CBSE Class 10 Civics Chapter 1 — Power Sharing: NCERT Notes, Case Studies and Important Questions 2027

Last Updated: April 2026

CBSE BOARDS 2027 | CLASS 10 CIVICS

Understand Power Sharing through Belgium and Sri Lanka — the chapter that sets the tone for CBSE Class 10 Political Science and appears in every board exam

Why is Power Sharing Important?

Power sharing is the practice of distributing power among different groups, institutions, and levels of government rather than concentrating it in a single entity. There are two major reasons for power sharing:

Prudential (Self-Interested) Reason

Power sharing helps reduce the possibility of conflict between social groups. When power is shared, different groups feel included in governance and are less likely to resort to violence or secessionism. The Sri Lanka example demonstrates how NOT sharing power leads to prolonged civil war and massive human and economic costs.

Moral (Value-Based) Reason

Power sharing is the very spirit of democracy. In a democracy, the government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. This means power must be shared with all stakeholders — different communities, groups, and levels of government — as a matter of democratic principle, not just pragmatic calculation. As the NCERT text states: “It is the very spirit of democracy to share power.”

Case Study 1: Belgium — How Accommodation Works

The Belgium Problem

Belgium is a small European country with a complex linguistic composition:

• 59% Dutch-speaking (Flemish) — concentrated in the northern region (Flanders)
• 40% French-speaking (Walloons) — concentrated in the southern region (Wallonia)
• 1% German-speaking — in a small eastern area
• Brussels (capital): About 80% French-speaking, despite being geographically located in the Dutch-majority north — a major source of tension

The tension between Dutch-speaking and French-speaking communities ran deep. The French-speaking community was historically richer and more powerful. The Dutch-speaking community felt discriminated against. Many Belgians feared the country would break apart.

Belgium’s Solution — Constitutional Amendments

Between 1970 and 1993, Belgium made four constitutional amendments to convert the country from a unitary to a federal state. Key features of the Belgian power-sharing model:

1. Equal Cabinet Representation: The central (federal) cabinet has an equal number of Dutch-speaking and French-speaking ministers, regardless of their numerical strength in the parliament. This ensures no single group can dominate the cabinet.
2. Federal Structure: Belgium became a true federal state with regional governments for Flanders, Wallonia, and Brussels having real powers over economic, education, and cultural policies.
3. Community Government: Separate governments were created for Dutch-speaking, French-speaking, and German-speaking communities — not based on territory but on the community a person belongs to. They handle cultural, educational, and language-related matters.
4. Special protection for minorities: Laws that affect linguistic communities (like education policy) require the support of both linguistic groups — neither can be passed by one group alone.

Result: Belgium successfully maintained national unity by accommodating both major linguistic groups. Brussels functions as the capital of Belgium as well as the de facto capital of the European Union — a recognition of Belgium’s success in managing diversity.

Case Study 2: Sri Lanka — The Failure of Majoritarianism

Sri Lanka’s Composition

• 74% Sinhala-speaking (Buddhist majority)
• 18% Tamil-speaking: Split into Sri Lankan Tamils (11% — descendants of ancient settlers) and Indian Tamils (7% — brought by British as tea estate workers)
• 7% others (Christians, Muslims, etc.)

The Path to Majoritarianism

Sri Lanka gained independence from Britain in 1948. The newly democratic state faced a critical choice: how to handle the relationship between the Sinhala majority and Tamil minority. Instead of accommodation, the Sinhala majority used its democratic majority to impose its preferences:

• 1948: Sri Lankan citizenship denied to Indian Tamils, making many stateless
• Sinhala Only Act (1956): Sinhala was made the only official language, overnight displacing Tamil from government jobs, courts, and education. Tamil civil servants lost their jobs; Tamil students were disadvantaged in university admissions
• University quotas: Preferences given to Sinhala students in university admissions, reducing Tamil access to higher education
• Government jobs: Overwhelming preference for Sinhala speakers, systematically excluding Tamils from state employment
• Buddhism as national religion: Laws favouring Buddhist interests at the expense of minority religions

The Civil War

The systematic exclusion of Tamils led to a demand for a separate Tamil state called Eelam in the northern and eastern parts of Sri Lanka. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) launched a military campaign for independence, leading to a brutal civil war that lasted from 1983 to 2009, killing over 80,000 people and displacing hundreds of thousands.

The war ended only after a decisive military victory by the Sri Lankan government in May 2009. The deep social wounds of decades of majoritarianism remain unhealed.

Key lesson: Majoritarianism — the belief that the majority has the right to rule and impose its will on minorities — destroys democracy and national unity. Power sharing is not optional in a diverse democracy; it is essential for survival.

Comparison: Belgium vs Sri Lanka

Forms of Power Sharing

Power sharing can take many forms in a democracy. The NCERT identifies four major forms:

Form 1: Horizontal Power Sharing (Among Organs of Government)

Power is shared among the three organs of government — Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary — at the same level. This is the classic system of separation of powers and checks and balances.

• Legislature makes laws; Executive implements; Judiciary interprets
• Each organ can check the excesses of the other
• Example: India’s Parliament, Cabinet, and Supreme Court; USA’s Congress, President, and Supreme Court

This prevents any single organ from becoming all-powerful and ensures accountability.

