NCERT · Class 10 · Social Science · Civics: Power SharingCompare the power-sharing arrangements in Belgium and Sri Lanka. Highlight the key constitutional measures taken by Belgium to accommodate regional and cultural differences.

Introduction to Comparative Power Sharing\nPower sharing is the mechanism by which political power is distributed among different groups, communities, or organs of government to ensure stability and peaceful coexistence. A comparison of Belgium and Sri Lanka illustrates two completely different paths and outcomes regarding how democracies handle social diversity.

Power Sharing in Belgium: Accommodation of Diversity\nBelgium successfully managed its complex linguistic and regional composition through innovative constitutional designs:

• Equal Representation in Central Government: The Belgian Constitution prescribed that the number of Dutch and French-speaking ministers shall be equal in the central government. No single community can make decisions unilaterally.
• Transfer of Powers: Many powers of the central government were handed over to state governments of the two regions (Flemish and Walloon), making these governments not subordinate to the central authority.
• Separate Government for Brussels: Brussels had a separate government where both communities had equal representation, addressing the unique situation where the majority in the country (Dutch) was a minority in the capital.
• Community Government: A third kind of government, called 'community government', is elected by people belonging to one language community—Dutch, French, and German-speaking—no matter where they live. This government has power regarding cultural, educational, and language-related issues.

Power Sharing in Sri Lanka: Majoritarian Dominance\nIn stark contrast to Belgium, Sri Lanka followed a majoritarian path:

• Sinhala Supremacy: After independence in 1948, the majority Sinhala community sought to dominate the government through its numerical strength, enacting discriminatory laws like the Sinhala Only Act of 1956.
• Denial of Regional Autonomy: Tamil-dominated regions were denied genuine autonomy, and minority grievances were continuously ignored.
• Outcome of Conflict: This denial of power sharing led to a deep-rooted civil war, social unrest, and massive loss of life and property.

Conclusion\nWhile Belgium’s model of power sharing promoted national unity, mutual respect, and peace by accommodating ethnic differences, Sri Lanka's majoritarian approach led to bitter ethnic strife. Thus, power sharing is not merely morally desirable but practically necessary to maintain the integrity of a nation.