Power-sharing Practice Flashcards

Introduction to the Principles of Power-Sharing

Power-sharing is a fundamental concept in the design of a democracy, serving as an intelligent distribution of authority among various organs of government, specifically the legislature, executive, and judiciary. This principle ensures that power does not reside within a single organ, which is crucial for the stability and functionality of a democratic system. By examining the democratic experiences of different nations, specifically Belgium and Sri Lanka, we can understand how various demands for power-sharing are handled and the general conclusions that can be drawn regarding the necessity of this arrangement. The study of power-sharing involves exploring diverse forms such as horizontal distribution, vertical division, and sharing among social and political groups. An important philosophical question discussed is whether sharing power weakens a country by dividing it or strengthens it by promoting inclusion and stability.

Ethnic Composition and Tensions in Belgium

Belgium is a small European nation, geographically smaller than the Indian state of Haryana, sharing borders with France, the Netherlands, Germany, and Luxembourg. It has a population of slightly over $1$ crore, which is approximately half the population of Haryana. The ethnic composition of Belgium is highly complex. The term Ethnic refers to a social division based on shared culture where people of the same group believe in a common descent due to similarities in physical type, culture, or both, regardless of having the same religion or nationality. In Belgium, $59$ per cent of the population resides in the Flemish region and speaks the Dutch language. Another $40$ per cent live in the Wallonia region and speak French. The remaining $1$ per cent of Belgians speak German. In the capital city, Brussels, the proportions are inverted: $80$ per cent of the population is French-speaking, while $20$ per cent is Dutch-speaking. Tensions arose during the $1950s$ and $1960s$ because the minority French-speaking community was relatively rich and powerful, a status resented by the Dutch-speaking majority who only accessed the benefits of economic development and education much later. This tension was particularly acute in Brussels, where the Dutch-speaking population formed a majority in the country but a minority in the capital.

Diverse Social Groups and Conflict in Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka is an island nation located a few kilometers off the southern coast of Tamil Nadu, India, with a population of about $2$ crore, similar to Haryana. It possesses a diverse population with major social groups defined by language: Sinhala-speakers ($74$ per cent) and Tamil-speakers ($18$ per cent). Among the Tamils, there are two sub-groups: Sri Lankan Tamils ($13$ per cent), who are native to the country and concentrated in the north and east, and Indian Tamils, whose ancestors arrived from India as plantation workers during the colonial period. Regarding religion, most Sinhala-speakers are Buddhists, while Tamils include both Hindus and Muslims. Approximately $7$ per cent of the population is Christian, comprising both Tamil and Sinhala individuals. The potential for conflict in such a setting was high; while Belgium faced a possible messy partition over linguistic lines (especially regarding Brussels), Sri Lanka faced the dominance of the Sinhala community due to its significant majority status.

Majoritarianism and the Outbreak of Civil War in Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka became independent in $1948$. The Sinhala leaders sought to establish dominance through majoritarian measures. Majoritarianism is defined as 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. In $1956$, an Act was passed recognizing Sinhala as the only official language, disregarding Tamil. The government enacted preferential policies for Sinhala applicants in university positions and government jobs, and the new constitution stipulated that the state protect and foster Buddhism. These measures led to a feeling of alienation among Sri Lankan Tamils, who felt that political parties and the government were insensitive to their culture and denied them equal political rights. The Tamils launched struggles for regional autonomy and the recognition of Tamil as an official language, and by the $1980s$, several organizations demanded an independent state called Tamil Eelam in the north and east. This distrust escalated into a Civil War, defined as a violent conflict between opposing groups within a country that becomes so intense it appears like a war. The conflict resulted in thousands of deaths, families being forced into refuge, and a massive setback to the country’s social, cultural, and economic life before the war ended in $2009$.

The Belgian Model of Accommodation

In contrast to Sri Lanka, Belgian leaders recognized regional and cultural diversities. Between $1970$ and $1993$, they amended the constitution four times to create an innovative arrangement for coexistence. Key elements of the Belgian model include: first, the Constitution mandates that the number of Dutch and French-speaking ministers in the central government must be equal, and no single community can make unilateral decisions as special laws require support from the majority of each linguistic group. Second, many powers were transferred from the Central Government to the State Governments of the two regions, which are not subordinate to the center. Third, Brussels has a separate government with equal representation for both communities. Fourth, there is a Community Government elected by people belonging to one language community (Dutch, French, or German), regardless of residence, which holds power over cultural, educational, and language-related issues. Although complex, these arrangements have successfully avoided civic strife and prevented the division of the country. Consequently, Brussels was chosen as the headquarters for the European Union.

