Power-sharing Flashcards
Belgium Case Study
A) Belgium is a small country in Europe smaller in area than the state of Haryana.
B)It has borders with France, the Netherlands, Germany and Luxembourg
C) It has a population a little over 1 crore about half the population of Haryana
D) The ethnic composition of this country is very complex. Of the country’s total population 59% live in the Flemish region(north)and speak Dutch language.
E) Another 40% people live in Wallonia region and speak French.
F) Remaining 1% of the Belgians speak German
G) In the capital city Brussels 80% people speak French while 20% speak Dutch.
H) The minority French speaking community was relatively rich and powerful. This was resented by Dutch speaking community who got the benefit of economic development and education much later
I) This led to tensions between Dutch and French speaking communities during 1950s and 1960
J) The tension between the communities was more acute in Brussels. Brussels presented a special problem: the Dutch speaking people constituted a majority in the country but a minority in the capital.
Sri Lanka Case Study
A) Sri Lanka is an island nation, just a few kilometres off the southern coast of Tamil Nadu
B) it has about 2 crore people about the same as in Haryana like other nations in South Asia region, Sri Lanka has a diverse population the major social groups are Sinhala speakers 74% and Tamil speakers 18%
C) there are two sub groups Tamil native of the country are called Sri Lanka in Tamil from India as plantation worker during colonial period are called Indian as you can see from the map Sri Lanka concentrated in the north and the east country most of the sinhali speaking people
Belgian model
The Belgian leaders took a different
path. They recognised the existence of
regional differences and cultural
diversities.
Between 1970 and 1993,
they amended their constitution four
times so as to work out an arrangement
that would enable everyone to live
together within the same country.
The arrangement they worked out is
different from any other country and
is very innovative. Here are some of
the elements of the Belgian model:
a) 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 majority of members from each linguistic group. Thus, no single community can make decisions unilaterally.
b) Many powers of the central government have been given to state governments of the two regions of the country. The state governments are not subordinate to the Central Government.
c) Brussels has a separate government in which both the communities have equal representation. The French speaking people accepted equal representation in Brussels because the Dutch-speaking community has
accepted equal representation in the
Central Government.
d) 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.
European Union headquarters
Brussels, Belgium
Why power sharing is desirable?
PRUDENTIAL reason
power sharing is good because
it helps to reduce the possibility of
conflict between social groups.
Since social conflict often leads to violence
and political instability, power sharing
is a good way to ensure the stability of
political order.
Imposing the will of majority community over others may look like an attractive option in the short run, but in the long run it
undermines the unity of the nation.
Tyranny of the majority is not just
oppressive for the minority; it often
brings ruin to the majority as well.
MORAL REASONS
Power sharing is the very spirit of democracy. 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.
A legitimate government is one where citizens, through participation, acquire a stake in the system.
While prudential reasons stress that power
sharing will bring out better outcomes,
moral reasons emphasise the very act
of power sharing as valuable.
