This MCQ module is based on: Why & How Power Is Shared
TOPIC 2 OF 18
Why & How Power Is Shared
🎓 Class 10
Social Science
CBSE
Theory
Ch 1 — Power Sharing
⏱ ~15 min
🌐 Language: [gtranslate]
🧠 AI-Powered MCQ Assessment
▲
Myaischool Lt Sst Assessment
▲
[myaischool_lt_sst_assessment grade_level="class_10" subject="civics" difficulty="intermediate"]
Accommodation in Belgium, Why Power Sharing & Forms of Power Sharing
NCERT Democratic Politics-II | Chapter 1: Power-sharing
How Belgium Accommodated Its Diverse Communities
Unlike Sri Lanka, the Belgian leaders chose a path of accommodation and mutual respect. They recognised that regional differences and cultural diversities were realities that could not be wished away. Between 1970 and 1993, the Belgian constitution was amended four times to create an innovative arrangement that enabled all communities to coexist peacefully within one nation. The key elements of the Belgian model? are as follows:
Equal Ministers
The constitution mandates an equal number of Dutch-speaking and French-speaking ministers in the central government. Certain special laws require the support of a majority from each linguistic group, preventing any single community from making unilateral decisions.
State Government Autonomy
Many powers of the central government have been transferred to the two regional state governments. These state governments are not subordinate to the central government — they operate as equal partners.
Brussels: Equal Representation
Brussels has a separate government where both communities have equal representation. French-speakers accepted this because the Dutch-speaking community accepted equal representation at the central level.
Community Government
A third tier of government — the "community government" — is elected by each language community (Dutch, French, and German). It has authority over cultural, educational, and language-related issues regardless of where members live.
Key Outcome
These complex arrangements helped Belgium avoid civic strife and a possible division of the country along linguistic lines. The Belgian model was so successful that when European nations came together to form the European Union, they chose Brussels as its headquarters.
What Do the Two Stories Tell Us?
Belgium and Sri Lanka are both democracies, yet they dealt with the power-sharing challenge very differently. In Belgium, leaders understood that national unity was possible only by respecting the feelings and interests of all communities and regions. This led to mutually acceptable power-sharing arrangements. Sri Lanka, in contrast, demonstrated what happens when a majority community insists on dominating others and refuses to share power — it can undermine national unity, provoke conflict, and cause immense suffering for everyone.
THINK ABOUT IT — Annette and Selvi
L4 Analyse
Consider the following scenario from the textbook:
Annette studies in a Dutch-medium school in northern Belgium. Many French-speaking students in her school want the medium of instruction to be French.
Selvi studies in a school in northern Sri Lanka. All students in her school are Tamil-speaking and they want Tamil as the medium of instruction.
Discuss: If the parents of Annette and Selvi approach their respective governments, who is more likely to succeed and why?
Guidance
Annette's parents are more likely to succeed. Belgium's community government system allows each language community to manage its own educational and cultural affairs. French-speaking families can approach the French community government for language-related support. In Sri Lanka, however, the government's majoritarian policies made Sinhala the sole official language and did not accommodate Tamil medium demands — so Selvi's parents would face far greater resistance.
KHALIL'S DILEMMA — The Lebanon Story
L5 Evaluate
The textbook tells the story of Khalil from Beirut, Lebanon. After a devastating civil war, Lebanese leaders agreed on rules for sharing power among different religious communities:
- The President must be a Maronite Catholic Christian
- The Prime Minister must be a Sunni Muslim
- The Deputy PM must be an Orthodox Christian
- The Speaker of Parliament must be a Shi'a Muslim
Khalil, who is of mixed heritage and non-religious, dislikes this system. He asks: why can't Lebanon simply hold elections and let whoever wins the most votes become President, regardless of community?
If you could rewrite Lebanon's rules, what would you do? Would you adopt "regular" democratic rules as Khalil suggests, keep the existing arrangement, or design something entirely different?
Guidance
This is an open-ended question with no single correct answer. The existing system ensures peace by guaranteeing representation for all major communities, but it also restricts individual choice and freezes power along religious lines. Khalil's "regular" democracy approach would be fairer to individuals but might reignite communal tensions. A middle path could involve proportional representation, anti-discrimination laws, and gradual transition — preserving peace while expanding individual freedom over time.
