Chapter 1 Power-sharing

Belgium And Sri Lanka

To understand how democracies manage demands for power sharing, we begin by examining two case studies: Belgium and Sri Lanka. These countries, despite being democracies, handled the challenges posed by diverse populations and competing interests in contrasting ways.

Ethnic Composition Of Belgium

Belgium is a small European country, comparable in size to the Indian state of Haryana. It shares borders with France, the Netherlands, Germany, and Luxembourg. Despite its small size, Belgium has a complex ethnic makeup.

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

In the capital city, Brussels, the situation is different: 80% of the population speaks French, while only 20% are Dutch-speaking.

Tensions In Belgium

The minority French-speaking community in Belgium was historically more prosperous and influential. This created resentment among the Dutch-speaking population, who gained access to economic development and education much later. This economic disparity and linguistic difference led to tensions between the two major communities during the 1950s and 1960s. The conflict was particularly acute in Brussels, where the Dutch-speaking group was a minority despite being a majority in the country overall. This presented a unique challenge for the capital city.

Ethnic Composition Of Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka is an island nation located just off the southern coast of Tamil Nadu in India. Its population of about two crore is similar to that of Haryana. Like other South Asian nations, Sri Lanka has a diverse population profile:

• Sinhala-speakers: Constitute the largest group, making up 74% of the population. Most follow Buddhism.
• Tamil-speakers: Form 18% of the population and are mainly Hindus or Muslims. This group is further divided:
  • Sri Lankan Tamils: The natives of the country, making up 13%. They are concentrated in the northern and eastern regions.
  • Indian Tamils: Those whose ancestors migrated from India as plantation workers during the colonial era.
• Christians: Account for about 7% of the population and include both Tamil and Sinhala speakers.

Potential Outcomes In Both Countries

Considering the ethnic compositions, potential scenarios for conflict existed in both countries:

• In Belgium, the Dutch-speaking majority at the national level could have used its numbers to dominate the French and German minorities, potentially leading to conflict and even the partition of the country, with both linguistic groups vying for control of Brussels.
• In Sri Lanka, the Sinhala majority had an even larger numerical advantage and could potentially impose its will on the entire nation.

However, the actual outcomes in these two countries differed significantly, demonstrating different approaches to handling diversity and power-sharing demands.

Majoritarianism In Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka gained independence in 1948. The leaders of the Sinhala community, aiming to assert their dominance based on their numerical majority, adopted a series of policies that favored the Sinhala-speaking population. This approach, known as majoritarianism, is the belief that the majority community has the right to rule the country as it sees fit, potentially disregarding the wishes and needs of minorities.

Establishment Of Sinhala Supremacy

The democratically elected government in Sri Lanka implemented several majoritarian measures to establish Sinhala supremacy:

• In 1956, an Act was passed recognizing **Sinhala as the sole official language**, thereby ignoring the Tamil language.
• Successive governments followed **preferential policies** in areas like university admissions and government jobs, favoring Sinhala applicants over others.
• The new constitution included a provision that the state should **protect and promote Buddhism**, associating the state with the religion of the majority Sinhala population.

Increased Feeling Of Alienation

These government policies, implemented sequentially, gradually created a sense of alienation among the Sri Lankan Tamils. They felt that the major political parties led by Buddhist Sinhala leaders were insensitive to their language and culture. They perceived that the constitution and government policies denied them equal political rights, led to discrimination in jobs and opportunities, and disregarded their interests.

Demand For Tamil Eelam

As a result of the increasing alienation and strained relations between the Sinhala and Tamil communities, Sri Lankan Tamils organized political parties and launched struggles. Their demands included the recognition of Tamil as an official language, greater regional autonomy for Tamil-populated areas, and equal opportunities in education and employment. However, their demands for more autonomy in the northern and eastern provinces were consistently denied by the government. By the 1980s, several Tamil political organizations began demanding an independent Tamil state, known as Tamil Eelam, in the northern and eastern parts of the country.

Civil War

The deepening distrust between the two communities escalated into widespread conflict, soon turning into a brutal civil war (a violent conflict between opposing groups within the same country). The civil war resulted in thousands of deaths from both communities, forced many families to flee the country as refugees, and caused widespread loss of livelihoods. This prolonged conflict severely impacted the social, cultural, and economic life of Sri Lanka. The civil war finally ended in 2009.

Accommodation In Belgium

In contrast to Sri Lanka, the leaders in Belgium chose a different approach to handle their country's linguistic and regional diversity. They recognized the importance of respecting the feelings and interests of different communities and regions to maintain the unity of the country.

Recognition Of Differences

Between 1970 and 1993, the Belgian leaders amended their constitution four times. These amendments were aimed at creating an arrangement that would allow all linguistic groups to live together peacefully within Belgium. The resulting 'Belgian model' is considered unique and highly innovative compared to other countries.

Elements Of The Belgian Model

The key features of the power-sharing arrangement in Belgium are:

• Equal representation in Central Government: The constitution mandates that the number of Dutch-speaking and French-speaking ministers in the central government must be equal. Special laws require the support of a majority from each linguistic group to prevent any single community from making decisions unilaterally.
• State Governments not subordinate to Central Government: Many powers of the central government were devolved to the state governments of the two main regions (Flemish and Wallonia). These state governments are not under the control of the central government.
• Separate government for Brussels: The capital city, Brussels, has its own separate government with equal representation for both French-speaking and Dutch-speaking communities. The French-speaking minority in the country accepted equal representation in Brussels because the Dutch-speaking majority in the country accepted equal representation in the central government.
• Community Government: A unique 'community government' exists, elected by people belonging to one linguistic community (Dutch, French, and German) regardless of where they live. This government handles matters related to cultural, educational, and language issues.

