Chapter 1: Power-sharing
Master CBSE exam patterns with these structured solutions for Political Science Chapter 1. Learn effective answer framing techniques for different mark distributions while understanding key democratic concepts of power distribution in societies.
Multiple Choice Questions (1 Mark)
Quick Answer Strategy: Provide exact option or one-line response without elaboration for 1-mark questions.
Answer: (d) Media
Answer: (c) Each linguistic group
Answer: (a) No single organ becomes too powerful
Answer: (c) French-speaking
Very Short Answer Questions (1 Mark)
Precise Response Method: Concise definitions or single-point explanations work best here.
Answer: A belief that the majority community should rule a country in its own way, disregarding minority needs.
Answer: Sinhalese (74%) and Tamils (18%).
Answer: Power sharing among different organs of government at the same level (legislature, executive, judiciary).
Answer: To protect the interests of Tamil-speaking minority against Sinhalese dominance.
Answer: The distribution of power among different social groups, political parties, or government organs.
Short Answer Questions (3 Marks)
Structured Approach: Begin with definition, present 2-3 organized points, conclude with significance. Aim for 70-90 words.
Answer: Horizontal power-sharing divides authority among equal-ranking government institutions, while vertical power-sharing distributes power between different levels of government in a hierarchy.
| Aspect | Horizontal Power-sharing | Vertical Power-sharing |
|---|---|---|
| Concept | Power division among organs at same level | Power division between central and state/local governments |
| Institutions Involved | • Legislature (Parliament) • Executive (Government) • Judiciary (Courts) |
• Central/Union Government • State Governments • Local Governments (Panchayats, Municipalities) |
| Purpose | • Checks and balances • Prevention of power concentration • Mutual oversight |
• Regional autonomy • Local decision-making • Accommodation of diversity |
| Examples | • Judiciary reviewing laws • Legislature controlling executive • Executive implementing laws |
• Union List, State List, Concurrent List • Three-tier Panchayati Raj system • Special status for some states |
| Relationship | Co-equal, coordinate relationship | Hierarchical, subordinate relationship |
Both forms are complementary in democratic systems—horizontal prevents tyranny within government, while vertical accommodates regional aspirations and manages diversity effectively.
Answer: Majoritarianism in Sri Lanka systematically marginalized the Tamil minority through discriminatory policies in language, education, employment, and political representation, creating deep alienation that escalated into civil conflict.
| Discriminatory Policy | Implementation | Impact on Tamils |
|---|---|---|
| Language Policy (1956) | Sinhala declared sole official language, replacing English | • Tamils lost government jobs • Education opportunities reduced • Official communication barriers |
| Educational Policy | Preferential admission for Sinhalese in universities and government jobs | • Reduced Tamil representation in professions • Limited upward mobility • Economic marginalization |
| Political Exclusion | 1972 constitution abolished safeguards for minorities, made Buddhism state religion | • Loss of political influence • Cultural identity threat • Feeling of second-class citizenship |
| State Colonization | Government-sponsored Sinhalese settlements in Tamil-majority areas | • Demographic alteration • Reduced Tamil political dominance • Land rights conflicts |
| Military Response | Brutal suppression of Tamil protests and demands | • Human rights violations • Militarization of Tamil areas • Radicalization of youth |
These cumulative measures transformed political demands into armed struggle, leading to a 26-year civil war (1983-2009) that claimed over 100,000 lives and displaced thousands, demonstrating how majoritarianism can destroy social harmony.
Answer: Belgium's innovative power-sharing model creatively accommodates its Dutch-speaking Flemish (59%) and French-speaking Walloon (40%) communities through constitutional arrangements that ensure equality, autonomy, and collective decision-making.
| Feature | Description | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Equal Representation | Equal number of Dutch and French-speaking ministers in Central Government | • Prevents majority domination • Ensures both communities have veto power • Promotes consensus politics |
| Community Government | Separate governments for French, Dutch, and German-speaking communities on cultural matters | • Protects linguistic identity • Manages education, culture, language issues • Reduces inter-community conflicts |
| Regional Governments | Separate governments for Brussels, Flanders, and Wallonia regions | • Regional autonomy on economic matters • Addresses geographical differences • Manages local development |
| Special Majority Laws | Certain laws require majority from both linguistic groups in Parliament | • Protects minority interests • Precludes unilateral decisions • Encourages negotiation |
| Brussels Solution | Bilingual capital with equal representation for both communities | • Accommodates mixed population • Balanced administration • Symbol of unity in diversity |
This complex but effective model transformed Belgium from potential disintegration to a stable federation, demonstrating that accommodating diversity through institutional creativity can build unity rather than undermine it.
