Overview
Power sharing is the first idea in the Class 10 Democratic Politics course, and the whole book rests on it. The chapter does not begin with a definition; it begins with two stories. Belgium is a small country in Europe whose people are divided by language - Dutch-speaking Flemish in the north, French-speaking Walloons in the south, and a small German-speaking minority - with a capital city, Brussels, where the proportions are reversed. Sri Lanka is an island nation divided by language and religion between a Sinhala-speaking majority and a Tamil-speaking minority. Both countries faced the same problem. They chose opposite solutions. Sri Lanka's majority used its numbers to establish Sinhala supremacy through the Act of 1956 and the constitutional provisions that followed; the result was alienation, armed struggle and a civil war that lasted until 2009 and cost the country its economic and social life. Belgium's leaders, between 1970 and 1993, amended their constitution four times to build a system in which no community could be governed against its will - equal representation in the central government, powerful state governments, a separate arrangement for Brussels, and a third kind of government, the community government, elected by people belonging to one language group wherever they live. From these two experiences the chapter draws its argument: power sharing is desirable for prudential reasons, because it reduces conflict and gives a country stability, and for moral reasons, because sharing power is the very spirit of democracy. It then sets out the four forms in which power is actually shared - horizontally among organs of government, vertically among levels of government, among social groups, and among political parties, pressure groups and movements. These four forms are the map for the chapters that follow on federalism, on democracy and diversity, and on political parties.
Learning Objectives
- Describe the ethnic composition of Belgium and explain why the position of Brussels made the Belgian problem unusually complicated.
- Describe the social composition of Sri Lanka and identify the two communities that were in conflict.
- Define majoritarianism and explain, with the measures adopted after 1948, how it was practised in Sri Lanka.
- Trace the consequences of Sri Lankan majoritarianism, from Tamil alienation to civil war and its costs.
- Explain the four elements of the Belgian model of power sharing introduced between 1970 and 1993.
- Explain what a community government is and why it is regarded as an innovative solution.
- Compare the Belgian and Sri Lankan responses to diversity and state what the comparison teaches.
- Distinguish between prudential and moral reasons for power sharing and give one example of each.
- Explain horizontal power sharing and the idea of a system of checks and balances.
- Explain vertical power sharing and give examples of it from the Indian system.
- Explain power sharing among social groups, including community government and reserved constituencies.
- Explain how competition among political parties, coalitions, pressure groups and movements shares power in a democracy.
Topics in this chapter
12 topics · tap a topic title to jump straight to it.
Two Stories from Belgium and Sri Lanka
Why the chapter begins with stories
The chapter opens with two countries rather than a definition, because power sharing is not an abstract idea — it is an answer to a real and common problem. Nearly every country in the world contains more than one social group, and every such country has to decide who rules, and how much say the others get. Belgium and Sri Lanka faced that decision at almost the same moment in the twentieth century.
The two cases are chosen deliberately as a matched pair. Both are small countries. Both are deeply divided along lines of language and, in Sri Lanka's case, religion as well. Both became independent or reorganised themselves in the middle of the twentieth century. And both are democracies — the difference between them is not that one was democratic and the other was not. Sri Lanka has held regular elections since 1948.
The opposite choices
- Sri Lanka assumed that in a democracy the majority community must rule, and that its will alone should shape the state's language, religion and jobs. This is majoritarianism.
- Belgium assumed the opposite: that a democracy must be arranged so that no community can be governed against its will, even a community that is a minority in the country as a whole. This is power sharing.
The chapter's argument is carried by the outcome. Belgium held together, and the very body that governs the European Union chose Brussels as its headquarters. Sri Lanka descended into a civil war that lasted from the 1980s until 2009. The lesson the textbook draws is blunt: a democracy is not simply the rule of the majority; it is the rule of the majority working together with the minority, so that government represents the general view of the people.
- Both countries are democracies, so the difference in outcome cannot be explained by the presence or absence of elections - it lies in how power was distributed between communities.