Working Well So Far

Although the Belgian model might appear complex, it has been effective in preventing civil conflict between the major linguistic communities and avoiding a potential division of the country along linguistic lines. Its success in managing diversity contributed to Brussels being chosen as the headquarters of the European Union when many European countries came together.

Why Power Sharing Is Desirable?

Based on the experiences of Belgium and Sri Lanka, two distinct arguments support the idea of power sharing in a democracy. These are broadly categorized as prudential reasons and moral reasons.

Reducing Possibility Of Conflict (Prudential Reason)

One important reason for power sharing is that it helps to significantly reduce the chances of conflict between different social groups. When power is shared, it acknowledges the existence and importance of diverse groups within society.

Stability Of Political Order

Social conflict can often lead to violence and political instability. By reducing the potential for such conflict, power sharing contributes positively to the stability and order of the political system.

Undermining Unity

While it might seem appealing in the short term for the majority community to impose its will on others, this approach, known as majoritarianism, is detrimental in the long run. It can alienate minority groups and ultimately undermine the unity of the nation. The oppression of minorities by the majority is also harmful to the majority itself, as it creates societal unrest and division.

Prudential reasons focus on the practical benefits and better outcomes that result from power sharing, such as stability and reduced conflict. They are based on a calculation of gains and losses.

Spirit Of Democracy (Moral Reason)

The second, and deeper, reason for power sharing is that it embodies the fundamental spirit of democracy. In a democracy, political power originates from the people, and they govern themselves through institutions of self-government. Power sharing is intrinsic to democratic rule because it involves distributing power among those whose lives are affected by its exercise and who must live with its consequences.

People's Right To Be Consulted

In a democracy, citizens have a fundamental right to be consulted on how they are to be governed. Power sharing respects this right by giving voice to different groups and perspectives within society. Every citizen should have a say in shaping public policies.

Legitimate Government

A government is considered legitimate when citizens, through their active participation in the system, feel invested in it and acquire a stake in its functioning. Power sharing facilitates this participation, making the government more accountable and representative.

Moral reasons emphasize the inherent value of power sharing itself, seeing it as a core principle of democracy that upholds the rights and dignity of all citizens.

Forms Of Power-sharing

The concept of power sharing emerged as a counter-idea to the traditional belief in undivided political power, where all authority resided in a single person or entity. While earlier thinking suggested that dispersing power would hinder quick decision-making and enforcement, the rise of democracy introduced a new perspective: that the people are the source of all political power and should govern themselves. In a truly democratic government, due respect is accorded to the diverse groups and viewpoints within society, ensuring everyone has a voice in public policy. Therefore, political power should be distributed among as many citizens or their representatives as possible.

In modern democracies, power-sharing arrangements manifest in various forms:

Horizontal Distribution Of Power (Checks And Balances)

This form of power sharing involves distributing power among different organs of government at the same level. These organs typically include the legislature (which makes laws), the executive (which implements laws), and the judiciary (which interprets laws). This is called horizontal distribution because it places the different organs at the same level, each exercising distinct powers. This separation ensures that no single organ can wield unlimited power. Each organ acts as a check on the others, creating a balance of power among various institutions. For instance, the executive is responsible to the legislature, and the judiciary can review the actions of the executive or the laws passed by the legislature. This system is often referred to as a system of checks and balances.

Vertical Division Of Power (Federalism)

Power can be shared among governments at different levels: a general government for the entire country and governments at regional or provincial levels. The general government for the whole country is often called the federal government (or Central/Union Government in India). Governments at the provincial or regional level are known by different names; in India, they are called State Governments. This system is not universal, but in countries that adopt it, the constitution clearly specifies the powers of each level of government, as seen in Belgium but not initially in Sri Lanka. This arrangement is known as the federal division of power or **vertical division of power**. This principle can be extended to lower levels of government, such as municipalities and panchayats.

Power Shared Among Different Social Groups

Power can also be shared among different social groups, particularly religious and linguistic communities. The 'community government' in Belgium is a notable example. In many countries, constitutional and legal provisions ensure representation for socially weaker sections and women in legislatures and administrative bodies. In India, for instance, the system of 'reserved constituencies' in elected bodies is designed to provide representation to diverse social groups who might otherwise feel excluded from the government. This method is particularly used to give minority communities a fair share in the exercise of power.

Power Shared By Political Parties, Pressure Groups And Movements

In a democracy, power-sharing is also evident in the way political parties, pressure groups, and social movements influence or control those in power. Citizens have the freedom to choose among various contenders for power, typically through competition among different political parties. This competition ensures that power is not concentrated in one hand. Over time, power is often shared among different political parties representing diverse ideologies and social interests. This sharing can be direct, as when two or more parties form an electoral alliance and subsequently a coalition government if elected. Interest groups, representing traders, businessmen, industrialists, farmers, workers, etc., also have a share in governmental power by participating in governmental committees or influencing policy decisions.