Concentration of power in one organ leads to tyranny and abuse. Power must be distributed so that each organ checks the others, ensuring a balance of power and protecting citizens' rights.

Source: Power-Sharing, Chapter 1

---

For a 1-mark answer, one clear sentence or two very short sentences suffice. Examiners look for the key idea: checks and balances — that no single organ exercises unlimited power, preventing tyranny. Mentioning "horizontal distribution" or "system of checks and balances" adds precision and can fetch full marks.

After independence in 1948, the Sri Lankan government adopted several majoritarian measures to establish Sinhala supremacy:

• In 1956, an Act was passed recognising Sinhala as the only official language, disregarding Tamil.
• Preferential policies were adopted favouring Sinhala applicants for university admissions and government jobs.
• The constitution directed the state to protect and foster Buddhism.

Consequences for Tamils: These measures increased feelings of alienation among Sri Lankan Tamils. They felt denied equal political rights and discriminated against in jobs and education. This led to demands for Tamil as an official language and regional autonomy. Eventually, by the 1980s, demands for a separate Tamil Eelam arose, leading to a civil war that caused thousands of deaths, displacement of families, and severe setback to the country's social and economic life.

Source: Power Sharing, Chapter 1

---

This is a standard 3-mark question combining cause (government policies) and effect (consequences). Examiners expect:

1. At least 2–3 specific majoritarian measures (1956 Act, job preferences, Buddhism clause).
2. Clear consequences — alienation, civil war, refugees.

Avoid writing vague statements like "they were treated badly." Use textbook terms: alienation, civil war, Tamil Eelam.

The French-speaking minority was relatively rich and powerful, while the Dutch-speaking majority received the benefits of economic development and education much later, causing deep resentment.

Source: Power Sharing, Belgium and Sri Lanka

The examiner wants the specific reason from the passage — economic and educational backwardness of the Dutch-speaking community despite being the majority. Avoid vague answers like "they were ignored"; use the textbook's exact reasoning: the French minority was richer and more powerful, and the Dutch majority got economic/educational benefits much later.

Majoritarianism is the belief that the majority community should be able to rule a country in whichever way it wants, disregarding the wishes and needs of the minority.

The Sri Lankan government adopted several majoritarian measures after independence:

• In 1956, an Act was passed recognising Sinhala as the only official language, disregarding Tamil.
• Preferential policies favoured Sinhala applicants for university positions and government jobs.
• A new constitution stated that the state shall protect and foster Buddhism.

These measures alienated Sri Lankan Tamils, who felt denied equal political rights and opportunities, ultimately leading to civil war.

Source: Power Sharing, Chapter 1

---

• 1 mark for defining majoritarianism — keep it one line using the textbook definition.
• 2 marks for the three specific policies — examiners expect all three (language act, job/university preference, Buddhism). Missing any one costs marks.
• Avoid vague statements like "Tamils were treated badly." Be specific and policy-focused.
• The consequence (alienation/civil war) adds completeness but is not the main ask — mention briefly.

Answer: B

Government policies — like making Sinhala the only official language — denied Sri Lankan Tamils equal political rights, discriminated against them in jobs and education, and ignored their language and culture.

Source: Majoritarianism in Sri Lanka, Chapter 1

---

The question tests understanding of the cause of Tamil political struggles. The passage clearly states Tamils felt the constitution and government policies denied them equal rights, discriminated in jobs/education, and ignored their interests. Option B matches this directly. Avoid A (they wanted regional autonomy, not merger with Tamil Nadu), C (it was Sinhalese who resented others, not Tamils), and D (religion is not mentioned as a cause of discrimination in the passage).

In Belgium, apart from the central and state governments, a community government was created for cultural, educational, and language-related matters. This government is elected by people belonging to a particular language community — regardless of where they live in the country — rather than being based on territorial boundaries.

Purpose: To give each linguistic community control over issues directly affecting their culture and education, preventing any single community from imposing its will on others.

Groups served: It served the Dutch-speaking, French-speaking, and German-speaking communities of Belgium.

This arrangement helped avoid civic strife between communities and prevented the possible division of the country on linguistic lines.

Source: Accommodation in Belgium, Chapter 1

---

• The examiner wants three things: what the community government is, why it was created (purpose), and which groups it served — matching the 3 marks.
• Key phrase to use: "not based on territory but on community membership" — mirrors the question's own language, showing you've understood it.
• Don't confuse "community government" with state/regional governments — this is a third tier unique to Belgium.
• Mentioning the outcome (avoiding civic strife) adds value and shows understanding of context.

Prudential reason: Power sharing reduces the possibility of conflict between social groups, preventing violence and political instability. Imposing the majority's will may seem attractive in the short run, but undermines national unity in the long run. So power sharing leads to better outcomes.

Moral reason: Power sharing reflects the very spirit of democracy. People have a right to be consulted on how they are governed. A legitimate government requires citizens to participate and acquire a stake in the system. So power sharing is valuable in itself, not just for its results.

Key difference: Prudential reasons focus on consequences (stability, avoiding conflict), while moral reasons focus on the intrinsic value of sharing power as a democratic principle.