Why Is Power Sharing Desirable — Prudential and Moral Reasons
Two distinct sets of reasons support the case for power-sharing in democracies:
Prudential Reasons
Power-sharing helps reduce the possibility of conflict between social groups. Since social conflict often leads to violence and political instability, sharing power is a practical way to ensure stability. Imposing the will of the majority may seem attractive in the short run, but it undermines national unity in the long run. The tyranny of the majority harms both the minority and, eventually, the majority itself.
Moral Reasons
Power-sharing is the very spirit of democracy. Democratic governance means sharing authority with those who are affected by its exercise. People have a right to be consulted on how they are governed. A legitimate government is one where citizens acquire a stake in the system through participation. Power-sharing is valuable in itself, not just for its results.
Definition
Prudential: Based on prudence — careful calculation of gains and losses. Prudential decisions are usually contrasted with decisions based purely on moral considerations. In the context of power-sharing, prudential reasons emphasise that sharing power leads to better practical outcomes (stability, unity), while moral reasons emphasise that sharing power is inherently right.
Four Forms of Power Sharing in Modern Democracies
The idea of power-sharing emerged in opposition to the older notion that all governmental authority should rest with one person or group. Democracy is founded on the principle that people are the source of all political power, and in a good democratic government, diverse groups and views receive due respect. Power-sharing arrangements in modern democracies take several forms:
Four Forms of Power Sharing
L4 AnalyseForm 1: Horizontal Distribution — Among Organs of Government
Power is shared among the legislature, executive, and judiciary. These organs are placed at the same level and each exercises different powers. This system of checks and balances? ensures that no single organ can exercise unlimited authority. The legislature makes laws, the executive implements them, and the judiciary interprets and upholds them. Each organ can check the functioning of the others.
Form 2: Vertical Distribution — Among Levels of Government
Power can be shared between governments at different levels — a central (or federal/union) government for the entire country, state or provincial governments, and local bodies such as municipalities and panchayats. In countries like India and Belgium, the constitution clearly defines the powers of each level. This is called the federal division of power?. Sri Lanka, in contrast, refused to adopt such a division, contributing to its ethnic conflict.
Form 3: Among Social Groups
Power may be shared among different social groups — religious, linguistic, or ethnic communities. Belgium's community government is a prime example. In India, the system of reserved constituencies in Parliament and state assemblies ensures that socially weaker sections and women receive representation. This gives minority communities a fair share in the exercise of governmental power and prevents them from feeling alienated.
Form 4: Among Political Parties and Pressure Groups
In a democracy, citizens must have the freedom to choose among various contenders for power. Competition among political parties ensures that authority does not remain concentrated in one hand. Sometimes two or more parties form an alliance and, if elected, govern as a coalition government?. Interest groups — traders, industrialists, farmers, workers — also participate in governmental committees or influence decision-making.
LET'S EXPLORE — Power Sharing in the News
L4 Analyse
The textbook suggests a newspaper activity. Collect news clippings for one week related to ongoing conflicts or disputes. Work in groups of five and:
- Classify the conflicts by location — your state, elsewhere in India, or outside India.
- Identify the cause of each conflict. How many relate to power-sharing disputes?
- Which of these conflicts could be resolved through power-sharing arrangements?
Guidance
Look for conflicts related to: language demands (e.g., states seeking recognition for their languages), regional autonomy (e.g., demands for statehood), representation of minorities, federal disputes between central and state governments, or coalition government disagreements. Many conflicts in democracies have roots in power-sharing imbalances.
IDENTIFY THE FORM — Textbook Examples
L3 Apply
The textbook gives four examples. Identify which form of power-sharing each represents:
- Example 1: The Bombay High Court ordered the Maharashtra government to improve conditions at children's homes.
- Example 2: Ontario (Canada) agreed to a land claim settlement with the aboriginal community.
- Example 3: Two Russian political parties agreed to unite into a strong right-wing coalition for the next elections.
- Example 4: State finance ministers in Nigeria demanded that the federal government disclose its revenue sources.
Answers
Example 1: Form 1 — Horizontal (judiciary checking the executive). Example 2: Form 3 — Among social groups (aboriginal community sharing power with the government). Example 3: Form 4 — Among political parties (coalition formation). Example 4: Form 2 — Vertical (state governments demanding accountability from the federal government).
