Case of belgium

About Belgium
● Belgium is a small country in Europe
● Its capital is Brussels
● It is smaller in area than the state of Haryana
● It has a population of a little over one crore, about half the population of
Haryana
● It shares borders with France,Germany,Luxembourg and Netherlands

Ethnic : A social division based on shared culture. People belonging to the same
ethnic group believe in their common descent because of similarities of physical type
or of culture or both. They need not always have the same religion or nationality.

Ethnic composition -
● 59 per cent lives in the Flemish region and speaks Dutch language
● Another 40 per cent people live in the Wallonia region and speak French
● Remaining one per cent of the Belgians speak German
● In the capital city Brussels, 80 percent people speak French while 20 per cent
are Dutch-speaking.

Situation in Belgium -
● The minority French-speaking community was relatively rich and powerful.
● This was resented by the Dutch-speaking community who got the benefit of
economic development and education much later.
● This led to tensions between the Dutch Speaking and French-speaking
communities during the 1950s and 1960s.
● The tension between the two communities was more acute in Brussels
● Dutch-speaking people constituted a majority in the country, but a minority in
the capital.

Accommodation in Belgium -
Belgian leaders 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.
Belgian model of power sharing -
● The 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 a majority of members from each linguistic group. Thus, no
single community can make decisions unilaterally.
● 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.
● 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.
● 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.

When many countries of Europe came together to form the European Union,
Brussels was chosen as its headquarters.

Case of Sri Lanka

About Sri Lanka -
● Sri Lanka is an island nation, just a few kilometres off the southern coast of
Tamil Nadu.
● It has about two crore people, about the same as in Haryana

Ethnic composition -
● The major social groups are the Sinhala-speakers (74 per cent)]
● The Tamil-speakers (18 per cent).
● . Among Tamils there are two sub-groups. Tamil natives of the country are
called ‘Sri Lankan Tamils’ (13 per cent). The rest, whose forefathers came
from India as plantation workers during colonial period, are called ‘Indian
Tamils’.
● Most of the Sinhala-speaking people are Buddhists, while most of the Tamils
are Hindus or Muslims. There are about 7 per cent Christians, who are both
Tamil and Sinhala.

Majoritarianism: 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
Majoritarianism in Sri Lanka -

● Sri Lanka emerged as an independent country in 1948.

● The leaders of the Sinhala community sought to secure dominance over
government by virtue of their majority.
● As a result, the democratically elected government adopted a series of
majoritarian measures to establish Sinhala supremacy

The 1956 act -

● In 1956, an Act was passed to recognise Sinhala as the only official language,
thus disregarding Tamil.
● The governments followed preferential policies that favoured Sinhala
applicants for university positions and government jobs.
● A new constitution stipulated that the state shall protect and foster Buddhism

Feelings of Tamils -
● All these government measures, coming one after the other, gradually
increased the feeling of alienation among the Sri Lankan Tamils.
● They felt that none of the major political parties led by the Buddhist Sinhala
leaders was sensitive to their result, the relations between the Sinhala and
Tamil communities strained over time.

Struggles of Tamils -
● The Sri Lankan Tamils launched parties and struggles -
For the recognition of Tamil as an official language
Regional autonomy
Equality of opportunity in securing education and jobs
● But their demand for more autonomy to provinces populated by the Tamils
was repeatedly denied.
● By the 1980s, several political organisations were formed demanding an
independent Tamil Eelam (state) in northern and eastern parts of Sri Lanka.
● The distrust between the two communities turned into widespread conflict. It
soon turned into a civil war. As a result thousands of people of both the
communities have been killed. Many families were forced to leave the country
as refugees and many more lost their livelihoods But the civil war has caused
a terrible setback to the social, cultural and economic life of the country. It
ended in 2009.

Civil war - A violent conflict between opposing groups within a country that becomes
so intense that it appears like a war.

What do we learn from these two stories of Belgium and Sri Lanka?
Both are democracies. Yet, they dealt with the question of power sharing differently.
 ● In Belgium, the leaders have realised that the unity of the country is possible
only by respecting the feelings and interests of different communities and
regions. Such a realisation resulted in mutually acceptable arrangements for
sharing power.
● Sri Lanka shows us a contrasting example. It shows us that if a majority
community wants to force its dominance over others and refuses to share
power, it can undermine the unity of the country.

Why is power sharing desirable?

Thus, two different sets of reasons can be given in favour of power sharing.
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 the 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 reason -
● 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.

Prudential: Based on prudence, or on careful calculation of gains and losses.

Prudential decisions are usually contrasted with decisions based purely on moral
considerations

Forms of power-sharing

Idea of power sharing -

● The idea of power-sharing has emerged in opposition to the notions of
undivided political power.
● For a long time, it was believed that all power of a government must reside in
one person or group of persons located at one place.
● It was felt that if the power to decide is dispersed, it would not be possible to
take quick decisions and to enforce them.
● But these notions have changed with the emergence of democracy.
Emergence of democracy -
● One basic principle of democracy is that people are the source of all
political power.
● In a democracy, people rule themselves through institutions of
self-government.
● In a good democratic government, due respect is given to diverse
groups and views that exist in a society.
● Everyone has a voice in the shaping of public policies.
● Therefore, it follows that in a democracy, political power should be
distributed among as many citizens as possible.

Forms of power sharing -

In modern democracies, power sharing arrangements can take many forms. Let us
look at some of the most common arrangements that we have or will come across
1. Horizontal Distribution -
● Power is shared among different organs of government, such as the
legislature, executive and judiciary.
● Let us call this horizontal distribution of power because it allows
different organs of government placed at the same level to exercise
different powers.
● Such a separation ensures that none of the organs can exercise
unlimited power.
● Each organ checks the others. This results in a balance of power
among various institutions
● This arrangement is called a system of checks and balances
2. Vertical distribution -
● Power can be shared among governments at different levels – a
general government for the entire country and governments at the
provincial or regional level
● Such a general government for the entire country is usually called the
federal government.
● The same principle can be extended to levels of government lower
than the State government, such as the municipality and panchayat.
● In India, we refer to it as the Central or Union Government. The
governments at the provincial or regional level are called by different
names in different countries.
● In India, we call them State Governments. This system is not followed
in all countries. There are many countries where there are no provincial
or state governments. But in those countries like ours, where there are
different levels of government, the constitution clearly lays down the
powers of different levels of government. This is what they did in
Belgium, but was refused in Sri Lanka. This is called the federal
division of power.
3. Among different social groups -
● Power may also be shared among different social groups, such as the
religious and linguistic groups.
● ‘Community government’ in Belgium is a good example of this arrangement.
In some countries, there are constitutional and legal arrangements, whereby
socially weaker sections and women are represented in the legislatures and
administration.
● This type of arrangement is meant to give space in the government and
administration to diverse social groups, who otherwise, would feel alienated
from the government.
● This method is used to give minority communities a fair share in power

4. Political parties, pressure groups and movements -

● In a democracy, the citizens must have freedom to choose among various
contenders for power. In contemporary democracies, this takes the form of
competition among different parties.
● Such competition ensures that power does not remain in one hand. In the
long run, power is shared among different political parties that represent
different ideologies and social groups
● Sometimes this kind of sharing can be direct, when two or more parties form
an alliance to contest elections. If their alliance is elected, they form a
coalition government and thus share power.
● In a democracy, we find interest groups, such as those of traders,
businessmen, industrialists, farmers and industrial workers.
● They also will have a share in governmental power, either through
participation in governmental committees or bringing influence on the
decision-making process