POWER SHARING

WHAT IS POWER?
◦ In political science, power is the ability of an individual or group to
influence or control the behaviour of others, often in the context of
governance, decision-making, and policy enforcement.
 WHAT IS POWER SHARING?
◦ Power sharing is the practice of distributing power among different
organs of government, levels of government, and social groups to
ensure that no single person or group becomes too powerful.
◦ It promotes democracy, prevents conflicts, and ensures fair
representation.
BELGIUM
◦ Belgium is a small country in Europe, smaller in area than the state of
Haryana.
◦ It has borders with France, the Netherlands, Germany and Luxembourg.
◦ It has a population of a little over one crore, about half the population of
Haryana. The ethnic composition of this small country is very complex.
◦ There were tensions and conflicts between Dutch and French speaking
communities regarding economic development during the 1950s and
1960s.
Country as a whole
• 59%- Flemish region-
Dutch (relatively poor
and less powerful)
• 49%- Wallonia region-
French (relatively rich
and powerful)
• 1%- Eastern area-
German
Capital city Brussels
• 80%- French
• 20%- Dutch
 SRI LANKA
◦ Sri Lanka is an island nation, just a few kilometres off the southern
coast of Tamil Nadu. It has about two crore people, about the same as in
Haryana.
◦ Like other nations in the South Asia region, Sri Lanka has a diverse
population. The major social groups are the Sinhala-speakers (74 per
cent) and the Tamil-speakers (18 per cent).
◦ Among Tamils there are two sub-groups. Tamil natives of the country
are called ‘Sri Lankan Tamils’ (13 per cent). The rest, whose forefathers
came from India as plantation workers during colonial period, are called
‘Indian Tamils’.
◦ Most of the Sinhala-speaking people are Buddhists, while most of the
Tamils are Hindus or Muslims.
◦ There are about 7 per cent Christians, who are both Tamil and Sinhala.
◦ In Belgium, the Dutch community could take advantage of its numeric
majority and force its will on the French and German-speaking
population. This would push the conflict among communities further.
This could lead to a very messy partition of the country; both the sides
would claim control over Brussels.
◦ In Sri Lanka, the Sinhala community enjoyed an even bigger majority
and could impose its will on the entire country.
 Majoritarianism in Sri Lanka
◦ Sri Lanka emerged as an independent country in 1948.
◦ The leaders of the Sinhala community sought to secure dominance over
government by virtue of their majority. As a result, the democratically
elected government adopted a series of majoritarian measures to
establish Sinhala supremacy.
◦ In 1956, an Act was passed to recognise Sinhala as the only official
language, thus disregarding Tamil. The governments followed
preferential policies that favoured Sinhala applicants for university
positions and government jobs.
◦ A new constitution stipulated that the state shall protect and foster
Buddhism.
◦ All these government measures, coming one after the other, gradually
increased the feeling of alienation among the Sri Lankan Tamils.
◦ They felt that none of the major political parties led by the Buddhist
Sinhala leaders was sensitive to their language and culture.
◦ They felt that the constitution and government policies denied them
equal political rights, discriminated against them in getting jobs and
other opportunities and ignored their interests.
◦ As a result, the relations between the Sinhala and Tamil communities
strained over time.
◦ The Sri Lankan Tamils launched parties and struggled for the:
1. Recognition of Tamil as an official language
2. Regional autonomy
3. Equality of opportunity in education and jobs
◦ But their demand for more autonomy to provinces populated by the
Tamils was repeatedly denied.
◦ By 1980s, several political organisations were formed demanding an
independent Tamil Eelam (state) in northern and eastern parts of Sri
Lanka.
◦ The distrust between the two communities turned into widespread
conflict. It soon turned into a civil war.
◦ As a result thousands of people of both the communities have been
killed. Many families were forced to leave the country as refugees
and many more lost their livelihoods.
◦ The civil war has caused a terrible setback to the social, cultural and
economic life of the country. It ended in 2009.
 Accommodation in Belgium
◦ The Belgian leaders took a different path. They recognised the existence
of regional differences and cultural diversities.
◦ Between 1970 and 1993, they amended their constitution four times so
as to work out an arrangement that would enable everyone to live
together within the same country.
◦ Here are some of the elements of the Belgian model:
1. Constitution prescribes that the number of Dutch and French-speaking
ministers shall be equal in the central government. Some special laws
require the support of majority of members from each linguistic
group. Thus, no single community can make decisions unilaterally.
2. Many powers of the Central Government have been given to State
Governments of the two regions of the country. The State
Governments are not subordinate to the Central Government.
3. Brussels has a separate government in which both the communities
have equal representation. The French speaking people accepted
equal representation in Brussels because the Dutch-speaking
community has accepted equal representation in the accepted equal
representation in the Central Government.
4. Apart from the Central and the State Government, there is a third
kind of government. This ‘community government’ is elected by
people belonging to one language community – Dutch, French and
German-speaking – no matter where they live. This government has
the power regarding cultural, educational and language-related
issues.
