Po

wer

sha

rin

g

1

Chap

ter

I

Power sharing

Overview

With this chapter we resume the tour of democracy that we startedlast year. We noted last year that in a democracy all power does notrest with any one organ of the state. An intelligent sharing of poweramong legislature, executive and judiciary is very important to thedesign of a democracy. In this and the next two chapters we carrythis idea of power sharing forward. We start with two stories fromBelgium and Sri Lanka. Both these stories are about how democracieshandle demands for power sharing.The stories yield some generalconclusions about the need for power sharing in democracy. Thisallows us to discuss various forms of power sharing that will be takenup in the following two chapters.

2

Dem

ocr

ati

c P

oli

tics

Belgium and Sri Lanka

I have a simpleequation in mind.Sharing power =dividing power =weakening thecountry. Why do westart by talking ofthis?

Ethnic: A socialdivision based onshared culture. Peoplebelonging to the sameethnic group believe intheir common descentbecause of similaritiesof physical type or ofculture or both. Theyneed not always havethe same religion ornationality.

Communitiesandregions ofBelgium

Belgium is a small country in Europe,smaller in area than the state ofHaryana. It has borders withNetherlands, France and Germany. Ithas a population of a little over onecrore, about half the population ofHaryana. The ETHNIC composition ofthis small country is very complex. Ofthe country’s total population, 59 percent lives in the Flemish region andspeaks Dutch language. Another 40 percent people live in the Wallonia regionand speak French. Remaining 1 per centof the Belgians speak German. In thecapital city Brussels, 80 per cent peoplespeak French while 20 per cent areDutch-speaking.

The minority French-speakingcommunity was relatively rich andpowerful. This was resented by theDutch-speaking community who gotthe benefit of economic development

and education much later. This led totensions between the Dutch-speakingand French-speaking communitiesduring the 1950s and 1960s. Thetension between the two communitieswas more acute in Brussels. Brusselspresented a special problem: theDutch-speaking people constituted amajority in the country, but a minorityin the capital.

Let us compare this to the situationin another country. Sri Lanka is anisland nation, just a few kilometres offthe southern coast of Tamil Nadu. Ithas about 2 crore people, about thesame as in Haryana. Like other nationsin the South Asia region, Sri Lanka hasa diverse population. The major socialgroups are the Sinhala-speakers (74 percent) and the Tamil-speakers (18 percent). Among Tamils there are two sub-groups. Tamil natives of the country

Walloon (French-speaking)

Flemish (Dutch-speaking)

German-speaking

Brussels-Capital Region

Look at the maps of Belgium and Sri Lanka. In whichregion do you find concentration of differentcommunities?

© W

ikip

edia

Po

wer

sha

rin

g

3

Majoritarianism: Abelief that the majoritycommunity should beable to rule a country inwhichever way it wants,by disregarding thewishes and needs of theminority.

are called ‘Sri Lankan Tamils’ (13 percent). The rest, whose forefathers camefrom India as plantation workers duringcolonial period, are called ‘IndianTamils’. As you can see from the map,Sri Lankan Tamils are concentrated inthe north and east of the country. Mostof the Sinhala-speaking people areBuddhist, while most of the Tamils areHindus or Muslims. There are about 7per cent Christians, who are both Tamiland Sinhala.

Just imagine what could happenin situations like this. In Belgium, the

Dutch community could takeadvantage of its numeric majority andforce its will on the French andGerman-speaking population. Thiswould push the conflict amongcommunities further. This could leadto a very messy partition of thecountry; both the sides would claimcontrol over Brussels. In Sri Lanka, theSinhala community enjoyed an evenbigger majority and could impose itswill on the entire country. Now, let uslook at what happened in both thesecountries.

Majoritarianism in Sri LankaSri Lanka emerged as an independentcountry in 1948. The leaders of theSinhala community sought to securedominance over government by virtueof their majority. As a result, thedemocratically elected governmentadopted a series of MAJORITARIAN

measures to establish Sinhala supremacy.

In 1956, an Act was passed torecognise Sinhala as the only officiallanguage, thus disregarding Tamil. Thegovernments followed preferentialpolicies that favoured Sinhalaapplicants for university positions andgovernment jobs. A new constitutionstipulated that the state shall protectand foster Buddhism.