- Brussels became the headquarters of the European Union, a sign of how far Belgium succeeded in accommodating its divisions.
- The Sri Lankan civil war ended in 2009 after nearly three decades, having damaged the country's economic, social and cultural life.
Belgium: A Small Country with a Complex Ethnic Composition
The country and its people
Belgium is a small country in Europe, smaller in area than the Indian state of Haryana, bordered by France, the Netherlands, Germany and Luxembourg. Its population is a little over one crore — about half the population of Haryana. The ethnic composition of this small country is very complex, and the word ethnic here refers to a social division based on shared culture: people belong to the same ethnic group if they believe they share a common descent, or a common language, religion or customs.
The numbers that create the problem
- Of the country's total population, 59 per cent lives in the Flemish region and speaks Dutch.
- Another 40 per cent lives in the Wallonia region and speaks French.
- The remaining 1 per cent speaks German.
In the capital city, Brussels, the proportions are reversed: 80 per cent of the people speak French and 20 per cent speak Dutch.
Why this was explosive
The minority French-speaking community was relatively rich and powerful. This was resented by the Dutch-speaking community, which got the benefit of economic development and education much later. The tension between the two communities was sharpest in Brussels, because the Dutch-speakers constituted a majority in the country but a minority in the capital.
Notice the structure of the problem. It is not a simple majority-minority situation. Each community is a majority somewhere and a minority somewhere else, so any arrangement that simply lets the majority rule would produce a different, and equally aggrieved, loser in every region. This is exactly why the Belgian solution had to be layered rather than simple.
- Belgium is smaller in area than the Indian state of Haryana and has about half its population, yet it required four constitutional amendments to accommodate its divisions.
- Dutch-speakers: 59% of the country but only 20% of Brussels. French-speakers: 40% of the country but 80% of Brussels.
- The French-speaking minority was richer and better educated first, which turned a language difference into an economic grievance.
Sri Lanka: Social Composition and the Rise of Majoritarianism
The social composition
Sri Lanka is an island nation just a few kilometres off the southern coast of Tamil Nadu, with about two crore people — roughly the population of Haryana. Like other countries in South Asia it has a diverse population.
- Sinhala-speakers: 74 per cent of the population.
- Tamil-speakers: 18 per cent. The Tamils are of two kinds. Sri Lankan Tamils (13 per cent) are those whose forefathers have lived in the country for centuries; Indian Tamils (about 5 per cent) are descendants of plantation workers brought from India by the British during the colonial period.
- Most Sinhala-speakers are Buddhist, while most Tamils are Hindu or Muslim. There are about 7 per cent Christians, who are both Tamil and Sinhala.
Sri Lankan Tamils are concentrated in the north and east of the country, which matters greatly later: a geographically concentrated minority can demand regional autonomy in a way a scattered one cannot.
Majoritarianism after 1948
Sri Lanka became independent 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 — majoritarianism being the belief that the majority community ought to be able to rule a country in whichever way it wants, disregarding the wishes and needs of the minority.
- 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.
All these government measures, coming one after another, 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 language and culture; that the constitution and government policies denied them equal political rights; that they were discriminated against in getting jobs and other opportunities; and that their interests were ignored.
- The Act of 1956 recognising Sinhala as the only official language is the single measure most often cited as the beginning of Tamil alienation.
- Indian Tamils are descendants of plantation workers brought from India by the British - a distinct group from Sri Lankan Tamils, with a different history and a weaker claim to citizenship.
- Sri Lankan Tamils are concentrated in the north and east, which made a demand for regional autonomy possible.
The Consequences: From Alienation to Civil War
Demands, then distrust, then war
The relations between the Sinhala and Tamil communities strained over time. Sri Lankan Tamils launched parties and struggles for the recognition of Tamil as an official language, for regional autonomy and for 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 demanding an independent Tamil Eelam — a separate country — in the northern and eastern parts of Sri Lanka. The distrust between the two communities turned into widespread conflict, and it soon turned into a civil war: a violent conflict between opposing groups within a country that becomes so intense that it appears like a war.