Long Answer Questions (5 Marks)
Comprehensive Response Format: Start with conceptual foundation, develop 4-5 analytical points with examples, end with evaluative conclusion. Target 130-160 words.
Answer: Power-sharing embodies democratic principles by distributing authority to prevent concentration, protect minority rights, and enhance governance legitimacy. India's constitutional architecture exemplifies this through multiple layered arrangements that operationalize democracy's spirit in a diverse society.
India's Democratic Power-sharing Framework:
Democratic Significance: These arrangements transform India's immense diversity from a potential source of conflict into a strength. They operationalize democracy beyond periodic elections to continuous participation, prevent majoritarian tyranny, and create stakeholders in the system. Challenges remain—implementation gaps, political manipulation of identities, balancing unity with diversity—but the framework demonstrates how power-sharing makes democracy workable in complex societies.
Answer: Belgium and Sri Lanka represent contrasting models of managing ethnic diversity—Belgium's accommodative power-sharing fostered stability, while Sri Lanka's majoritarian approach fueled conflict. Their divergent outcomes offer crucial lessons for multi-ethnic societies worldwide.
| Comparison Aspect | Belgium (Accommodative Model) | Sri Lanka (Majoritarian Model) | Key Lessons |
|---|---|---|---|
| Philosophical Approach | Recognition of equality among communities, mutual respect | Dominance of majority community, assimilation of minorities | Equal recognition prevents alienation; domination breeds resistance |
| Constitutional Framework | Complex power-sharing: equal representation, community autonomy, special majority requirements | Unitary state with centralized power, Sinhala supremacy institutionalized | Constitutional safeguards essential for minority protection |
| Language Policy | Equal status for Dutch, French, German; Brussels bilingual | Sinhala Only Act (1956), Tamil marginalized in public sphere | Language equality crucial for participation and dignity |
| Political Representation | Mandatory power-sharing in government, veto for minorities | Majority rule without minority safeguards, Tamil parties excluded | Inclusive governance prevents political marginalization |
| Cultural Rights | Separate community governments for cultural matters | Buddhism as state religion, Tamil cultural rights restricted | Cultural autonomy reduces identity-based conflicts |
| Outcomes | • Peaceful coexistence • Political stability • Economic prosperity • European Union headquarters |
• 26-year civil war • 100,000+ deaths • Economic devastation • International isolation • Continuing tensions |
Accommodation costs less than conflict repression |
Universal Lessons: 1) Prevention over Cure: Belgium addressed tensions early; Sri Lanka ignored warnings. 2) Institutional Innovation: Creative constitutional solutions (like Belgium's community government) can manage diversity. 3) Beyond Majority Rule: Democracy requires minority protection mechanisms. 4) Identity Recognition: Acknowledging distinct identities builds loyalty to common state. 5) Flexible Federalism: Decentralization accommodates regional aspirations without secession. 6) Consensus over Majority: Important decisions require broad agreement. Countries like Canada (bilingualism), South Africa (rainbow nation), and India (asymmetric federalism) have incorporated these lessons with varying success.
Map-Based Question
Geographical Context: While this chapter focuses less on maps, understanding regional distributions of ethnic groups enhances contextual understanding.
a) Belgium and its neighboring countries
b) Sri Lanka and its location in Indian Ocean
c) Regions with Sinhalese majority in Sri Lanka
d) Regions with Tamil concentration in Sri Lanka
[Image: World map highlighting Belgium and Sri Lanka with ethnic distributions]
Map showing: Belgium in Western Europe (bordering Netherlands, Germany, Luxembourg, France), Sri Lanka south of India, Sinhalese areas (south, west, central), Tamil areas (north, east)
Geographical Context:
- Belgium: Small Western European country (30,500 sq km) with complex internal borders between Flanders (Dutch-speaking north) and Wallonia (French-speaking south), plus Brussels bilingual capital region.
- Sri Lanka: Island nation (65,600 sq km) south of India with distinct ethnic geography: Sinhalese majority in south, west, central; Tamil concentration in north (Jaffna) and east; Hill Country Tamils in central plantations.