All these government measures,coming one after the other, graduallyincreased the feeling of alienationamong the Sri Lankan Tamils. They feltthat none of the major political partiesled by the Buddhist Sinhala leaderswere sensitive to their language andculture. They felt that the constitution

and government policies denied themequal political rights, discriminatedagainst them in getting jobs and otheropportunities and ignored theirinterests. As a result, the relations

Ethnic Communitiesof Sri Lanka

SinhaleseSri Lankan Tamil

Indian TamilMuslim

4

Dem

ocr

ati

c P

oli

tics

What kind of a solution isthis? I am glad ourConstitution does not saywhich minister will come fromwhich community.

Civil war: A violentconflict betweenopposing groups withina country that becomesso intense that it appearslike a war.

The Belgian leaders took a differentpath. They recognised the existence ofregional differences and culturaldiversities. Between 1970 and 1993,they amended their constitution fourtimes so as to work out an arrangementthat would enable everyone to livetogether within the same country. Thearrangement they worked out isdifferent from any other country andis very innovative. Here are some ofthe elements of the Belgian model:

Constitution prescribes that thenumber of Dutch and French-speakingministers shall be equal in the centralgovernment. Some special laws requirethe support of majority of membersfrom each linguistic group. Thus, no

What’s wrong ifthe majoritycommunityrules? If Sinhalasdon’t rule in SriLanka, whereelse will theyrule?

single community can make decisionsunilaterally.

Many powers of the centralgovernment have been given to stategovernments of the two regions of thecountry. The state governments are notsubordinate to the Central Government.

Brussels has a separate governmentin which both the communities haveequal representation. The French-speaking people accepted equalrepresentation in Brussels because theDutch-speaking community hasaccepted equal representation in theCentral Government.

Accommodation in Belgium

between the Sinhala and Tamilcommunities strained over time.

The Sri Lankan Tamils launchedparties and struggles for the recognitionof Tamil as an official language, forregional autonomy and equality ofopportunity in securing education andjobs. But their demand for moreautonomy to provinces populated bythe Tamils was repeatedly denied. By1980s several political organisationswere formed demanding anindependent Tamil Eelam (state) innorthern and eastern parts of Sri Lanka.

The distrust between the twocommunities turned into widespreadconflict. It soon turned into a CIVIL WAR.As a result thousands of people of boththe communities have been killed. Manyfamilies were forced to leave the countryas refugees and many more lost theirlivelihoods. You have read (Chapter 1of Economics textbook, Class X) aboutSri Lanka’s excellent record of economicdevelopment, education and health. Butthe civil war has caused a terrible setbackto the social, cultural and economic lifeof the country.

The photograph here is of a streetaddress in Belgium. You will notice thatplace names and directions in twolanguages – French and Dutch.

© W

ikip

edia

Po

wer

sha

rin

g

5

So you aresaying thatsharing of powermakes us morepowerful. Soundsodd! Let methink.Read any newspaper for one week and make clippings of

news related to ongoing conflicts or wars. A group of fivestudents could pool their clippings together and do the following:

Classify these conflicts by their location (your state, India,outside India).Find out the cause of each of these conflicts. How many ofthese are related to power sharing disputes?Which of these conflicts could be resolved by working out powersharing arrangements?

What do we learn from these two storiesof Belgium and Sri Lanka? Both aredemocracies. Yet, they dealt with thequestion of power sharing differently.In Belgium, the leaders have realisedthat the unity of the country is possibleonly by respecting the feelings andinterests of different communities and

regions. Such a realisation resulted inmutually acceptable arrangements forsharing power. Sri Lanka shows us acontrasting example. It shows us thatif a majority community wants to forceits dominance over others and refusesto share power, it can undermine theunity of the country.

European Union Parliament in Belgium

Apart from the Central andthe State Government, there is athird kind of government. This‘community government’ is elected bypeople belonging to one languagecommunity – Dutch, French andGerman-speaking – no matter wherethey live. This government has thepower regarding cultural, educationaland language-related issues.

You might find the Belgian modelvery complicated. It indeed is verycomplicated, even for people living inBelgium. But these arrangements haveworked well so far. They helped toavoid civic strife between the twomajor communities and a possibledivision of the country on linguisticlines. When many countries of Europecame together to form the European

Union, Brussels was chosen as itsheadquarters.

