Class 10 Political Science Chapter 1 Power-sharing Notes

Chapter Overview & Introduction

Power-sharing is Chapter 1 of Class 10 Democratic Politics II (Civics). In a true democracy, power does not reside in any single organ or individual. Instead, an intelligent and institutional sharing of power among the legislature, executive, and judiciary, as well as among different levels of government and social groups, is fundamental to constitutional stability.

A common misconception among early political theorists was:

$$\text{Sharing Power} = \text{Dividing Power} = \text{Weakening the Nation}$$

Modern democratic experience proves the exact opposite: Sharing power unites and strengthens a country, while the concentration or monopolisation of power leads to social alienation, unrest, and national fragmentation.

💡 Explain Like I’m in 5th Grade: The TV Remote & The Cricket Match

1. Why do countries need power-sharing? Think of two brothers and a TV remote: Imagine two brothers sharing one television. The elder brother is bigger and says: “I have the remote. I will watch my cartoons all day. You are smaller, so you cannot touch the remote or complain.” What happens next? The younger brother gets angry, cries, and eventually throws a shoe at the TV, breaking it for everyone! That is what happened in Sri Lanka (Majoritarianism). But if parents sit both brothers down and say: “Elder brother gets the TV from 4 to 6 PM, younger brother gets it from 6 to 8 PM, and both pick a family movie together on Sunday,” both are happy and the TV stays safe. That is what happened in Belgium (Accommodation)!

2. Checks and Balances: Why no single person gets all power: Imagine a cricket match where one player is the bowler, the batsman, and the umpire all at once! If he appeals, he gives himself “Not Out”! Would anyone play cricket with him? Never! That is why cricket separates roles: Bowlers bowl, Batsmen bat, and a Neutral Umpire stands aside to judge fairly. In a democracy:

• Legislature (Parliament): Writes the laws.
• Executive (Ministers & Bureaucrats): Runs the government.
• Judiciary (Courts): Acts like the umpire to make sure everyone follows the Constitution!

---

1. Belgium and Sri Lanka: Two Contrasting Case Studies

To understand why power-sharing is essential, NCERT presents two real-world case studies: Belgium (a European nation that accommodated diversity) and Sri Lanka (a South Asian nation that chose majoritarian domination).

A. Belgium: Complex Ethnic Composition

Belgium is a small European country, smaller in geographical area than the state of Haryana in India. It shares land borders with France, the Netherlands, Germany, and Luxembourg. Its population is slightly over 1 crore (roughly half of Haryana).

The Core Problem in Belgium:

• Nationally, Dutch speakers formed a numerical majority (59%), while French speakers were a minority (40%).
• However, in the capital city Brussels, the French speakers were the overwhelming majority (80%), while the Dutch were a minority (20%).
• The minority French-speaking community was historically wealthier and more politically powerful.
• The Dutch-speaking majority received the benefits of modern education and economic growth much later, causing deep resentment and acute communal friction during the 1950s and 1960s.

---

B. Sri Lanka: Majoritarianism and Conflict

Sri Lanka is an island nation located just a few kilometres off the southern coast of Tamil Nadu, with a population of approximately 2 crore (comparable to Haryana).

---

2. Majoritarianism in Sri Lanka (The Recipe for Disaster)

Sri Lanka gained independence in 1948. The leaders of the Sinhala majority community sought to establish permanent dominance over the state through numerical superiority.

The Majoritarian Measures of 1956:

1. The 1956 Official Language Act: Recognised Sinhala as the sole official language, completely disregarding the Tamil language.
2. Preferential Policies in Education & Employment: State universities and government services systematically gave preferential recruitment to Sinhala applicants.
3. State Religion Patronage: A new constitution mandated that the Republic of Sri Lanka shall foster and protect Buddhism, relegating other religions to secondary status.

Consequences of Majoritarianism:

• Alienation: Sri Lankan Tamils felt that no national political party was sensitive to their culture, language, or constitutional dignity.
• Struggles & Demands: Tamils launched political parties demanding:

1. Recognition of Tamil as an official language.
2. Regional autonomy for Tamil-majority Northern and Eastern provinces.
3. Equality of opportunity in government employment and university admissions.

