THIS PRESENTATION IS BASED UPON POWER SHARING WHICH IS A CHAPTER OF CLASS 10 CBSE.

1. POWER SHARING
C L A S S X
D E M O C R AT I C P O L I T I C S
C H A P T E R 1

2. OVERVIEW
• This chapter emphasizes on importance of Power Sharing, i.e. sharing of
power of decision makings, policy makings etc., between different
authorities, in Democratic system of Governance.
• Various types of power sharing is observed in a Democratic system.
• Power sharing between state governments and central government, power
sharing between judiciary, legislature, and executive are examples of power
sharing.
• Power sharing is also observed between different linguistic groups in order
to make peace between them.
• In this chapter, power sharing and its importance is observed via real time
examples of Sri Lanka and Beligium.

3. CASE OF SRI LANKA
The linguistic structure of Sri Lanka, based on language is as Following
MuslimsHindu
Majority :Sinhala
Speaking
Buddhists (Religion
followed by majority of
Sinhalas)
Indian Tamil
Christians
Minority: Tamil Speaking
Sri Lanka Tamil

4. MAJORITARIANISM POLICY
• Sri Lanka attained policy of Majoritarianism, i.e. the majority Sinhala speaking
group made policies, that were beneficiary for development of their culture
and neglected minority Tamilians.
• In 1956, an Act was passed to recognise Sinhala as the only official language,
thus disregarding Tamil.
• A new constitution stipulated that the state shall protect and foster Buddhism.
• Sinhalas were preferred for universities and government jobs.

5. CONSEQUENCES
• Tamils felt discrimination, opposed the policy of majoritarianism.
• Conflict arose between both Tamils and Sinhala community, demand of New independent
Tamil state Tamil Elam arose.
• Tamil militants group were formed, for example LTTE( Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam).
• This was followed by civil war.
• This conflict caused loss of lives, properties.
• It created hindrance in development of Sri Lanka.
• . Many families were forced to leave the country as refugees and many more lost their
livelihoods.

6. CASE OF BELIGIUM
Ethnic Composition of Belgium
Dutch 20%
Germen: 1%
French: 40%
Wallonia Region
Comparatively lesser in
number but richest
community
Dutch: 59%
Flemith Region
French 80%
Ethnic Composition of Brussels: Capital City of Belgium
French Minority were richer community. The Dutch was larger in number. There was conflict
between two communities in 1950-60s. The problem was more acute in Capital as French
were in majority in Capital but minority in country.

7. ACCOMMODATION POLICY
• The path taken by Belgium was different from Sri Lankan Majoritarian Policy.
• 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.
• A power Sharing Arrangement was established for establishment of peace in the country.
• 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.
• 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.

8. CONSEQUENCES
• A Complicated Constitution was framed.
• Peace was established between all linguist groups of Belgium, leading stability and a
path opened for development of Country.
• A potential division of country was avoided.
• When many countries of Europe came together to form the European
• Union, Brussels was chosen as its headquarters.

9. COMPARING BOTH CASES
• Majoritarian Policy in Sri Lanka led to conflict while accommodation Policy led to peace
in Belgium.
• Majoritarian Policy in Sri Lanka led to demand of separate state for a particular
linguistic group while accommodation policy made all linguistic community to leave
together in same country.
• Political instability was their in Sri Lanka, but despite of complex constitution Political
stability was obtained in Belgium.
• Development was hindered in Sri Lanka, While Belgium became one of the important
places in Europe and get HQ of European Union.
• BY these two examples, it can be concluded that Power Sharing is a sustainable model
for Governance, stability, peace and development.

10. Advantages of Power Sharing
Analytical Moral
• Reduces Social Conflict
• Reduces chances of division
• Political Stability
• Open Path ways of development
• 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.

11. Types of Power Sharing
Power Sharing
between Political
Parties, social
Groups etc.
Power Sharing
between different
social Groups:
Example of
Belgium
Power Sharing
between government
of different levels:
Federal Government:
Power sharing
between Central and
state Governments :
Power sharing of Gram
Panchayat is similar
example.
Power sharing
between different
organs of
Government:
Power Sharing
between
legislature,
executive and
judiciary :
Also Known as
Horizontal
distribution