Belgium vs. Sri Lanka — A Comparative Summary
| Aspect | Belgium | Sri Lanka |
|---|---|---|
| Approach | Accommodation and mutual respect | Majoritarianism and dominance |
| Language Policy | All three languages (Dutch, French, German) recognised | Only Sinhala recognised as official language (1956 Act) |
| Government Structure | Federal — central, state, and community governments | Unitary — power concentrated at centre, no regional autonomy for Tamils |
| Minority Representation | Equal representation of both communities at all levels | Preferential policies favouring the Sinhala majority |
| Outcome | Peace, EU headquarters in Brussels | Civil war (1983–2009), massive destruction |
📋
Competency-Based Questions
Case Study: A large federal country, Nation Y, has 28 states with diverse languages and cultures. The central government wants to make one language the sole medium of all government communication, abolish state-level governance, and centralise all decision-making in the capital. Several states protest, demanding regional autonomy and recognition of their languages.
Q1. Which form of power-sharing is Nation Y's central government trying to undermine?
L3 Apply
Q2. Analyse how the Belgian model could be adapted to address Nation Y's crisis.
L4 Analyse
Q3. Evaluate: Is the prudential argument or the moral argument more convincing for persuading Nation Y's leaders to share power? Justify your position.
L5 Evaluate
HOT Q. Design a four-tier power-sharing framework for Nation Y that incorporates all four forms of power-sharing discussed in this chapter.
L6 Create
⚖ Assertion-Reason Questions
Assertion (A): Belgium chose Brussels as the seat of the European Union headquarters.
Reason (R): Belgium's innovative power-sharing arrangements successfully prevented civic strife and won international recognition.
Reason (R): Belgium's innovative power-sharing arrangements successfully prevented civic strife and won international recognition.
Assertion (A): In a democracy, political power should be distributed among as many citizens as possible.
Reason (R): The moral argument for power-sharing states that people have a right to be consulted on how they are governed.
Reason (R): The moral argument for power-sharing states that people have a right to be consulted on how they are governed.
Assertion (A): Coalition governments are a form of power-sharing among political parties.
Reason (R): In a coalition, two or more parties share power because none of them individually won a clear majority of seats.
Reason (R): In a coalition, two or more parties share power because none of them individually won a clear majority of seats.
Continue Learning — Chapter 1: Power-sharing
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the prudential reasons for power sharing?
Prudential reasons for power sharing are based on practical wisdom and self-interest. When power is concentrated in one group, it can lead to conflict, instability, and civil war as seen in Sri Lanka. Sharing power among different communities reduces the chance of social conflict, ensures political stability, and prevents the tyranny of the majority. Countries like Belgium demonstrate that prudential power sharing leads to political unity despite linguistic diversity. Prudential reasoning suggests that power sharing is the best strategy for long-term peace and governance.
What are the moral reasons for power sharing?
Moral reasons for power sharing are rooted in the fundamental values of democracy itself. The basic principle of democracy is that citizens have a right to be consulted on how they are governed. A legitimate democratic government requires the consent of all the people, not just the majority. Power sharing is morally necessary because it respects the dignity and rights of every citizen, ensures that no community is excluded from decision-making, and upholds the spirit of popular sovereignty that defines democratic governance.
What is horizontal distribution of power?
Horizontal distribution of power refers to the sharing of governmental authority among different organs at the same level, specifically the legislature, executive, and judiciary. In this arrangement, each organ has separate powers and can check the others. The legislature makes laws, the executive implements them, and the judiciary interprets them. This system of checks and balances prevents concentration of power in any single institution and is a fundamental feature of modern democracies including India.
What is vertical division of power?
Vertical division of power means sharing governmental authority between different levels of government, typically central (or Union), state, and local governments. In India, the Constitution divides subjects into Union List, State List, and Concurrent List to define which level handles which matters. Unlike horizontal distribution where organs are at the same level, vertical division involves higher and lower tiers. This arrangement is the hallmark of federal systems and ensures governance reaches all levels of society.
What is the community government in Belgium?
The community government in Belgium is a unique power-sharing institution elected by members of one language community regardless of where they live. Belgium has three community governments for the Dutch, French, and German-speaking populations. These bodies have authority over cultural, educational, and language-related matters. This innovative arrangement ensures that each linguistic community governs its own cultural affairs while the central government handles national matters. The concept resolved long-standing disputes between Belgium's language groups.
What are the four forms of power sharing?
The four forms of power sharing in modern democracies are: (1) Horizontal distribution among legislature, executive, and judiciary at the same level of government; (2) Vertical division between central, state, and local government tiers; (3) Power sharing among different social groups through community governments and reserved constituencies; and (4) Power sharing among political parties, pressure groups, and social movements through coalition governments and competitive party systems. Each form ensures that power does not remain concentrated in one group or institution.
AI Tutor
Social Science Class 10 — Democratic Politics II (Civics)
Ready