• Armed Conflict: Repeated denial of democratic demands led to the creation of armed militant organisations (such as the LTTE) in the 1980s demanding an independent state — Tamil Eelam.
• Devastating Civil War: The conflict escalated into a brutal civil war that killed tens of thousands of citizens from all communities, created hundreds of thousands of refugees, devastated the economy, and only concluded in 2009.

📌 Key Definition — Majoritarianism: A belief that the majority community should be permitted to govern a country in whichever manner it desires, entirely disregarding the legitimate rights, wishes, and welfare of minority communities.

---

3. Accommodation in Belgium (The Blueprint for Harmony)

Belgian leaders chose negotiation, respect, and mutual accommodation over domination. Between 1970 and 1993, they amended the Belgian Constitution four times to build an innovative constitutional framework.

Four Pillars of the Belgian Accommodation Model:

1. Equal Ministerial Representation in Central Government: The Constitution mandates that the number of Dutch-speaking and French-speaking ministers shall be equal in the Central Government. Key laws require the majority consent of legislators from both linguistic groups, preventing unilateral decisions by the Dutch majority.
2. Decentralisation of Central Powers to State Governments: Substantial administrative and legislative powers were permanently transferred from the Central Government to the regional governments of Flanders and Wallonia. Regional State Governments are not subordinate to the Central Government.
3. Separate Government for Brussels with Equal Seats: Brussels has its own independent government where both French and Dutch communities have equal representation. Even though French speakers are 80% in Brussels, they accepted 50% seats because Dutch speakers accepted 50% seats at the national level.
4. The Unique “Community Government” (Third Tier): Apart from the Central and Regional Governments, a third tier called the Community Government is elected by people belonging to each language group (Dutch, French, and German speakers), regardless of where they reside. This body has exclusive jurisdiction over cultural, educational, and linguistic affairs.

Outcome of the Belgian Model:

• Prevented civic strife and averted the partition of the country along linguistic fault lines.
• Provided such a stable, peaceful, and pluralist framework that when the nations of Europe united to establish the European Union (EU), Brussels was chosen as its headquarters.

---

4. Why is Power-Sharing Desirable?

Board examinations regularly ask students to contrast the Prudential and Moral reasons for power-sharing.

---

5. Khalil’s Dilemma: Sectarian Quotas vs. Pure Democracy

The chapter presents the gripping dilemma of Khalil in Beirut, Lebanon:

• Following a bloody sectarian civil war, Lebanon instituted a power-sharing pact based on fixed religious identities:
• President: Maronite Catholic Christian
• Prime Minister: Sunni Muslim
• Deputy Prime Minister: Orthodox Christian
• Speaker of Parliament: Shia Muslim
• The Dilemma: Khalil is a secular citizen with political ambitions whose parents come from different religious backgrounds. He asks: Why cannot Lebanon hold open, regular elections where anyone can contest and whoever gets the most votes becomes President?
• The Answer: In deeply divided post-conflict societies, open majoritarian elections without power-sharing guarantees often lead straight back to ethnic civil war. Lebanon’s institutional quotas, while imperfect for secular integration, serve as an indispensable peace guarantee.

---

6. Forms of Power-Sharing in Modern Democracies

In contemporary democratic governance, power-sharing manifests in four primary institutional arrangements:

1. Horizontal Distribution of Power (Separation of Powers)

• Power is shared among different organs of government placed at the same horizontal tier: the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary.
• Each organ exercises distinct powers and serves as a check on the others.
• System of Checks and Balances:
• Ministers and bureaucrats exercise executive authority but remain answerable to the Parliament.
• Judges are appointed by the executive, but can strike down unconstitutional executive orders or parliamentary laws.

2. Vertical Division of Power (Federal System)

• Power is shared across different hierarchical tiers of government:
• General government for the whole country: Central / Union Government.
• Governments at the regional tier: State Governments.
• Local self-governing bodies: Municipalities and Panchayati Raj institutions.
• The powers and revenue sources of each tier are constitutionally defined (e.g., Union, State, and Concurrent Lists in the Indian Constitution).

