Power-sharing

Topic: Power-sharing: Majoritarianism versus Accommodation · NCERT: Class 10, Ch 1 "Power-sharing"; Class 10, Ch 2 "Federalism"

Meaning

Power-sharing is a democratic arrangement that spreads political power among the organs of government, the levels of government, social groups, and political parties and pressure groups. The aim is that no single person, group or institution holds undivided power.

It matters because it is the main answer to majoritarianism (the belief that the majority community can rule however it wants and ignore minorities). Sri Lanka's choice of majoritarianism ended in civil war. Belgium's choice of accommodation (making room for all communities in power) kept a divided country together.

Explanation

Why the idea arose: undivided power versus shared power

• The old belief (absolutism): all power should sit with one person or group in one place.
• Supporters said this lets decisions be taken quickly and enforced firmly.

• This is the monistic theory of sovereignty of Hobbes and Austin. In this theory, sovereignty (supreme power) is one, cannot be divided, and belongs to one clear authority.

• The democratic answer: the people are the source of all political power.

• People rule themselves through self-governing institutions.
• Different groups and views deserve respect, and everyone should have a voice.
• So power should reach as many citizens as possible.

The four forms of power-sharing

Form	Who shares power	What it is called
Among organs of government	Legislature, executive, judiciary	Horizontal sharing; each organ checks the others (checks and balances)
Among levels of government	Union, states, local bodies	Vertical sharing; federalism and local self-government
Among social groups	Religious, linguistic and other communities	Accommodation of minorities and weaker sections
Among parties and pressure groups	Groups that compete for power or try to influence it	Competition, coalitions, lobbying

• The model cases:
• Sri Lanka (majoritarianism): the Sinhala Only Act, 1956 made Sinhala the only official language. Tamils felt shut out. This led to the civil war (1983-2009).
• Belgium (accommodation): the constitutional reforms of 1970-1993 shared power between the Dutch-speaking and French-speaking communities. The country stayed united.

Two reasons for power-sharing: prudential and moral

• Prudential reasons are based on a careful weighing of gains and losses. Power-sharing is good because it gives better results.
• Groups get a share in power → less conflict between them.
• Less conflict → less violence and political instability.
• Majority rule by force may look attractive in the short run, but in the long run it weakens the unity of the nation.

• Tyranny of the majority (the majority oppressing minorities) hurts the majority too, because the whole country becomes unstable.

• Moral reasons treat power-sharing as the very spirit of democracy. Sharing power is valuable in itself, whatever the results.

• Right to be consulted: people affected by power have a right to be asked how they are governed.
• Legitimacy: a legitimate government (one people accept as rightful) is one in which citizens get a stake in the system by taking part in it.
• Participation: democracy means rule by the people, so power must reach them.

	Prudential reasons	Moral reasons
Basis	Weighing gains and losses	Values; the spirit of democracy
What is valued	Better outcomes (stability, unity, less violence)	The act of sharing itself (consultation, participation, legitimacy)
Key question	"Does it work?"	"Is it right?"

Limits and criticisms

• What critics say:
• It delays decisions, because more players must agree.
• It may increase instability and divisiveness.

• It may weaken national unity by making group identities stronger.

• The reply:

• Sri Lanka shows that refusing to share power did far more damage (a 26-year civil war) than any delay caused by sharing.

• Belgium shows that sharing can hold a divided country together.

• It applies everywhere: every society needs some power-sharing, even a small one with few social divisions. It is not only for big countries or deeply divided ones (NCERT Exercise 3).

In the Constitution and practice

• Horizontal sharing: the Constitution divides power among the legislature, executive and judiciary, and each checks the others. For example, courts can strike down laws through judicial review (the courts' power to check whether laws and actions follow the Constitution).
• Vertical sharing:
• The Seventh Schedule divides subjects between the Union and the states (Union, State and Concurrent Lists).
• The 73rd and 74th Amendments (1992) added a third level. The 73rd Amendment created Panchayati Raj Institutions (rural local bodies). The 74th created urban local bodies (municipalities).

• The Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992 came into force on 24 April 1993 [8].

• Sharing with women through local democracy (the moral case):

• Article 243D reserves at least one-third of the seats filled by direct election in every panchayat for women, including SC/ST women. It also reserves at least one-third of chairperson posts at all three tiers [8].
• The gram sabha (the meeting of all voters of a village) lets citizens take part directly. The Government encourages women to attend gram sabha meetings that prepare Gram Panchayat Development Plans [8].

• 21 States and 2 UTs have raised women's reservation in panchayats to 50%. About 14.5 lakh of roughly 31 lakh elected local representatives (about 46%) are women (PIB, 2025) [10].

• Accords with groups (the prudential case): in each one, accommodation ended violent conflict.