6

Dem

ocr

ati

c P

oli

tics

Annette studies in a Dutch medium school in thenorthern region of Belgium. Many French-speaking students inher school want the medium of instruction to be French. Selvistudies in a school in the northern region of Sri Lanka. All thestudents in her school are Tamil-speaking and they want themedium of instruction to be Tamil.

If the parents of Annette and Selvi were to approachrespective governments to realise the desire of the childwho is more likely to succeed? And why?

Why power sharing is desirable?Thus, two different sets of reasons canbe given in favour of power sharing.Firstly, power sharing is good becauseit helps to reduce the possibility ofconflict between social groups. Sincesocial conflict often leads to violenceand political instability, power sharingis a good way to ensure the stability ofpolitical order. Imposing the will ofmajority community over others maylook like an attractive option in theshort run, but in the long run itundermines the unity of the nation.

Tyranny of the majority is not justoppressive for the minority; it oftenbrings ruin to the majority as well.

There is a second, deeper reasonwhy power sharing is good fordemocracies. Power sharing is the veryspirit of democracy. A democratic ruleinvolves sharing power with thoseaffected by its exercise, and who haveto live with its effects. People have aright to be consulted on how they areto be governed. A legitimategovernment is one where citizens,through participation, acquire a stakein the system.

Let us call the first set of reasonsPRUDENTIAL and the second moral. Whileprudential reasons stress that powersharing will bring out better outcomes,moral reasons emphasises the very actof power sharing as valuable.

Prudential: Based onprudence, or on carefulcalculation of gains andlosses. Prudential decisionsare usually contrasted withthose decisions basedpurely on moralconsiderations.

The cartoon at the left refers to theproblems of running the Germany’s grandcoalition government that include the twomajor parties of the country, namely theChristian Democratic Union and theSocial Democratic Party. The two partiesare historically rivals to each other. Theyhave to form a coalition governmentbecause neither of them got clear majorityof seats on their own in the 2005elections. They take divergent positionson several policy matters, but still jointlyrun the government.

© T

ab -

The

Cal

gary

Sun

, Cag

le C

arto

ons

Inc.

Po

wer

sha

rin

g

7

As usual, Vikram’s was driving the motorbike under a vowof silence and Vetal was the pillion rider. As usual, Vetalstarted telling Vikram a story to keep him awake while

driving. This time the story went as follows:

“In the city of Beirut there lived a man called Khalil. His parentscame from different communities. His father was an Orthodox Christian and mother aSunni Muslim. This was not so uncommon in this modern, cosmopolitan city. Peoplefrom various communities that lived in Lebanon came to live in its capital, Beirut. Theylived together, intermingled, yet fought a bitter civil war among themselves. One ofKhalil’s uncles was killed in that war.

At the end of this civil war, Lebanon’s leaders came together and agreed to some basicrules for power sharing among different communities. As per these rules the country’sPresident must belong to the Maronite sect of Catholic Christians. The Prime Ministermust be from the Sunni Muslim community. The post of Deputy Prime Minister is fixed forOrthodox Christian sect and that of the Speaker for Shi’a Muslim. Under this pact, theChristians agreed not to seek French protection and the Muslim agreed not to seekunification with the neighbouring state of Syria.When the Christians and Muslims came tothis agreement, they were nearly equal in population. Both sides have continued torespect this agreement though now the Muslims are in clear majority.

Khalil does not like this system one bit. He is a popular man with political ambition. Butunder the present system the top position is out of his reach barred from him. He doesnot practice either his father’s or his mother’s religion and does not wish to be knownby either. He cannot understand why Lebanon can’t be like any other ‘normal’democracy. “Just hold an election, allow everyone to contest and whoever winsmaximum votes becomes the president, no matter which community he comes from.Why can’t we do that, like in other democracies of the world?” he asks. His elders, whohave seen the bloodshed of the civil war, tell him that the present system is the bestguarantee for peace…”

The story was not finished, but they had reached the TVtower where they stopped every day. Vetalwrapped up quickly and posed hiscustomary question to Vikram: “If you hadthe power to rewrite the rules in Lebanon,what would you do? Would you adopt the‘regular’ rules followed everywhere, as Khalilsuggests? Or stick to the old rules? Or dosomething else?” Vetal did not forget toremind Vikram of their basic pact: “If youhave an answer in mind and yet do not speakup, your mobike will freeze, and sowill you!”