The cost
The civil war caused a terrible setback to the social, cultural and economic life of the country. Thousands of people of both the communities were killed. Many families were forced to leave the country as refugees, and many more lost their livelihoods. The war continued for more than two decades and ended only in 2009.
The point the chapter is making is not that the Sinhala community was uniquely intolerant. It is structural: a democracy that gives the majority everything gives the minority no reason to stay loyal to it. Sri Lanka's arrangements were majoritarian and democratic at the same time, and that combination is precisely what made them dangerous.
- Demand sequence: official language status for Tamil, then regional autonomy, then equality of opportunity, and only after all three were refused, a separate state.
- Civil war: a violent conflict between opposing groups within a country that becomes so intense that it appears like a war.
- The war ended in 2009, more than two decades after it began, with heavy loss of life, mass displacement and lasting economic damage.
The Belgian Model: Accommodation through Constitutional Design
A different response to a similar problem
The Belgian leaders took a different path from the Sri Lankan leaders. 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 its elements.
The four elements
- Equality in the central government. 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.
- Powerful state governments. 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.
- A separate arrangement for Brussels. 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 accepted equal representation in the central government.
- A third kind of government: the community government. Apart from the central and the state government, there is a third kind of government, elected by people belonging to one language community — Dutch, French and German-speaking — no matter where they live.
Why it is called innovative
Look at the third element carefully: it is a trade. Each community gave up its numerical advantage in one arena in return for protection in another. That is what makes an accommodation stable — not generosity, but a bargain in which each side has something to lose from breaking it.
The Belgian model may seem very complicated even to the people of Belgium. But these arrangements have worked well so far: they helped to avoid civic strife between the two major communities and a possible division of the country on linguistic lines. When many countries of Europe came together to form the European Union, Brussels was chosen as its headquarters.
- Four constitutional amendments between 1970 and 1993 - accommodation was not one decision but a sustained process.
- Some special laws in Belgium cannot pass without a majority within each linguistic group, not merely a majority of the whole house.
- The Brussels bargain: French-speakers accepted equal representation in Brussels because Dutch-speakers accepted equal representation at the centre.
Community Government: Belgium's Distinctive Innovation
A government defined by culture, not by territory
The community government is the element of the Belgian arrangement that has no close parallel anywhere else, and it is the one most often asked about in examinations. It is a government elected by people belonging to one language community — Dutch, French and German-speaking — no matter where they live.
What it controls
This government has the power regarding cultural, educational and language-related issues. These are exactly the matters over which the Sri Lankan conflict began. Belgium took the most inflammable subjects out of the reach of a territorial majority and handed them to each community to decide for itself.
Why the ‘no matter where they live’ clause matters
Ordinary federal governments are defined by territory: you are governed by the state in which you reside. That works only when communities live in neat territorial blocks. Belgium's communities do not — a French-speaker in Brussels, or a Dutch-speaker in a French region, would otherwise be permanently at the mercy of a local majority. By defining this third government by community rather than territory, Belgium ensured that a person's language rights travel with the person.
So Belgium now has three kinds of government at once: the central government, the state governments of the two regions, and the community governments. A citizen may be governed by all three simultaneously for different purposes.
- A Dutch-speaker living in Brussels votes for the Dutch community government even though Brussels is 80% French-speaking.
- Community government subjects: culture, education and language - precisely the subjects over which Sri Lanka's conflict began.
- Belgium therefore has three kinds of government operating at once: central, state (regional) and community.
Why Power Sharing is Desirable: The Prudential Reason
Two kinds of argument
The chapter offers two different sets of reasons in favour of power sharing. The first is prudential: it is based on careful calculation of gains and losses. A prudential decision is one taken because it is expected to bring us some benefit; it is contrasted with a moral decision, which is taken because it is right even if it brings no benefit.