Form 2: Federal Power Sharing (Vertical Division — Between Levels of Government)

Power is divided between the central government and state/provincial governments — constitutionally guaranteed. This is federalism.

• In India: Union List (Central govt), State List (State govt), Concurrent List (both)
• In Belgium: Federal government, regional governments (Flanders, Wallonia, Brussels), community governments
• In USA: Federal government and 50 state governments

Federal power sharing gives different territories or regions a share in power — particularly important in large, diverse countries like India.

Form 3: Community/Social Power Sharing (Among Social Groups)

Power is shared among different social groups — linguistic communities, ethnic groups, religious minorities. This type of power sharing ensures that minority groups are not dominated by the majority.

• Reservation of seats in legislature for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and women
• Representation of religious minorities in government bodies
• Belgium’s community governments for each linguistic group
• India’s linguistic states — reorganisation of states on linguistic lines (1956)

Form 4: Political Parties and Pressure Groups Power Sharing

Power is shared through political competition, coalition governments, and the active role of civil society organisations:

• Multiple political parties compete for power — no single party dominates permanently
• Coalition governments — two or more parties share cabinet power
• Pressure groups (trade unions, farmers’ organisations, professional bodies, NGOs) influence policy without being in formal power
• This form ensures that power changes hands periodically and diverse interests are represented

Key Terms — Power Sharing Chapter

• Majoritarianism: The belief that the majority community should rule and can impose its will on minorities — seen as democratic but actually destroys democratic principles of equality and rights
• Civil war: Armed conflict between groups within the same country — as seen in Sri Lanka (1983–2009)
• Federal government: A system where power is constitutionally divided between central and state governments, each sovereign in its own sphere
• Community government: Belgium’s unique form — government elected by people of a particular community regardless of where they live, handling cultural/educational matters
• Autonomy: The right of a region or community to self-governance in specific areas
• Consociationalism: A political system designed to ensure that different communities share power — as in Belgium’s model

Important Board Exam Questions with Model Answers

Q1. What is majoritarianism? How did it lead to conflict in Sri Lanka? (5 marks)

Model Answer: Majoritarianism is the belief or practice where the majority community uses its numerical dominance to rule and impose its language, religion, and culture on minority communities, treating democratic majority as justification for denying minority rights.

In Sri Lanka, the Sinhala majority adopted majoritarian policies after independence in 1948. The Sinhala Only Act of 1956 made Sinhala the sole official language, displacing Tamil from government jobs and courts overnight. Preferences were given to Sinhala students in university admissions and to Sinhala speakers in government employment. Buddhism was given national religion status. These policies systematically marginalised Sri Lankan Tamils who demanded equal rights and later a separate state (Eelam). The LTTE launched an armed insurgency, leading to a civil war from 1983 to 2009 that killed over 80,000 people. Thus, majoritarianism — rather than securing democracy — destroyed it by violating the fundamental principle of equality.

Q2. Describe Belgium’s power-sharing arrangement. How did it help avoid conflict? (5 marks)

Model Answer: Belgium’s power-sharing arrangement is a model of consociational democracy. Belgium has 59% Dutch-speaking, 40% French-speaking, and 1% German-speaking population. To manage this diversity, four constitutional amendments were made between 1970 and 1993. Key features: (1) The central cabinet has equal numbers of Dutch and French-speaking ministers, protecting the French minority despite their lower numbers. (2) Many laws require the consent of both linguistic groups. (3) Regional governments for Flanders, Wallonia, and Brussels have real economic and political powers. (4) Community governments manage cultural and educational matters for each linguistic group regardless of territory. This arrangement gave every group a genuine share in power, removed the fear of domination, and preserved national unity. Belgium today hosts the headquarters of the European Union and NATO — testament to its stability.

Q3. What are the four forms of power sharing? Give one example of each. (4 marks)

Model Answer: (1) Horizontal power sharing — division among three organs: Legislature, Executive, Judiciary (example: India’s Parliament, Cabinet, Supreme Court). (2) Federal power sharing — division between central and state governments (example: India’s Union List and State List). (3) Community/Social power sharing — division among social groups (example: reserved constituencies for SC/ST in India, Belgium’s community governments). (4) Political party/Pressure group power sharing — through coalition governments and civil society (example: NDA coalition government in India, trade union influence on labour policy).

Q4. Compare Belgium and Sri Lanka’s approach to power sharing. (4 marks)

See the comparison table above for a structured answer. Key points: Belgium chose accommodation → civil war avoided → national unity preserved. Sri Lanka chose majoritarianism → Tamil marginalisation → LTTE insurgency → 26-year civil war.

Q5. Why is power sharing desirable in democracies? Give two reasons. (2 marks)

Model Answer: (1) Prudential reason: Power sharing reduces conflict between social groups. When different groups feel represented, they are less likely to resort to violence, making the nation more stable. (2) Moral reason: Power sharing is the very spirit of democracy — government legitimacy comes from citizens’ participation, so power must be shared with all stakeholders as a democratic value, not just for practical benefit.