Why power-sharing: prudential and moral reasons

Detail

1. What power-sharing means

• Power-sharing means spreading political power so that no single person, group or institution holds undivided power. Power is spread among four sets of players:
• organs of government: the legislature, executive and judiciary
• levels of government: the Union, the states and local bodies
• social groups: religious, linguistic and other communities

• political parties and pressure groups: groups that compete for power or try to influence it

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

• The democratic answer: the people are the source of all political power. They rule themselves through self-governing institutions.

• Diverse groups and views deserve respect, and everyone should have a voice.

• So power should be spread among as many citizens as possible.

• The two cases in this chapter:

• Sri Lanka chose majoritarianism (the belief that the majority community should rule the country in whatever way it wants and ignore the wishes of minorities). The Sinhala Only Act, 1956 made Sinhala the only official language. Tamils felt shut out, and this led to the civil war (1983-2009).
• Belgium chose accommodation (making room for all communities in power). Its constitutional reforms of 1970-1993 shared power between Dutch- and French-speaking communities, and the country stayed united.

2. Prudential reasons

• Prudential reasons are reasons based on a careful calculation of gains and losses. Power-sharing is good because it gives better results.
• It lowers conflict:
• Social groups get a share in power → there is less chance of conflict between them.
• Less conflict → less violence and political instability.

• So power-sharing is a way to keep the political order stable.

• Majority rule by force is a short-term gain:

• Imposing the majority's will on others may look attractive in the short run.
• In the long run it undermines the unity of the nation. Sri Lanka after 1956 is the example.

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

• Indian examples (Exercise 2): in each case, accommodation ended violent conflict.

Accord	Date	Parties	Main terms
Punjab Accord (Rajiv-Longowal Accord)	24 July 1985	PM Rajiv Gandhi and Sant Harchand Singh Longowal, President, Shiromani Akali Dal	Transfer of Chandigarh to Punjab; building the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal; the Punjab-Haryana river-water dispute to be sent to a tribunal [2]
Assam Accord	15 August 1985	Central government, Assam government, All Assam Students' Union (AASU) and All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP)	A tripartite (three-party) agreement on illegal immigration, mostly from Bangladesh; promised to protect the cultural, social and linguistic identity of the Assamese people [3][9]
Mizoram Accord (Memorandum of Settlement)	30 June 1986, New Delhi	Government of India, Government of Mizoram and the Mizo National Front (MNF)	Ended more than two decades of unrest; statehood for the Union Territory of Mizoram [4][5]

• What followed the Mizo Accord:
• The State of Mizoram Act, 1986 created the State of Mizoram out of the old Union Territory of Mizoram [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 on these four matters applies to Mizoram unless the Mizoram Legislative Assembly decides so by 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

• This shows accommodation written into the Constitution. A group's identity is protected, so it has no reason to fight the state.

• Linguistic states: redrawing state borders by language calmed language agitations and made the country more united, not less.

3. Moral reasons

• Moral reasons treat power-sharing as the very spirit of democracy. Sharing power is valuable in itself, whatever the results.
• Three ideas:
• Right to be consulted: people who are affected by power have a right to be asked about how they are governed.
• Legitimacy: a legitimate government (one that people accept as rightful) is one where citizens get a stake in the system by taking part in it.

• Participation: democracy means rule by the people, so power must reach them.

• The difference between the two:

	Prudential reasons	Moral reasons
Basis	Calculation of 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?"
Indian example	Punjab, Assam and Mizo accords; linguistic states	73rd and 74th Amendments (1992); gram sabhas; women's quotas

• Indian example: the 73rd and 74th Amendments (1992):
• The 73rd Amendment created Panchayati Raj Institutions (rural local bodies). The 74th Amendment created urban local bodies (municipalities).
• The Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992 came into force on 24 April 1993 [8].
• 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 the chairperson posts at all three tiers [8].
• Gram sabha (the meeting of all voters of a village) lets citizens take part directly. The Government encourages women to join gram sabha meetings that prepare Gram Panchayat Development Plans [8].

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

• Exercise 5 (NCERT passage on Panchayati Raj):

• Prudential reasons: a drive against corruption and better administrative efficiency.
• Moral reason: it "restores power to the only place where power belongs in a democracy… in the hands of the people".

4. Arguments against power-sharing, and exercise answers

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

• It may undermine the unity of the country 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.

• Exercise 6: the statements in favour of power-sharing are:
• A: it reduces conflict among social groups
• B: it decreases the possibility of arbitrariness (rule by whim)
• D: it accommodates diversities
• F: it promotes people's participation

• So the answer is (a). C (delays decisions), E (instability and divisiveness) and G (undermines unity) are arguments against it.

• Exercise 3: Ouseph is right. Every society needs some form of power-sharing, even a small one with few social divisions.

• Thomman is wrong to limit it to societies with religious, linguistic or ethnic divisions.

• Mathayi is wrong to limit it to big countries with regional divisions.

• Exercise 9: both statements are true: "power-sharing is good for democracy" and "it helps to reduce the possibility of conflict between social groups". The answer is (b).

Prelims Hooks

• Prudential reasons = better outcomes (less conflict, stability). Moral reasons = the spirit of democracy (the right to be consulted, legitimacy). A common trap is to swap the two.
• Rajiv-Longowal (Punjab) 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. Signed with AASU and AAGSP on illegal immigration from Bangladesh [3][9].
• Mizoram Accord: 30 June 1986, with the 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].
• Article 243D: at least one-third of panchayat seats and chairperson posts are reserved for women. The 73rd Amendment came into force on 24 April 1993 [8].
• 21 States and 2 UTs give 50% reservation to women in panchayats. That is above the constitutional minimum, not required by the Constitution [10].
• "Power-sharing delays decision-making" is an argument against power-sharing (NCERT Exercise 6).
• Monistic, indivisible sovereignty (Hobbes, Austin) is the theory that power-sharing rejects.

Mains Points

• Accommodation as statecraft (GS-I/GS-II): the Punjab (1985), Assam (1985) and Mizo (1986) accords show the prudential case. The Mizo Accord gave lasting peace because it was written into the Constitution (Article 371G, 53rd Amendment) [5][6]. Parts of the Punjab and Assam accords (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 "people as the source of power" into institutions. Women now hold about 46% of panchayat seats (PIB, 2025) [10]. Still, weak transfer of funds, functions and functionaries (money, subjects and staff) to local bodies, and the "sarpanch-pati" problem (a woman holds the post but her husband actually exercises the power), limit real participation.
• Majoritarianism versus accommodation: Sri Lanka's Sinhala Only Act (1956) bought short-term majority support but led to the civil war of 1983-2009. Belgium's reforms of 1970-1993 kept a divided country together. Use this pair to show that prudential and moral reasons point the same way.
• Answering the critics: 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.