parties, the pressure groups and the movements, which control or influence those in power. The coalition governments, in which two or more parties form the government, are an example of this form of power sharing.
The Belgian model of power sharing is a unique and successful experiment in accommodating the diverse communities. The leaders of Belgium recognised that the existing system was not suitable for the country, and they amended the constitution four times between 1970 and 1993, to work out an arrangement that would suit everyone. The first element of the arrangement was that the number of Dutch and French-speaking ministers in the central government would be equal, so that no single community could take decisions unilaterally.
The second element was that the state governments were not subordinate to the central government, and the states of the Flemish and the Walloon regions had the power to make laws on the matters of their concern. The third element was that Brussels, the capital, had a separate government in which both the communities had equal representation, as the French-speakers were in a majority in the city. The fourth element was the community government, which was elected by the people belonging to one language community, and which had the power to make laws on the cultural, educational and language-related issues.
The Belgian model shows that power sharing can successfully accommodate diversity, and that the ethnic and the linguistic differences do not have to lead to conflict. The Belgian model is often cited as an example of the power sharing model that works, and it contrasts with the failure of the majoritarian model in Sri Lanka. The chapter draws the lesson that the accommodation of diversity, through the sharing of power, is essential for the unity and the stability of a democratic nation.
| Aspect | Belgium | Sri Lanka |
|---|---|---|
| Major communities | Dutch (59%), French (40%), German (1%) | Sinhala (74%), Tamil (18%) |
| Model adopted | Power sharing and accommodation | Majoritarianism (dominance of Sinhala) |
| Key measures | Equal ministers, separate states, Brussels government, community governments | Sinhala as only official language (1956), preferential policies, protection of Buddhism |
| Result | Peace and unity | Civil war, suffering and division |
| Form of Power Sharing | Description |
|---|---|
| Among organs of government | Horizontal distribution, legislature, executive, judiciary, checks and balances |
| Among different levels of government | Federal or vertical division, Union and state governments |
| Among different social groups | Reserved constituencies for weaker sections |
| Among political parties, pressure groups and movements | Coalition governments, influence on power |
Power sharing is the very essence of democracy, for democracy means that power belongs to the people and must be exercised with the consent and participation of the people. The case studies of Belgium and Sri Lanka demonstrate this truth in opposite ways: Belgium, by accommodating its Dutch and French-speaking communities through a carefully crafted system of power sharing, secured peace and unity, while Sri Lanka, by pursuing majoritarian policies that excluded the Tamil minority, descended into a bitter and destructive civil war. Power sharing is desirable both for prudential reasons, because it reduces conflict and ensures stability, and for moral reasons, because it is the spirit of democracy and gives legitimacy to the government. The different forms of power sharing, among organs of government, among levels of government, among social groups, and among political parties and movements, together ensure that power is exercised responsibly and that the voices of all the people are heard.