Chapter Notes

Overview

In a democracy, political power does not belong to a single person or government body. The idea that sharing power is essential to the design of a democracy is a central theme we will explore. Spreading power among the legislature, executive, and judiciary helps a democracy function well.

This chapter examines the concept of power-sharing through two real-world stories from Belgium and Sri Lanka. These examples show how different democracies manage demands for power-sharing and help us understand why it is so necessary.

Belgium and Sri Lanka

Let's look at the situations in two different countries to understand the challenges and solutions related to power-sharing.

The Case of Belgium

Belgium is a small European country with a population of just over one crore. Despite its size, its ethnic composition—the social division based on shared culture—is very complex.

• Dutch-speakers: 59% of the population lives in the Flemish region and speaks Dutch.
• French-speakers: 40% of the population lives in the Wallonia region and speaks French.
• German-speakers: The remaining 1% of Belgians speak German.

The capital city, Brussels, has its own unique demographic mix: 80% of its residents speak French, while only 20% speak Dutch. This created a peculiar situation: the Dutch-speakers were a majority in the country but a minority in the capital.

Tensions arose during the 1950s and 1960s because the French-speaking minority was generally wealthier and more powerful. The Dutch-speaking majority, who received the benefits of economic development and education later, resented this disparity. The conflict was especially intense in Brussels.

The Case of Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka is an island nation with a population of about two crore. Like Belgium, it has a diverse population.

• Sinhala-speakers: This is the largest group, making up 74% of the population. Most are Buddhists.
• Tamil-speakers: This group makes up 18% of the population. Most are Hindus or Muslims.
  • Sri Lankan Tamils (13%): These are Tamils native to the country, concentrated in the north and east.
  • Indian Tamils (5%): These are descendants of plantation workers brought from India during the colonial period.
• Christians: About 7% of the population is Christian, and this group includes both Sinhala and Tamil people.

With such a large majority, the Sinhala community was in a position to impose its will on the entire country, creating a potential for serious conflict.

Majoritarianism in Sri Lanka

After gaining independence in 1948, Sri Lanka's leaders from the Sinhala community adopted a policy of majoritarianism.

The democratically elected government took several steps to establish Sinhala supremacy:

1. The 1956 Act: An act was passed to make Sinhala the only official language, completely disregarding Tamil.
2. Preferential Policies: The government favored Sinhala applicants for university positions and government jobs.
3. State Religion: A new constitution declared that the state would protect and foster Buddhism.

Consequences of Majoritarianism

These actions gradually made the Sri Lankan Tamils feel alienated. They felt that the government and major political parties were insensitive to their language and culture and that they were being denied equal rights and opportunities.

As a result, the relationship between the Sinhala and Tamil communities grew increasingly strained. The Sri Lankan Tamils organized parties and launched struggles to have Tamil recognized as an official language and to gain regional autonomy. When their demands were repeatedly denied, several political organizations were formed in the 1980s demanding an independent Tamil state, or Tamil Eelam, in the northern and eastern parts of the country.

This deep distrust between the two communities eventually led to a civil war, a violent internal conflict. Thousands of people from both communities were killed, many lost their livelihoods, and many more were forced to become refugees. The civil war, which ended in 2009, caused a terrible setback to the social, cultural, and economic life of Sri Lanka.

Accommodation in Belgium

In stark contrast to Sri Lanka, Belgian leaders chose a different path. They recognized their country's regional and cultural diversity and decided to create a system where everyone could live together peacefully. Between 1970 and 1993, they amended their constitution four times to develop an innovative power-sharing arrangement.

Key Elements of the Belgian Model

• Equal Representation in Central Government: The constitution requires that the number of Dutch and French-speaking ministers in the central government must be equal. This ensures that no single community can make decisions on its own.
• Power to State Governments: Many powers of the central government were given to the state governments of the two main regions. These state governments are not subordinate to the central government.
• Separate Government for Brussels: The capital city, Brussels, has its own government where both the Dutch-speaking and French-speaking communities have equal representation.
• Community Government: A third kind of government, the 'community government', was created. It is elected by people belonging to one language community (Dutch, French, or German), regardless of where they live. This government has power over cultural, educational, and language-related issues.

Why power sharing is desirable?

The stories of Belgium and Sri Lanka show us two very different outcomes. Belgium found a way to live together peacefully, while Sri Lanka's approach led to civil war. This demonstrates why power-sharing is so desirable in a democracy. There are two main sets of reasons for this: prudential and moral.

Prudential Reasons

Prudential reasons are based on a careful calculation of gains and losses. They focus on the practical benefits of power-sharing.

• Reduces Conflict: Power-sharing helps to reduce the possibility of conflict between different social groups.
• Ensures Stability: By avoiding social conflict, power-sharing is a good way to ensure the stability of the political order.
• Preserves National Unity: While imposing the will of the majority might seem like an easy solution in the short term, it undermines the unity of the nation in the long run. The tyranny of the majority is not only oppressive for the minority but can also harm the majority itself.

Moral Reasons

Moral reasons emphasize that power-sharing is valuable in its own right because it is the right thing to do in a democracy.

• Spirit of Democracy: Power-sharing is the very essence of democracy. A democratic government involves sharing power with those who are affected by its decisions.
• Legitimacy: People have a right to be consulted on how they are to be governed. A legitimate government is one where citizens, through participation, feel they have a stake in the system.

Forms of power-sharing

The idea of power-sharing developed in opposition to the old notion that all power should be concentrated in one person or group. In modern democracies, power-sharing can take many forms.

1. Horizontal Distribution of Power

Power is shared among different organs of the government, such as the legislature (which makes laws), the executive (which implements laws), and the judiciary (which interprets laws).

• This arrangement places different government bodies at the same level to exercise different powers.
• It creates a system of checks and balances, ensuring that no single organ can exercise unlimited power. Each organ checks the others, maintaining a balance of power.

2. Vertical Division of Power

Power is shared among governments at different levels. This is also known as a federal division of power.

• This involves a general government for the entire country (often called a federal, Central, or Union Government) and governments at the provincial or regional level (State Governments in India).
• Power can be further divided to lower levels, such as municipalities and panchayats (local governments).
• In this system, the constitution clearly defines the powers of each level of government.

3. Power Shared Among Different Social Groups

Power can also be shared among different social groups, such as religious and linguistic communities.

• This arrangement gives a voice and representation in the government to diverse social groups who might otherwise feel alienated.
• It helps give minority communities a fair share in power.

4. Power Shared Among Political Parties, Pressure Groups, and Movements

In a democracy, power is also distributed among various political parties and groups that influence decision-making.

• Political Parties: Competition among different parties ensures that power does not remain in one hand. When two or more parties form an alliance to govern, they create a coalition government and share power directly.
• Interest Groups: Groups representing traders, businesspeople, farmers, and industrial workers also share in governmental power by participating in committees or influencing the decision-making process.