• Punjab Accord (Rajiv-Longowal Accord), 24 July 1985: signed by PM Rajiv Gandhi and Sant Harchand Singh Longowal of the Shiromani Akali Dal. It covered the transfer of Chandigarh to Punjab, the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal, and a tribunal for the Punjab-Haryana river-water dispute [2].
• Assam Accord, 15 August 1985: a tripartite (three-party) deal between the Centre, the Assam government and the AASU and AAGSP. It dealt with illegal immigration, mostly from Bangladesh, and promised to protect the identity of the Assamese people [3][9].

• Mizoram Accord (Memorandum of Settlement), 30 June 1986: signed between the Government of India, the Government of Mizoram and the Mizo National Front (MNF). It ended more than two decades of unrest [4][5].

• Accommodation written into the Constitution (Mizoram):

• The State of Mizoram Act, 1986 turned the Union Territory into a state [7]. Mizoram became a state in 1987 [6].
• The Constitution (53rd Amendment) Act, 1986 added Article 371G [5][6].

• Under Article 371G, no Act of Parliament applies to Mizoram on the following matters unless the Mizoram Legislative Assembly passes a resolution [6]:

  1. religious or social practices of the Mizos
  2. Mizo customary law and procedure
  3. civil and criminal justice decided by Mizo customary law
  4. ownership and transfer of land

• Linguistic states: redrawing state borders by language calmed language agitations. India became more united, not less.

Don't confuse with

• Majoritarianism: the majority rules as it wants and ignores minorities (Sri Lanka, 1956). Power-sharing is its opposite: it gives every group a place in power.
• Monistic (indivisible) sovereignty: the Hobbes-Austin view that supreme power is one and cannot be divided. Power-sharing rejects this and holds that the people are the source of all power.
• Prudential versus moral reasons: prudential reasons value the results (less conflict, stability). Moral reasons value sharing itself (consultation, legitimacy). Exams often swap the two.
• Federalism: this is only one form of power-sharing (vertical, between levels of government). Power-sharing is wider. It also covers organs of government, social groups, and parties and pressure groups.

Prelims Hooks

• Prudential reason = better outcomes (less conflict, stability). Moral reason = the spirit of democracy (right to be consulted, legitimacy). In the NCERT Panchayati Raj passage, fighting corruption and efficiency are prudential; "power in the hands of the people" is moral.
• Mizoram Accord (30 June 1986, MNF) → 53rd Amendment, 1986 → Article 371G → statehood in 1987 [4][5][6].
• Article 371G: an Act of Parliament on Mizo customary law, religious or social practices, or land ownership and transfer applies to Mizoram only if the state Assembly passes a resolution [6].
• Rajiv-Longowal Accord: 24 July 1985, with the Shiromani Akali Dal. It covered Chandigarh, the SYL Canal and a river-water tribunal [2]. Assam Accord: 15 August 1985, with AASU and AAGSP [3][9].
• Article 243D: at least one-third of panchayat seats and chairperson posts are reserved for women. The 50% quota in 21 States and 2 UTs comes from state laws, not from the Constitution [8][10].
• Trap: "Power-sharing delays decision-making", "increases divisiveness" and "undermines unity" are arguments against it. "Reduces conflict", "decreases arbitrariness (rule by whim)", "accommodates diversities" and "promotes participation" are arguments for it (NCERT Exercise 6).

Mains Points

• Accords as statecraft (GS-I/GS-II): the Punjab (1985), Assam (1985) and Mizo (1986) accords show the prudential case.
• The Mizo Accord brought lasting peace because it was written into the Constitution through the 53rd Amendment and Article 371G [5][6].
• Parts of the Punjab and Assam accords (the SYL Canal, Chandigarh, the immigration clauses) are still not fully carried out [2][3].

• Lesson: accords last only when they are implemented in full.

• The moral case through local democracy: the 73rd and 74th Amendments turn "the people as the source of power" into real institutions. Women now hold about 46% of panchayat seats [10].

• Real participation is still limited. States transfer too few funds, functions and functionaries (money, subjects and staff) to local bodies.

• There is also the "sarpanch-pati" problem: a woman holds the post, but her husband actually uses the power.

• Majoritarianism versus accommodation: Sri Lanka's Sinhala Only Act (1956) won short-term majority support but led to the 1983-2009 civil war. Belgium's 1970-1993 reforms kept a divided country together.

• So prudential and moral reasons point the same way.
• The delay and possible divisiveness of power-sharing cost less than the instability of undivided power.
• Federalism, coalition politics, and checks and balances let India manage its diversity without breaking up.

Related concepts

• Prudential reasons for power-sharing
• Moral reasons for power-sharing

Read more

• Why power-sharing: prudential and moral reasons