The prudential case
- Power sharing reduces 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 the political order.
- Imposing the will of a majority community over others may look attractive 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.
Sri Lanka is the illustration. The Sinhala majority obtained everything it demanded — its language, its religion, preference in jobs and universities — and then spent nearly thirty years and an enormous share of its national wealth fighting a war on its own soil. That is the sense in which majority rule can bring ruin to the majority itself.
- Prudential: based on careful calculation of gains and losses; moral: based on what is right, regardless of the outcome.
- Sri Lanka's majority got everything it asked for and paid for it with a civil war on its own territory - the clearest illustration of the prudential argument.
- Power sharing reduces conflict, and reduced conflict produces political stability, which is itself a condition for development.
Why Power Sharing is Desirable: The Moral Reason
The spirit of democracy
The second set of reasons is moral. 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.
The difference between the two arguments
The distinction is worth holding on to, because examinations ask for it directly:
- The prudential reason stresses that power sharing will bring out better outcomes — stability, unity, the avoidance of violence.
- The moral reason emphasises the very act of power sharing as valuable, whatever the outcome.
In other words, even if power sharing did not reduce conflict, it would still be the right way to run a democracy, because a government that never consults those it rules is not really a democracy at all — it is only a device for counting heads once every five years.
- Moral argument: power sharing is valuable in itself, because people have a right to be consulted about how they are governed.
- Prudential argument: power sharing is valuable because of what it produces - stability, unity, an end to violence.
- Legitimacy: citizens who participate acquire a stake in the system, and a government with that stake behind it is legitimate.
Form 1 - Horizontal Power Sharing: Organs of Government
Sharing power among organs at the same level
The first form of power sharing is among different organs of government, such as the legislature, executive and judiciary. This is called the horizontal distribution of power, because it allows different organs of government placed at the same level to exercise different powers.
Checks and balances
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 — a system of checks and balances.
- Ministers and government officials exercise power, but they are responsible to Parliament or State Assemblies.
- Judges are appointed by the executive, but they can check the functioning of the executive or laws made by the legislatures.
Notice the design principle: each organ is given some power over the others, so that dependence runs in more than one direction. Power is not merely divided; it is arranged so that each holder needs the consent or restraint of another.
- The executive is responsible to the legislature: ministers must answer to Parliament and can be removed by it.
- Judges are appointed by the executive but can strike down executive action and laws passed by the legislature.
- Horizontal means at the same level - all three organs are national institutions; none is subordinate to another.
Form 2 - Vertical Power Sharing: Levels of Government
Sharing power among levels
The second form is power shared among governments at different levels — a general government for the entire country and governments at the provincial or regional level. In India we refer to the general government as the Central or Union Government and the governments at the provincial or regional level as State Governments. This is called federal division of power, or the vertical division of power, because it involves higher and lower levels of government.
How it works in India
- The Constitution clearly lays down the powers of different levels of government. This is what makes the arrangement federal rather than merely administrative.
- India followed the federal division of power from the beginning, and this system was later extended to local government — panchayats and municipalities — making a third tier below the state level.
- Not all countries have such levels. Countries with a unitary system have only one level of government, or the sub-units are subordinate to the central government.
The word vertical is doing real work here. Unlike horizontal sharing, where the organs are equals, vertical sharing arranges governments one above another in geographical scope — but crucially, in a federation the lower level is not the servant of the higher one, because its powers come from the Constitution and not from the centre's permission.
- India's three tiers: Union Government, State Governments, and local government (panchayats and municipalities).
- In a federal system, the powers of each level are laid down in the Constitution, so a state's authority is not a gift from the centre.
- Belgium's state governments are explicitly not subordinate to the central government - the same principle.
Form 3 - Power Sharing among Social Groups
Giving a share to communities
Power may also be shared among different social groups, such as religious and linguistic groups. The community government in Belgium is a good example of this arrangement.
