Power-sharing

Power-sharing means that power is not held by one person or one group alone. It is spread out among different organs of government, among different levels of government and among different social groups. The simple reason is that a democracy belongs to its people, and the people are many and different. When power is shared, more of them get a say in how they are governed.

This idea sits at the heart of modern democracy. A government that keeps all power in one pair of hands may be efficient, but it is also dangerous. There is nothing to stop it from misusing that power.

Power-sharing is easiest to understand through two countries that took opposite paths.

Belgium is a small European country bordering France, the Netherlands, Germany and Luxembourg, with a population under 1.5 crore. Its ethnic make-up is finely balanced and the source of the tension:

Belgium's population is spread across three language groups:

• About 59% live in the northern Flemish region and speak Dutch.
• About 40% live in the southern Wallonia region and speak French.
• The remaining 1% speak German.
• The capital, Brussels, reverses the national picture: 80% of its people are French-speaking and only 20% Dutch-speaking.

Two things made this balance tense:

• The French-speaking minority of the country was richer and more powerful.
• The Dutch-speaking majority got the benefit of economic development and education much later, and deeply resented this gap. The tension was sharpest in Brussels.

Between 1970 and 1993, Belgian leaders amended the constitution four times. They worked out an arrangement that lets everyone live together. The key features are exam-tested:

• The central (federal) government must have equal numbers of Dutch- and French-speaking ministers, so no single community can take decisions unilaterally.
• Many powers of the central government were given to the regional governments (the two regions, Flemish and Wallonia), which are not subordinate to the centre.
• Brussels has a separate government in which the two communities share power equally.
• Apart from the central and state governments, there is a third kind: the Community Government, elected by people belonging to one language community (Dutch, French or German speaking), no matter where they live. This government has power over cultural, educational and language-related matters.

By sharing power in these careful ways, Belgium avoided civil conflict and held the country together. Brussels became the headquarters of the European Union.

Sri Lanka (which gained independence in 1948) did the opposite. It followed majoritarianism, the belief that the majority community can rule the country in whatever way it likes, disregarding the wishes and needs of the minority. The major social groups are the Sinhala-speakers (about 74%), mostly Buddhist, and the Tamil-speakers (about 18%). The Tamil-speakers are split between "Sri Lankan Tamils" (concentrated in the north and east) and "Indian Tamils" whose forebears came as plantation workers. The democratically elected Sinhala-dominated government took a series of majoritarian measures:

• A 1956 Act recognised Sinhala as the only official language, sidelining Tamil.
• Governments followed preferential policies that favoured Sinhala applicants for university positions and government jobs.
• A new constitution stipulated that the state would protect and foster Buddhism.

These steps 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. Their demand for regional autonomy was repeatedly denied. By the 1980s this distrust grew into a demand for a separate Tamil Eelam (state). Relations between the two communities strained into a civil war that lasted until 2009 and killed thousands.

The lesson is clear. Belgium shared power and stayed united. Sri Lanka refused to share power and paid a heavy price.

There are two kinds of reasons for sharing power.

The first is the prudential reason, which is about good sense and good results. Sharing power reduces the chance of conflict between social groups. Social conflict often leads to violence and instability. So power-sharing is a good way to ensure the stability of the political order.

The second is the moral reason, which is about what is right. Power-sharing is the very spirit of democracy. A democratic rule involves sharing power with those affected by its exercise. People have to live with its effects, so they have a right to be consulted on how they are governed.

In short, the prudential reason stresses the good results of power-sharing, while the moral reason stresses the act of power-sharing as valuable in itself.

Power is shared in several ways in modern democracies.

The first is horizontal power-sharing, among the different organs of government: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Power is shared among institutions placed at the same level, so none can exercise unlimited power. Each organ checks the others. This is why it is called a system of checks and balances. For example, the legislature makes laws but the courts can review them. Ministers are answerable to the legislature. Judges are appointed by the executive, but they function independently and can check the working of both the legislature and the executive.

The second is vertical power-sharing, among governments at different levels: a general government for the whole country and governments at the regional or provincial level. In India this means the Union, the State and (after the 73rd and 74th amendments) the local self-governments. The constitution clearly lays out the powers of each level. This division cannot be changed by one level alone. The division of power between higher and lower levels of government is called a federal arrangement.

The third is power-sharing among different social groups, such as religious and linguistic communities. The Community Government in Belgium is one example. In India, the system of reserved constituencies in legislatures and local bodies gives space to communities (such as the weaker sections and women) that would otherwise feel left out. Some groups may not have the numbers to win elections on their own. Reserved constituencies give them a fair share of power.

The fourth is power-sharing among political parties, pressure groups and movements. In a democracy, citizens have a real choice. Power is shared among those who hold it now and those who may hold it in the future through regular competition among parties. Sometimes this sharing is direct. When two or more parties form an alliance to contest elections and, if successful, form a coalition government, power is shared among the partners. Beyond parties, interest groups such as traders', businessmen's, industrialists', farmers' and workers' associations also get a share of governmental power. They do this either through participation in governmental committees or by influencing the decision-making process. This competition keeps power from being concentrated in one set of hands.