Can you help poor Vikram in answering Vetal?

Khalil’sdilemma

8

Dem

ocr

ati

c P

oli

tics

Recently some new laws were made in Russia giving more powers toits president. During the same time the US president visited Russia.What, according to this cartoon, is the relationship between democracyand concentration of power? Can you think of some other examples toillustrate the point being made here?

The idea of power sharing hasemerged in opposition to the notionsof undivided political power. For along time it was believed that all powerof a government must reside in oneperson or group of persons locatedat one place. It was felt that if thepower to decide is dispersed, it wouldnot be possible to take quick decisionsand to enforce them. But thesenotions have changed with theemergence of democracy. One basicprinciple of democracy is that peopleare the source of all political power.In a democracy, people rulethemselves through institutions ofself-governance. In a good democraticgovernment, due respect is given todiverse groups and views that exist ina society. Everyone has a voice in theshaping of public policies. Therefore,it follows that in a democracy political

Forms of power sharingpower should be distributed amongas many citizens as possible.

In modern democracies, powersharing arrangements can take manyforms. Let us look at some of the mostcommon arrangements that we haveor will come across.

1 Power is shared among differentorgans of government, such as thelegislature, executive and judiciary. Letus call this horizontal distribution ofpower because it allows different organsof government placed at the same levelto exercise different powers. Such aseparation ensures that none of theorgans can exercise unlimited power.Each organ checks the others. Thisresults in a balance of power amongvarious institutions. Last year we studiedthat in a democracy, even thoughministers and government officialsexercise power, they are responsible tothe Parliament or State Assemblies.Similarly, although judges are appointedby the executive, they can check thefunctioning of executive or laws madeby the legislatures. This arrangement iscalled a system of checks and balances.

2 Power can be shared amonggovernments at different levels – ageneral government for the entirecountry and governments at theprovincial or regional level. Such ageneral government for the entirecountry is usually called federalgovernment. In India, we refer to itas the Central or Union Government.The governments at the provincial orregional level are called by differentnames in different countries. In India,

Reigning Reins

© O

lle J

ohan

sson

- S

wed

en, C

agle

Car

toon

s In

c.

Po

wer

sha

rin

g

9

In my school, theclass monitorchanges everymonth. Is thatwhat you call apower sharingarrangement?

we call them State Governments. Thissystem is not followed in all countries.There are many countries where thereare no provincial or stategovernments. But in those countrieslike ours, where there are differentlevels of governments, theconstitution clearly lays down thepowers of different levels ofgovernment. This is what they did inBelgium, but was refused in Sri Lanka.This is called federal division ofpower. The same principle can beextended to levels of governmentlower than the State government, suchas the municipality and panchayat. Letus call division of powers involvinghigher and lower levels ofgovernment vertical division ofpower. We shall study these at somelength in the next chapter.

3 Power may also be shared amongdifferent social groups, such as thereligious and linguistic groups.‘Community government’ in Belgiumis a good example of this arrangement.In some countries there areconstitutional and legal arrangementswhereby socially weaker sections andwomen are represented in thelegislatures and administration. Lastyear we studied the system of ‘reservedconstituencies’ in assemblies and theparliament of our country. This typeof arrangement is meant to give spacein the government and administrationto diverse social groups who otherwise

would feel alienated from thegovernment. This method is used togive minority communities a fair sharein power. In Chapter 3, we shall lookat various ways of accommodatingsocial diversities.

4 Power sharing arrangements canalso be seen in the way politicalparties, pressure groups andmovements control or influence thosein power. In a democracy, the citizensmust have freedom to choose amongvarious contenders for power. Incontemporary democracies this takesthe form of competition amongdifferent parties. Such competitionensures that power does not remain inone hand. In the long run power isshared among different political partiesthat represent different ideologies andsocial groups. Sometimes this kind ofsharing can be direct, when two ormore parties form an alliance tocontest elections. If their alliance iselected, they form a coalitiongovernment and thus share power. Ina democracy, we find interest groupssuch as those of traders, businessmen,industrialists, farmers and industrialworkers. They also will have a share ingovernmental power, either throughparticipation in governmentalcommittees or bringing influence onthe decision making process. InChapter 4, we shall study the workingof political parties, pressure groups andsocial movements.