The Indian device: reserved constituencies
In some countries there are constitutional and legal arrangements whereby socially weaker sections and women are represented in the legislatures and administration. In India, reserved constituencies in assemblies and the parliament serve this purpose.
Why it is necessary
This method is used to give space in the government and administration to diverse social groups who otherwise would feel alienated from the government. This arrangement is meant to give minority communities a fair share in power.
Read that phrase carefully: who otherwise would feel alienated. It is the same word the textbook used for the Sri Lankan Tamils. The whole of this third form of power sharing is designed to prevent the sequence that Sri Lanka went through — exclusion, alienation, demand, refusal, conflict.
- Belgium's community government is the textbook example of power sharing among social groups.
- India's reserved constituencies in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
- The purpose is stated as preventing alienation - the same condition that produced the Sri Lankan conflict.
Form 4 - Power Sharing among Parties, Pressure Groups and Movements
Power sharing outside the state's formal structure
The fourth form is power sharing among political parties, pressure groups and movements. In a democracy, 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.
Interest groups
In a democracy we find many interest groups — of traders, businessmen, industrialists, farmers and industrial workers. They will also have a share in governmental power, either through participation in governmental committees or by bringing influence on the decision-making process.
Holding the four forms together
Notice how the four forms differ in what they divide power along: organs of government (horizontal), levels of government (vertical), communities (social groups), and contenders for office (parties and groups). The first two are written into the Constitution; the last two operate partly through law and partly through ordinary political life. Together they describe the entire machinery a democracy uses to make sure that no one holds all the power at once.
- An alliance formed before an election that wins and forms a coalition government is direct power sharing among parties.
- Interest groups of traders, farmers or industrial workers share power by influencing decisions or sitting on government committees.
- Competition among parties means power is shared over time, as different parties representing different social groups take turns in office.
Key Concepts
- Power sharing
- The distribution of political power among different organs, levels, social groups and contenders, so that no single body or community holds all authority.
- Ethnic group
- A social division whose members share a common culture - a belief in common descent, or a shared language, religion or customs.
- Majoritarianism
- The belief that the majority community should be able to rule a country in whichever way it wants, disregarding the wishes and needs of the minority.
- Civil war
- A violent conflict between opposing groups within a country that becomes so intense that it appears like a war.
- Prudential reason
- A reason based on a careful calculation of gains and losses - power sharing is adopted because it produces better outcomes such as stability.
- Moral reason
- A reason based on what is right in itself - power sharing is valuable because it is the spirit of democracy, whatever its results.
- Horizontal distribution of power
- Sharing of power among organs of government placed at the same level - legislature, executive and judiciary.
- Checks and balances
- An arrangement in which each organ of government can restrain the others, so that none exercises unlimited power.
- Vertical distribution of power
- Sharing of power among governments at different levels - union, state and local.
- Federal division of power
- A constitutional division of powers between a general government for the whole country and governments at the regional level.
- Unitary system
- A system with only one level of government, or one in which sub-units are subordinate to and controlled by the central government.
- Community government
- In Belgium, a government elected by people belonging to one language community - Dutch, French or German - no matter where they live, with power over cultural, educational and language issues.
- Reserved constituencies
- Constituencies in which only candidates from a specified social group may contest, used in India to guarantee representation to socially weaker sections.
- Coalition government
- A government formed by two or more parties that have allied, usually because no single party has a majority.
- Alliance
- An agreement among two or more political parties to contest an election together.
- Interest group
- An organised body of people - traders, farmers, industrial workers - that seeks to influence government decisions in favour of its members.
- Flemish region
- The northern region of Belgium, where 59 per cent of the country's people live and speak Dutch.
- Wallonia
- The southern region of Belgium, where 40 per cent of the country's people live and speak French.
- Brussels
- The capital of Belgium, where 80 per cent speak French and 20 per cent Dutch, and later the headquarters of the European Union.
- Sri Lankan Tamils
- Tamil-speakers of Sri Lanka whose forefathers have lived in the country for centuries - about 13 per cent of the population, concentrated in the north and east.