- Comparative Size: Both small countries but with significant internal diversity requiring different management approaches.
Extra Practice Questions
Answer: Power-sharing mechanisms function as conflict-prevention tools in heterogeneous societies by institutionalizing inclusion, guaranteeing representation, and creating vested interests in system stability, with varied implementations across global contexts demonstrating their effectiveness when properly designed.
| Country | Power-sharing Mechanism | Conflict Management Outcome | Key Features |
|---|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | Consociational democracy with linguistic cantons, magic formula government | Peaceful coexistence of German (63%), French (23%), Italian (8%), Romansh (0.5%) speakers | • Canton autonomy • Federal Council with all regions • Direct democracy • Long-term stability |
| Lebanon | Confessional system allocating offices by religious community | Mixed results: reduced conflict initially but contributed to 1975-90 civil war; ongoing challenges | • President: Maronite Christian • PM: Sunni Muslim • Speaker: Shia Muslim • Fixed quotas in parliament |
| South Africa | Government of National Unity (1994-97), constitutional protections | Peaceful transition from apartheid, though economic inequalities persist | • Bill of Rights • Commission for Rights of Cultural, Religious & Linguistic Communities • 11 official languages |
| India | Asymmetric federalism, reservations, coalition politics | Managing world's most diverse society with relative stability despite periodic tensions | • Linguistic states • Minority rights (Articles 29-30) • Reservation system • Special category states |
| Northern Ireland | Good Friday Agreement (1998) mandating power-sharing | Ended 30-year conflict, though institutions periodically suspended | • Mandatory coalition • Mutual veto • Proportional representation • North-South ministerial councils |
Effectiveness Conditions: Power-sharing succeeds when: 1) All groups perceive arrangement as fair; 2) Institutions adapt to changing demographics; 3) Economic benefits are shared; 4) External actors support agreement; 5) There's flexibility for renegotiation. Failures occur when arrangements become rigid, exclude emerging groups, or lack popular legitimacy. The key insight: power-sharing doesn't eliminate differences but provides rules for managing them peacefully.
Answer: In today's complex societies marked by identity politics, information fragmentation, and democratic backsliding, power-sharing represents not just democratic enhancement but essential survival mechanism, though it faces contemporary challenges requiring innovative adaptations.
| Contemporary Challenge | Why Power-sharing is Essential | Adaptations Required | Examples/Cases |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity Politics | Prevents majoritarian exclusion of ethnic/religious minorities | Beyond territorial to non-territorial autonomy (cultural councils, reserved representation) | • India's minority educational rights • Belgium's community governments • Māori seats in New Zealand parliament |
| Democratic Backsliding | Institutional checks prevent executive overreach and democratic erosion | Strengthening independent institutions (judiciary, election commissions, anti-corruption bodies) | • Polish judicial reforms controversy • Indian Supreme Court activism • South African Constitutional Court |
| Information Democracy | Distributed power counters misinformation and digital authoritarianism | Digital power-sharing: data localization, platform regulation, digital rights protection | • EU's GDPR for data privacy • Social media content moderation debates • Digital public infrastructure (India's Aadhaar) |
| Climate Governance | Distributing environmental authority enables local adaptation and global coordination | Multi-level climate governance: local, national, international decision-making integration | • Paris Agreement implementation • Forest rights to indigenous communities • Urban local bodies and smart cities |
| Economic Inequality | Prevents economic power concentration from translating into political domination | Economic power-sharing: worker representation, wealth taxes, anti-monopoly regulations | • German co-determination (Mitbestimmung) • Scandinavian social democracy • Campaign finance reforms |
Future Directions: 21st century power-sharing must evolve beyond traditional models to address: 1) Temporal Power-sharing: Alternating power arrangements for polarized societies; 2) Expert-Layperson Sharing: Integrating technical expertise with democratic participation (citizen assemblies, deliberative polls); 3) Intergenerational Sharing: Youth quotas, future generations representation in climate decisions; 4) Transnational Sharing: Supranational governance (EU) balancing national sovereignty with global challenges. The fundamental premise remains: concentrated power corrupts, while shared power legitimizes. As democracies face populist challenges, institutionalizing power distribution becomes their defensive bulwark and regenerative source.
Effective Answer Writing Guide
Application Focus: These solutions emphasize practical application of political concepts over rote memorization. The structured formats demonstrate how to transform knowledge into examination-ready responses.
