Story of Belgium

Belgium is a small country in Europe with a population of over 1 crore, about half the population of Haryana. Of the
country’s total population, 59% speaks Dutch language, 40% of people speak French and the remaining 1% speak
German. Look at the map below to know the language variation of Belgium. The minority French-speaking community
was rich and powerful, so they got the benefit of economic development and education. This created tensions
between the Dutch-speaking and French-speaking communities during the 1950s and 1960s.

Accommodation in Belgium
In Belgium, the government handled the community difference very well. Between 1970 and 1993, Belgian leaders
amended their constitution four times and came up with a new model to run the government.
Here are some of the elements of the Belgian model.

1. The 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 the majority of members from each linguistic
group. Thus, no single community can make decisions unilaterally.
2. The state governments are not subordinate to the Central Government.
3. Brussels has a separate government in which both communities have equal representation.
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.

The Belgium model was very complicated but it helped to avoid civic strife between the two major communities.

Story of Sri Lanka

Now, let’s take the situation of another country, Sri Lanka. It is an island nation having a population of 2 crores, about
the same as in Haryana. Sri Lanka has a diverse population. The major social groups are the Sinhala-speakers
(74%) and the Tamil-speakers (18%). Among Tamils, there are two subgroups, “Sri Lankan Tamils” and “Indian
Tamils”. You can see the map below to know the population distribution of different communities of Sri Lanka.

In Sri Lanka, the Sinhala community enjoyed the bigger majority and imposed its will on the entire country.
Majoritarianism in Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka emerged as an independent country in 1948. The Sinhala community was in the majority so they had
formed the government. They also followed preferential policies that favoured Sinhala applicants for university
positions and government jobs. These measures taken by the government gradually increased the feeling of
alienation among the Sri Lankan Tamils. Sri Lankan Tamils felt that constitution and government policies denied them
equal political rights, discriminated against them in getting jobs and other opportunities and ignored their interests.
Due to this, the relationship between the Sinhala and Tamil communities become poor. Sri Lankan Tamils launched
parties and struggles for the recognition of Tamil as an official language, for regional autonomy and equality of
opportunity in securing education and jobs. But their demand was repeatedly denied by the government. The distrust
between the two communities turned into widespread conflict and 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 ended in 2009 and caused a terrible setback to the social, cultural and
economic life of the country.
What have you learned from the Stories of Belgium and Sri Lanka?

 Both countries are democracies but they dealt differently with the concept of power sharing.
 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. This resulted in mutually acceptable arrangements for
sharing power.
 Sri Lanka shows 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.
Why is power sharing desirable?
You will find the answer to this question in the points below.

1. Power sharing is good because it helps to reduce the possibility of conflict between social groups.
2. The second reason is that, 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.

Let us call the first set of reasons Prudential and the second moral. The prudential reasons stress that power sharing
will bring out better outcomes, whereas the moral reasons emphasise the act of power sharing as valuable.

Form of Power Sharing

Most of you must think that Sharing power = dividing power = weakening the country. A similar thing was believed in
the past. It was assumed that all the power of a government must reside in one person or group of persons located at
one place. Otherwise, it would be very difficult to make quick decisions and to enforce them. But these notions have
changed with the emergence of democracy. In a democracy, people rule themselves through institutions of self-
government. Everyone has a voice in the shaping of public policies. Therefore, in a democratic country, political
power should be distributed among citizens.
In modern democracies, power sharing can take many forms, as mentioned below:

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 separation ensures that none of the organs can
exercise unlimited power. Each organ checks the others. 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 which is called federal government.
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. 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. When two or more parties form an alliance to contest
elections and if they get elected, they form a coalition government and thus share power.
Power Sharing Class 10 Notes Social Science Civics
Chapter 1
‘Ethnic’:
Ethnic means a social division based on shared culture and common descent. People belonging to an
ethnic group need not have the same religion or nationality.

Majoritarianism:
A belief that the majority community should be able to rule a country in whichever way it wants, by
disregarding the wishes and needs of the minority is majoritarianism.