- Indian Tamils
- Descendants of plantation workers brought from India to Sri Lanka by the British during the colonial period - about 5 per cent of the population.
- Act of 1956
- The Sri Lankan law recognising Sinhala as the only official language, disregarding Tamil - the first major majoritarian measure after independence.
- Tamil Eelam
- The separate independent state in the north and east of Sri Lanka demanded by Tamil political organisations from the 1980s.
- Alienation
- The feeling of a community that the state and its major parties are insensitive to its language, culture and interests, and deny it equal rights.
- Tyranny of the majority
- Oppression of a minority by a numerically larger community using democratic means; it is oppressive for the minority and often ruinous for the majority too.
- Legitimate government
- A government in which citizens, through participation, acquire a stake in the system and therefore accept its authority as rightful.
End-of-Chapter Trial Paper & Test Questions
Topic-wise questions to test your understanding of every concept in this chapter.
-
Define power sharing. / सत्ता की साझेदारी को परिभाषित कीजिए।
Show answer
Power sharing is the distribution of political power among different organs of government and social groups so that no single group or person holds all power, ensuring a wider participation in governance. / सत्ता की साझेदारी सरकार के विभिन्न अंगों और सामाजिक समूहों के बीच राजनीतिक शक्ति का वितरण है ताकि कोई एक समूह या व्यक्ति सारी शक्ति न रखे, जिससे शासन में व्यापक भागीदारी सुनिश्चित हो।
-
What is meant by majoritarianism, and how did it affect Sri Lanka? / बहुसंख्यकवाद से क्या तात्पर्य है, और इसने श्रीलंका को किस प्रकार प्रभावित किया?
Show answer
Majoritarianism is the belief that the majority community should rule the country and ignore the wishes of minorities; in Sri Lanka, the Sinhala majority imposed Sinhala as the only official language and favoured Buddhism, alienating the Tamils and leading to civil war. / बहुसंख्यकवाद यह विश्वास है कि बहुसंख्यक समुदाय को देश पर शासन करना चाहिए और अल्पसंख्यकों की इच्छाओं की उपेक्षा करनी चाहिए; श्रीलंका में सिंहली बहुसंख्यकों ने सिंहली को एकमात्र राजभाषा बनाया और बौद्ध धर्म को वरीयता दी, जिससे तमिल विमुख हुए और गृहयुद्ध हुआ।
-
State the two main reasons given in the chapter for why power sharing is desirable. / सत्ता की साझेदारी वांछनीय क्यों है, इसके लिए अध्याय में दिए गए दो मुख्य कारण बताइए।
Show answer
The prudential reason is that power sharing reduces the possibility of conflict between social groups and ensures the political stability of the country; the moral reason is that power sharing is the very spirit of democracy as people have a right to be consulted in how they are governed. / व्यावहारिक कारण यह है कि सत्ता की साझेदारी सामाजिक समूहों के बीच टकराव की संभावना घटाती है और देश की राजनीतिक स्थिरता सुनिश्चित करती है; नैतिक कारण यह है कि सत्ता की साझेदारी लोकतंत्र की मूल आत्मा है क्योंकि लोगों को यह तय करने में सलाह लिए जाने का अधिकार है कि उन पर शासन कैसे हो।
-
How does the Belgian model accommodate its diverse communities? Give two features. / बेल्जियम का मॉडल अपने विविध समुदायों को किस प्रकार समायोजित करता है? दो विशेषताएँ बताइए।
Show answer
In Belgium the Constitution provides that the number of Dutch and French-speaking ministers in the central government shall be equal, and many powers have been given to the state governments; additionally, a separate community government elected by people of one language group looks after cultural matters. / बेल्जियम में संविधान यह प्रावधान करता है कि केंद्र सरकार में डच और फ्रेंच-भाषी मंत्रियों की संख्या समान होगी, तथा राज्य सरकारों को कई शक्तियाँ दी गई हैं; इसके अतिरिक्त, एक भाषा-समूह के लोगों द्वारा चुनी गई पृथक समुदाय सरकार सांस्कृतिक मामले देखती है।