◦ This model has helped to avoid civic strife between the two major
communities and a possible division of the country on linguistic lines.
When many countries of Europe came together to form the European
Union, Brussels was chosen as its headquarters.
◦ Both Belgium and Sri Lanka are democracies. Yet, they dealt with the
question of power sharing differently.
◦ In Belgium, the leaders have realised that the unity of the country is
possible only by respecting the feelings and interests of different
communities and regions. Such a realisation resulted in mutually
acceptable arrangements for sharing power.
◦ Sri Lanka shows us a contrasting example. It shows us that if a
majority community wants to force its dominance over others and
refuses to share power, it can undermine the unity of the country.
The cartoon refers to the problems
of running the Germany’s grand
coalition government that includes
the two major parties which are
historically rivals to each other.
They had to form a coalition
government because neither of them
got clear majority of seats on their
own in the 2005 elections. They
take divergent positions on several
policy matters, but still jointly run
the government.
WHY POWER SHARING IS
DESIRABLE?
◦ Two different sets of reasons can be given in favour of power
sharing.
◦ Prudential reason: Power sharing is good because it helps to
reduce the possibility of conflict between social groups. Since
social conflict often leads to violence and political instability,
power sharing is a good way to ensure the stability of political
order. Imposing the will of majority community over others may
look like an attractive option in the short run, but in the long run
it undermines the unity of the nation. Tyranny of the majority is not
just oppressive for the minority; it often affects majority adversely as
well.
◦ Moral reason: There is a second, deeper reason why power
sharing is good for democracies. Power sharing is the very spirit
of democracy. A democratic rule involves sharing power with
those affected by its exercise, and who have to live with its
effects. People have a right to be consulted on how they are to be
governed. A legitimate government is one where citizens,
through participation, acquire a stake in the system.
◦ While prudential reasons stress that power sharing will bring out
better outcomes, moral reasons emphasise the very act of power
sharing as valuable.
 FORMS OF POWER SHARING
◦ For a long time, it was believed that all power of a government must
reside in one person or group of persons located at one place.
◦ It was felt that if the power to decide is dispersed, it would not be
possible to take quick decisions and to enforce them.
◦ But these notions have changed with the emergence of democracy.
One basic principle of democracy is that people are the source of all
political power. In a democracy, people rule themselves through
institutions of self-government.
◦ In a good democratic government, due respect is given to diverse
groups and views that exist in a society. Everyone has a voice in the
shaping of public policies. Therefore, it follows that in a democracy,
political power should be distributed among as many citizens as
possible.
◦ In modern democracies, power sharing arrangements can take many
forms.
1. Power is shared among different organs of government, such as the
legislature, executive and judiciary. This is called horizontal
distribution of power because it allows different organs of
government placed at the same level to exercise different powers.
◦ Such a separation ensures that none of the organs can exercise
unlimited power. Each organ checks the others. This results in a balance
of power among various institutions.
◦ In a democracy, even though ministers and government officials
exercise power, they are responsible to the Parliament or State
Assemblies. Similarly, although judges are appointed by the executive,
they can check the functioning of executive or laws made by the
legislatures. This arrangement is called a system of checks and
balances.
2. Power can be shared among governments at different levels – a
general government for the entire country and governments at the
provincial or regional level. Such a general government for the entire
country is usually called federal government. In India, we refer to it as
the Central or Union Government.
◦ The governments at the provincial or regional level are called by
different names in different countries. In India, we call them State
Governments.
◦ There are many countries where there are no provincial or state
governments. But in those countries like ours, where there are
different levels of government, the constitution clearly lays down the
powers of different levels of government.
◦ This is called federal division of power. The same principle can be
extended to levels of government lower than the State government,
such as the municipality and panchayat.
◦ This division of powers involving higher and lower levels of
government vertical division of power.
3. Power may also be shared among different social groups, such as the
religious and linguistic groups. ‘Community government’ in Belgium is
a good example of this arrangement. In some countries, there are
constitutional and legal arrangements, whereby socially weaker
sections and women are represented in the legislatures and
administration.
◦ The concept of ‘reserved constituencies’ comes under this arrangement
of power sharing.
◦ This type of arrangement is meant to give space in the government and
administration to diverse social groups, who otherwise, would feel
alienated from the government. This method is used to give minority
communities a fair share in power.
4. Power sharing arrangements can also be seen in the way political
parties, pressure groups and movements control or influence those in
power. In a democracy, the citizens must have freedom to choose among
various contenders for power.
◦ Such competition ensures that power does not remain in one hand.
◦ In the long run, power is shared among different political parties that
represent different ideologies and social groups.
◦ Sometimes this kind of sharing can be direct, when two or more parties
form an alliance to contest elections. If their alliance is elected, they
form a coalition government and thus share power.
◦ In a democracy, we find interest groups, such as those of traders,
businessmen, industrialists, farmers and industrial workers.
◦ They also will have a share in governmental power, either through
participation in governmental committees or bringing influence on the
decision-making process.