Question

Compare the Belgian model and the Sri Lankan model of power sharing.

Hint:

Remember the contrast: \[ \boxed{\text{Belgium} \Rightarrow \text{Accommodation and Power Sharing}} \] \[ \boxed{\text{Sri Lanka} \Rightarrow \text{Majoritarianism and Conflict}} \] Use these keywords:

• Belgium -- equality, community government, accommodation.

• Sri Lanka -- Sinhala Only Act, majoritarianism, Tamil alienation.

Answer 1

Step 1: Introduction to power sharing.
Power sharing means distributing political power among different organs of government, levels of government and social groups. It is especially important in countries with social diversity because it prevents domination by one community and promotes peace. Belgium and Sri Lanka provide two contrasting examples of handling ethnic and linguistic diversity.

Step 2: Belgian model of accommodation.
Belgium adopted a policy of accommodation and power sharing. The Belgian leaders recognised the cultural and linguistic differences between Dutch-speaking, French-speaking and German-speaking communities. Instead of imposing the will of the majority, they made constitutional arrangements to give equal representation and respect to different communities.

Step 3: Features of the Belgian model.
In Belgium, the Constitution was amended several times to ensure fair power sharing. The number of Dutch-speaking and French-speaking ministers in the Central Government was kept equal. Many powers were given to regional governments, and a separate Community Government was created to look after cultural, educational and language-related matters. This helped reduce conflict between communities.

Step 4: Sri Lankan model of majoritarianism.
Sri Lanka followed a majoritarian model after independence. The Sinhala-speaking majority used its political power to dominate the Tamil minority. In 1956, Sinhala was declared the only official language, and policies were introduced to give preference to Sinhalese people in government jobs and education. This created resentment among the Tamil population.

Step 5: Consequences of the two models.
The Belgian model promoted unity, peace and cooperation among different communities. It successfully accommodated linguistic diversity and prevented civil conflict. In contrast, the Sri Lankan model created distrust, alienation and conflict. The denial of equal rights to Tamils eventually led to a long civil war.

Step 6: Direct comparison.
\[ \boxed{ \begin{array}{|p{0.42\linewidth}|p{0.42\linewidth}|} \hline \textbf{Belgian Model} & \textbf{Sri Lankan Model} \\ \hline Based on accommodation and power sharing. & Based on majoritarianism. \\ \hline Recognised linguistic diversity. & Favoured Sinhala-speaking majority. \\ \hline Equal representation of Dutch and French speakers in Central Government. & Sinhala declared the only official language. \\ \hline Community Government was created. & Tamil demands were ignored. \\ \hline Led to peace and unity. & Led to ethnic conflict and civil war. \\ \hline \end{array} } \]

Step 7: Final conclusion.
Thus, Belgium chose democratic power sharing and successfully maintained unity, while Sri Lanka adopted majoritarianism, which deepened ethnic conflict. The comparison clearly shows that power sharing is necessary for peace in a diverse society. The Belgian model was based on accommodation, equal representation and community government, whereas the Sri Lankan model followed majoritarianism by favouring the Sinhala majority and ignoring Tamil interests, which led to ethnic conflict.