-
Distinguish between horizontal and vertical distribution of power with examples. / सत्ता के क्षैतिज और लंबवत वितरण में उदाहरण सहित अंतर बताइए।
Show answer
Horizontal distribution of power is sharing among organs of government at the same level — legislature, executive and judiciary — so each checks the others; vertical distribution is sharing among different levels such as central, state and local governments, also called federal division. / सत्ता का क्षैतिज वितरण समान स्तर के अंगों — विधायिका, कार्यपालिका और न्यायपालिका — के बीच साझेदारी है ताकि प्रत्येक दूसरे पर नियंत्रण रखे; लंबवत वितरण केंद्र, राज्य और स्थानीय सरकारों जैसे विभिन्न स्तरों के बीच साझेदारी है, जिसे संघीय विभाजन भी कहते हैं।
-
How can power be shared among different social groups? Explain with an example. / विभिन्न सामाजिक समूहों के बीच सत्ता किस प्रकार साझा की जा सकती है? उदाहरण सहित समझाइए।
Show answer
Power can be shared among social groups such as religious and linguistic communities through community government or reserved seats so that minorities also get a share in governance; for example, India provides reserved constituencies for weaker social groups in legislatures. / धार्मिक और भाषाई समुदायों जैसे सामाजिक समूहों के बीच सत्ता समुदाय सरकार या आरक्षित सीटों के माध्यम से साझा की जा सकती है ताकि अल्पसंख्यकों को भी शासन में हिस्सा मिले; उदाहरण के लिए, भारत विधायिकाओं में कमजोर सामाजिक समूहों हेतु आरक्षित निर्वाचन क्षेत्रों का प्रावधान करता है।
-
How do political parties, pressure groups and movements share power in a democracy? / लोकतंत्र में राजनीतिक दल, दबाव समूह और आंदोलन किस प्रकार सत्ता साझा करते हैं?
Show answer
Power is shared among political parties that represent different ideologies and compete in elections to form or influence government; pressure groups and movements also gain a share of power by influencing those in authority or by participating in governing coalitions. / सत्ता उन राजनीतिक दलों के बीच साझा होती है जो विभिन्न विचारधाराओं का प्रतिनिधित्व करते हैं और सरकार बनाने या प्रभावित करने हेतु चुनावों में प्रतिस्पर्धा करते हैं; दबाव समूह और आंदोलन भी सत्ताधारियों को प्रभावित कर या सत्तारूढ़ गठबंधनों में भाग लेकर सत्ता में हिस्सा प्राप्त करते हैं।
-
"Belgium succeeded while Sri Lanka faced conflict, despite both being democracies." Analyse why. / "दोनों लोकतंत्र होने के बावजूद बेल्जियम सफल रहा जबकि श्रीलंका को टकराव झेलना पड़ा।" इसका विश्लेषण कीजिए।
Show answer
Belgium recognised the existence of regional and cultural diversity and amended its Constitution to share power among communities, achieving peace, whereas Sri Lanka adopted majoritarian policies that denied the Tamils equal rights, which led to mistrust, demands for autonomy and a destructive civil war. / बेल्जियम ने क्षेत्रीय और सांस्कृतिक विविधता के अस्तित्व को स्वीकार कर समुदायों के बीच सत्ता साझा करने हेतु संविधान में संशोधन किया और शांति प्राप्त की, जबकि श्रीलंका ने बहुसंख्यकवादी नीतियाँ अपनाईं जिन्होंने तमिलों को समान अधिकार से वंचित किया, जिससे अविश्वास, स्वायत्तता की माँग और विनाशकारी गृहयुद्ध हुआ।
Related Laws & Principles
Explore allFoundational laws & principles behind this chapter. Each one opens a full page — what it says, why it matters, five practice questions and the mistakes to avoid.