3. Power-Sharing Among Social Groups

• Power is extended to diverse religious, linguistic, and socially underprivileged communities.
• Examples:
• Belgium’s Community Government for language rights.
• India’s constitutional system of Reserved Constituencies in Assemblies and Parliament for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST).
• Reserved seats for women in Panchayati Raj institutions (33% minimum).

4. Power-Sharing Through Political Parties, Pressure Groups & Movements

• Coalition Governments: When no single political party secures an absolute majority, multiple parties form an alliance and share executive governance (e.g., NDA, UPA in India; CDU/SPD in Germany).
• Interest and Pressure Groups: Traders, industrialists, trade unions, and farmer associations participate directly in governmental advisory committees or influence policy formulation through democratic advocacy.

---

7. NCERT Textbook Exercises (Complete Solutions)

Q1. What are the different forms of power sharing in modern democracies? Give an example of each.

Answer: The four forms are:

1. Horizontal Distribution: Sharing power among Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary in India.
2. Vertical Division: Division between Central, State, and Panchayati Raj governments in India.
3. Among Social Groups: Belgium’s Community Government and India’s Reserved Constituencies for SCs/STs.
4. Among Parties & Interest Groups: Coalition governments (e.g., 2005 German Grand Coalition) and FICCI/Kisan Union representations in policy committees.

Q2. State one prudential reason and one moral reason for power sharing with an example from the Indian context.

Answer:

• Prudential Reason: Power-sharing prevents violent social conflict. Indian Example: Linguistic reorganisation of states (States Reorganisation Act 1956) accommodated linguistic aspirations and unified India.
• Moral Reason: Democracy requires consulting those affected by decisions. Indian Example: 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments devolving real democratic decision-making powers to village Panchayats and urban Municipalities.

Q3. Analysis of Thomman, Mathayi, and Ouseph’s views:

Answer: Ouseph’s view is correct. Every society, whether large or small, homogeneous or diverse, requires power-sharing to prevent the concentration of authority in single hands, uphold checks and balances, and ensure citizen participation.

Q4. Analysis of the Mayor of Merchtem’s ban on French in schools:

Answer: The Mayor’s ban on speaking French is contrary to the spirit of Belgian accommodation. Belgium’s stability relies on mutual respect for linguistic identities. Imposing a ban creates resentment and mirrors Sri Lankan majoritarian suppression.

Q5. Identifying Prudential Reason from Panchayati Raj Passage:

Answer: “Giving power to Panchayats is also a way to reduce corruption and increase administrative efficiency.” This is a prudential reason because it calculates practical outcomes and administrative benefits.

Q6. Arguments in favour of power sharing:

• Correct Option: (a) A, B, D, F (Reduces conflict, decreases arbitrariness, accommodates diversities, promotes people’s participation).

Q7. Statements about Belgium and Sri Lanka:

• Correct Option: (d) B, C and D (A is incorrect because in Belgium, the Dutch did NOT try to impose domination; they negotiated equal representation).

Q8. Match List I with List II:

• Correct Option: (c) 1-B, 2-D, 3-A, 4-C

Q9. Statements on Power Sharing:

• Correct Option: (b) Both A and B are true (Power sharing is good for democracy, and it helps reduce conflict).

---

8. High-Yield Board Exam MCQs (CBSE & RBSE)

---

9. Important 3-Mark & 5-Mark Questions with Model Answers

Question (5 Marks): “Comparison of the Belgian and Sri Lankan models shows that power sharing is essential for democracy.” Justify.

Model Answer Structure:

1. Introduction: Contrast the demographic diversity of both nations.
2. Belgian Model: Highlights accommodation, equal representation, decentralisation, and avoidance of linguistic civil strife.
3. Sri Lankan Model: Explains majoritarianism (1956 Act), preferential policies, denial of autonomy, and the resulting civil war.
4. Conclusion: Power-sharing sustains national integrity, whereas majoritarian domination threatens the very survival of the nation.

---