Power Sharing in Sri Lanka:

Two major social groups are: (a) Sri Lankan Tamils (b) Indian Tamils. Sinhala-speaking (74 per cent) —
Buddhism

Tamil-speaking (18 per cent)—Hindus or Muslims: Sri Lankan Tamils (13 per cent), Indian Tamils (5 per
cent).

Establishment of Sinhala supremacy:

Sri Lanka emerged as an independent country in 1948. The democratically elected government adopted a
series of measures to establish Sinhala supremacy:

1. In 1956, an Act was passed to make Sinhala the official language.

2. The government followed preferential policies favouring Sinhala applicants for University
positions and government jobs.
3. The Constitution provided for State protection and fostering of Buddhism.

The Sri Lankan Tamils felt that none of the major political parties led by the Buddhist Sinhala leaders
were sensitive to their language and culture and the government policies denied them equal political
rights. The Sri Lankan Tamils launched parties and struggles for the recognition of Tamil, for regional
autonomy and equality of opportunity in every field. Therefore, the measures adopted by the government
to establish Sinhala supremacy led to Civil War.

Ethnic composition of Belgium:

Belgium is a small country in Europe, having a population of a little over one crore. 59 per cent of the
country’s total population lives in the Flemish region and speak Dutch language. Another 40 per cent
people live in Wallonia region and speak French. Remaining one per cent of the Belgians speak German.
Whereas in the Belgian capital, Brussels, 80 per cent of the population is French-speaking and 20 per
cent is Dutch-speaking.

Belgian power-sharing model:

The power-sharing arrangements made by the Belgian leaders were different and more innovative than
any other country. To recognize the existence of regional differences and cultural diversities, they
amended their Constitution four times between 1970 and 1993.
The major elements of the Belgian Model are:
1. Constitution prescribes that the number of Dutch and French-speaking ministers shall be equal in
the Central Government. No single community can take decisions unilaterally.
2. The State Governments are not subordinate to the Central Government.
3. Brussels, the capital, has a separate government where both the communities have equal
representation.
4. A third kind of government, ‘Community Government’, is elected by people belonging to one
language community — Dutch, French and German speaking—no matter where they live. This
government can decide on cultural, educational and language related issues.

‘Lebanon’—conflict related to power-sharing disputes were resolved by power sharing:

People from various communities lived in Lebanon’s capital city, Beirut, and fought a bitter Civil War
amongst themselves. As a result, thousands of people of various communities were either killed or lost
their livelihood. At the end of this Civil War, Lebanon’s leaders came together and agreed to some basic
rules for power-sharing among different communities. As per these rules it was agreed that:

 The President would be from Maronite sect of Catholic Christians;

 The Prime Minister must be from the Sunni Muslim community;
 Deputy Prime Minister would be from an Orthodox Christian sect;
 Speaker—a Shia Muslim.

As per the pact, the Christians agreed not to seek French protection and Muslims agreed not to seek
unification with the neighbouring state of Syria.

Prudential reasons:
Prudential reasons stress that power-sharing would bring out better outcomes by helping to reduce the
possibility of any conflict between the social groups and power-sharing is a good way to ensure the
stability of political order through unity of the nation.

Moral reasons:
Moral reasons uphold power-sharing as the very spirit of democracy. A democratic rule involves sharing
power with those affected by its exercise. People have the right to be consulted and have equal
participation in the government.

Principles of a good democracy:

 that power of a government must not vest in one person or a group of persons.
 that people are the source of all political power.
 that due respect be given to diverse groups and everyone should have a voice in the shaping of
public policies.

System of checks an of balances:

The horizontal distribution of power ensures that power is shared among different organs of government
—the legislature, executive and judiciary. It allows different organs of government placed at the same
level to exercise different powers. In a democracy, ministers and government officials exercise power.
They are responsible to the Parliament or State Assemblies. The judges appointed by the executive can
check the functioning of executive or laws made by the legislature. The horizontal distribution of power is
also called a system of checks and balances.

Power-sharing in contemporary democracies:

In contemporary democracies, power-sharing takes the form of competition among different parties. Such
competition ensures that power does not remain in one hand and is shared among different political
parties representing different social groups and ideologies. This type of sharing often leads to the
formation of an alliance between two or more parties, which, goes to form a Coalition Government.