10

Dem

ocr

ati

c P

oli

tics

Here are some examples of power sharing. Which of the four types of powersharing do these represent? Who is sharing power with whom?The Bombay High Court ordered the Maharashtra state government to immediatelytake action and improve living conditions for the 2,000-odd children at sevenchildren’s homes in Mumbai.The government of Ontario state in Canada has agreed to a land claim settlement withthe aboriginal community. The Minister responsible for Native Affairs announced thatthe government will work with aboriginal people in a spirit of mutual respect andco-operation.Russia’s two influential political parties, the Union of Right Forces and the LiberalYabloko Movement, agreed to unite their organisations into a strong right-wingcoalition. They propose to have a common list of candidates in the nextparliamentary elections.The finance ministers of various states in Nigeria got together and demanded thatthe federal government declare its sources of income. They also wanted to know theformula by which the revenue is distributed to various state governments.

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

2. State one prudential reason and one moral reason for powersharing with an example from the Indian context.

3. After reading this chapter, three students drew differentconclusions. Which of these do you agree with and why? Giveyour reasons in about 50 words.

Thomman - Power sharing is necessary only in societies whichhave religiousm, linguistic or ethnic divisions.Mathayi – Power sharing is suitable only for big countries thathave regional divisions.Ouseph – Every society needs some form of power sharing evenif it is small or does not have social divisions.

4. The Mayor of Merchtem, a town near Brussels in Belgium, hasdefended a ban on speaking French in the town’s schools. Hesaid that the ban would help all non-Dutch speakers integratein this Flemish town. Do you think that this measure is inkeeping with the spirit of Belgium’s power sharingarrangements? Give your reasons in about 50 words.

Exer

cise

s

Po

wer

sha

rin

g

11

5. Read the following passage and pick out any one of theprudential reasons for power sharing offered in this.

“We need to give more power to the panchayats to realise thedream of Mahatma Gandhi and the hopes of the makers of ourConstitution. Panchayati Raj establishes true democracy. Itrestores power to the only place where power belongs in ademocracy – in the hands of the people. Giving power toPanchayats is also a way to reduce corruption and increaseadministrative efficiency. When people participate in the planningand implementation of developmental schemes, they wouldnaturally exercise greater control over these schemes. This wouldeliminate the corrupt middlemen. Thus, Panchayati Raj willstrengthen the foundations of our democracy.”

6. Different arguments are usually put forth in favour of and againstpower sharing. Identify those which are in favour of power sharingand select the answer using the codes given below? Power sharing:

A. reduces conflict among different communitiesB. decreases the possibility of arbitrarinessC. delays decision making processD. accommodates diversitiesE. increases instability and divisivenessF. promotes people’s participation in governmentG. undermines the unity of a country

7. Consider the following statements about power sharingarrangements in Belgium and Sri Lanka.A. In Belgium, the Dutch-speaking majority people tried to impose

their domination on the minority French-speaking community.B. In Sri Lanka, the policies of the government sought to ensure the

dominance of the Sinhala-speaking majority.C. The Tamils in Sri Lanka demanded a federal arrangement of

power sharing to protect their culture, language and equality ofopportunity in education and jobs.

D. The transformation of Belgium from unitary government to afederal one prevented a possible division of the country onlinguistic lines.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

(a) A, B, C and D (b) A, B and D (c) C and D (d) B, C and D

Exer

cise

s(a) A B D F(b) A C E F(c) A B D G(d) B C D G

12

Dem

ocr

ati

c P

oli

tics

9. Consider the following two statements on power sharing andselect the answer using the codes given below:A. Power sharing is good for democracy.B. It helps to reduce the possibility of conflict between social groups.

Which of these statements are true and false?

(a) A is true but B is false(b) Both A and B are true(c) Both A and B are false(d) A is false but B is true

List I List II

1. Power shared among differentorgans of government A. Community government

2. Power shared among governmentsat different levels B. Separation of powers

3. Power shared by different socialgroups C. Coalition government

4. Power shared by two or morepolitical parties D. Federal government

8. Match List I (forms of power sharing) with List II (forms of government)and select the correct answer using the codes given below in the lists:

Exer

cise

s

1 2 3 4(a) D A B C(b) B C D A(c) B D A C(d) C D A B