Rationales for Power-Sharing: Prudential and Moral

There are two distinct sets of reasons why power-sharing is desirable. The first set is Prudential, meaning it is based on a careful calculation of gains and losses. This reasoning suggests that power-sharing is good because it reduces the possibility of conflict between social groups, leading to political stability and avoiding the violence and instability that arise from social conflict. While majoritarianism might seem attractive in the short run, it ultimately undermines national unity and is oppressive to both the minority and, eventually, the majority. The second set is Moral, emphasizing that power-sharing is the very spirit of democracy. A democratic rule involves sharing power with those affected by its exercise, as citizens have a right to be consulted on their governance. In this view, a legitimate government is one where participation gives citizens a stake in the system. While prudential reasons focus on better outcomes, moral reasons view the act of sharing power as inherently valuable.

Civil War and Sectarian Power-Sharing in Lebanon

In the city of Beirut, Lebanon, a unique power-sharing pact was established following a bitter civil war. The leaders agreed on a system where the President must be a Maronite Catholic Christian, the Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim, the Deputy Prime Minister an Orthodox Christian, and the Speaker a Shi’a Muslim. Under this agreement, Christians agreed not to seek French protection, and Muslims agreed not to seek unification with Syria. This pact was formed when both groups were nearly equal in population. However, modern figures like Khalil, who comes from a mixed Christian-Muslim family and does not practice either religion, criticize the system. Khalil argues for a "normal" democracy where elections are held and the person with the most votes wins regardless of community. Conversely, the elders maintain that this sectarian system is the only guarantee for peace after the bloodshed of the civil war.

Modern Forms of Power-Sharing

In contemporary democracies, power-sharing arrangements typically take four forms. The first is Horizontal Distribution of Power, where power is shared among different organs at the same level—legislature, executive, and judiciary. This creates a system of checks and balances, ensuring no organ exercises unlimited power. For example, while the executive appoints judges, the judiciary can check the executive's actions. The second is Vertical Division of Power, also known as Federal Division of Power, sharing authority between a general government for the country (Central or Union Government) and regional levels (State Governments). This can extend further to municipalities and panchayats. The third form is sharing among social groups, such as religious or linguistic groups. Belgium’s community government and India’s system of "reserved constituencies" for weaker sections and women illustrate this. The fourth form involves political parties, pressure groups, and movements. Competition between parties ensures power does not remain with one hand and is shared over time among different ideologies. This often manifests as coalition governments, as seen in Germany’s grand coalition between the Christian Democratic Union and the Social Democratic Party in $2005$, or through interest groups like traders, farmers, and industrial workers influencing policy through committees.

Questions & Discussion

Discussion on National Strength: One student suggests that sharing power equals dividing and weakening the country. This is countered by the lesson from Belgium and Sri Lanka: sharing power actually makes a nation more powerful by ensuring the feelings and interests of all communities are respected, thereby preserving national unity.

Case Study Comparison: Annette vs. Selvi: Annette studies in a Dutch medium school in northern Belgium where French-speaking students want French instruction. Selvi studies in northern Sri Lanka where Tamil-speaking students want Tamil instruction. Based on the power-sharing models, Annette's parents are more likely to succeed through the Belgian Community Government, which handles linguistic and educational issues. In Sri Lanka, the majoritarian history suggests Selvi's request would likely be ignored by the central government.

Evaluating Logical Statements:

• Thomman claims power-sharing is only for divided societies.
• Mathayi claims it is only for big countries with regional divisions.
• Ouseph claims every society needs it, regardless of size or division. Ouseph's conclusion is the most aligned with the chapter, as even small or homogenous societies benefit from the stability and spirit of democracy provided by power-sharing.

Merchtem School Language Ban: The Mayor of Merchtem, near Brussels, defended a ban on speaking French in schools to help integration. This measure contradicts the Belgian spirit of power-sharing, which is based on accommodating language diversity rather than forcing linguistic assimilation.

The Case of Russia and the US in 2005: A cartoon depicting the US President visiting Russia during a time when the Russian President gained more powers suggests that the concentration of power in one person's hand is the opposite of democracy, which requires the distribution of power among as many citizens as possible.