Power-sharing
Why share power?
Give prudential and moral reasons for power sharing.
The lesson from the two stories. Belgium's leaders saw that the country could stay united only if it respected what every community and region felt and needed. Sri Lanka shows that when a majority forces its dominance and refuses to share power, it can break the unity of the country. So sharing power can make a country stronger, not weaker.
Reason 1: prudential (it brings better results). Prudential means based on careful calculation of gains and losses.
- Power sharing reduces conflict between social groups.
- Conflict often leads to violence and instability, so sharing keeps the political order stable.
- Forcing the majority's will may look easy at first, but over time it weakens national unity.
- Tyranny of the majority hurts the minority, and often hurts the majority too.
Reason 2: moral (it is right in itself). The book calls power sharing 'the very spirit of democracy'.
- People who must live with a decision should share in making it.
- People have a right to be asked how they want to be governed.
- A government is legitimate (rightful) when citizens take part in it, and so feel they have a stake in the system.
The difference in one line: prudential reasons say sharing gives better outcomes; moral reasons say the act of sharing is valuable in itself.
Annette and Selvi. Annette goes to a Dutch-medium school in northern Belgium; many French-speaking pupils want French teaching. Selvi goes to school in northern Sri Lanka, where everyone speaks Tamil and wants Tamil teaching. Whose parents are more likely to get what they ask for? Annette's, because in Belgium each community government controls education and language. In Sri Lanka, the majority made those decisions alone.
Germany: two rivals share power. After the 2005 elections, neither the Christian Democratic Union nor the Social Democratic Party won a clear majority. These old rivals formed a grand coalition. They disagree on many things but run the government together: like one car with two steering wheels.
Khalil's dilemma (Lebanon). After a bitter civil war, Lebanon's leaders agreed on fixed posts:
- President: a Maronite Catholic Christian;
- Prime Minister: a Sunni Muslim;
- Deputy Prime Minister: an Orthodox Christian;
- Speaker: a Shi'a Muslim.
The Muslims promised not to seek union with Syria, and the Christians promised not to ask France for protection. When the deal was made the two sides were nearly equal in number; Muslims are now a clear majority, yet both still respect it. Khalil, a young man in Beirut with mixed parents and political ambition, follows neither religion. Under these rules the top post is out of his reach. He asks: why not just let anyone stand and the winner rule? His elders, who lived through the war, say the pact is the best guarantee of peace. What would you do?
Practise this lesson
Questions that get harder as you improve, a Tutor that helps without giving the answer away, and progress you can see. Free for every learner.
No account, no email address. Opens the real product.