Source: "Why power sharing is desirable?", Chapter 1 — Power Sharing

---

• Examiners expect students to clearly name and define both terms — prudential (based on careful calculation of gains/losses) and moral (based on principle/right).
• The textbook explicitly states: "prudential reasons stress that power sharing will bring out better outcomes, moral reasons emphasise the very act of power sharing as valuable." Use this line or paraphrase it.
• Always end with a crisp contrast sentence — that's what earns the third mark in a 3-mark answer.

If the majority community imposes its will on minorities, it undermines democracy, fuels alienation and conflict, and can threaten the unity and integrity of the nation, as seen in Sri Lanka.

Source: Accommodation of social diversity, Chapter 5

The examiner wants the Sri Lanka example or the principle that majoritarian domination makes democracy non-accommodative for minorities, eventually causing social conflict and national disintegration. One crisp sentence covering the harm is enough for 1 mark.

Purpose of the arrangement: Lebanon's post-civil-war power-sharing pact assigned the top positions — President (Maronite Christian), Prime Minister (Sunni Muslim), Deputy Prime Minister (Orthodox Christian), and Speaker (Shi'a Muslim) — to specific communities to ensure every major group had a guaranteed share of power, preventing any single community from dominating and thus maintaining peace.

Why Muslims supported it despite being a majority: Muslim leaders accepted the pact because they had witnessed the devastating civil war and valued peace and stability over numerical advantage. Under the agreement, Muslims also gained a key concession — Christians agreed not to seek French protection — which was important to them. Maintaining the pact was seen as the surest guarantee against renewed sectarian bloodshed.

Source: Khalil's dilemma, Chapter 1

---

• The examiner expects two distinct parts: (1) purpose of power-sharing, and (2) why Muslims accepted it despite being a majority.
• Key points to mention: guaranteed representation, prevention of dominance, lessons from civil war, and the mutual concessions (Christians drop French protection; Muslims drop demand for union with Syria).
• Avoid just listing posts — briefly explain why the arrangement existed.
• The word "peace" / "civil war experience" is essential for the second part; without it, you lose a mark.

Horizontal distribution of power means dividing power among different organs of government — the legislature, executive, and judiciary — placed at the same level. Each organ exercises different powers and operates independently.

It prevents any single organ from becoming all-powerful through a system of checks and balances:

• The legislature makes laws, but the judiciary can strike them down if unconstitutional.
• Ministers exercise executive power but are responsible to Parliament.
• Judges are appointed by the executive, yet can check executive functioning.

Thus, each organ controls the others, ensuring a balance of power.

Source: Power Sharing, Chapter 1, Forms of power-sharing

---

• Examiners expect the definition of horizontal distribution (same-level organs) + at least two examples of checks and balances.
• The phrase "checks and balances" is a textbook term — use it.
• Don't confuse horizontal (legislature/executive/judiciary) with vertical (central/state/local levels).
• For 3 marks: one point for definition, two points for how checks and balances work.

(B) Power is divided among governments at different levels — central, state, and local.

The textbook explicitly defines vertical division of power as division "involving higher and lower levels of government" (Central, State, local) — i.e., federalism. Horizontal division refers to legislature/executive/judiciary at the same level. Options C and D describe power-sharing among political parties and social groups respectively — different forms altogether.

A coalition government is formed when two or more political parties come together to jointly run the government, usually because no single party wins a clear majority on its own.

For example, in Germany's 2005 elections, neither the Christian Democratic Union nor the Social Democratic Party won a majority, so they formed a coalition and shared governmental power despite being historical rivals.

Source: Forms of power-sharing, Chapter 1

• Examiners expect: (1) a clear definition of coalition government, and (2) how it represents power-sharing among parties — so give both in roughly 2 sentences.
• The Germany example is directly from the textbook and is the safest illustration to use.
• Key phrase to include: "no single party wins a clear majority" — this is the standard trigger for coalition formation.
• Avoid over-explaining; 2 marks = definition + example/link to power-sharing.

Power-sharing among religious and linguistic minorities is necessary in a democracy because:

1. It gives diverse social groups a fair share in government, preventing them from feeling alienated.
2. It ensures rule by majority does not become permanent domination by one community based on religion or language, which would undermine democracy.

Every citizen must have a chance of being in the majority at some point; barring any group on the basis of birth makes democratic rule non-accommodative for that group.

Source: Democratic Politics II, Chapter 1 (Forms of Power-Sharing) and Chapter 5 (Accommodation of Social Diversity)

---

• Key examiner expectation: Two clear reasons are needed for 2 marks. State the "alienation" point (from Chapter 1) and the "majority vs. minority community" point (from Chapter 5).
• Avoid writing about horizontal/vertical power-sharing — those are different forms; the question is specifically about social groups.
• The word "alienated" from the textbook is a scoring keyword — use it.
• Keep it within ~50 words for the answer body; don't over-explain.

Two forms of power-sharing found in modern democracies are:

1. Horizontal distribution — power shared among different organs of government (legislature, executive, judiciary).
2. Vertical distribution — power shared among governments at different levels (federal, state, local).

This is a 1-mark question, so one crisp line or two very brief points suffice. Examiners accept any two of the four forms: horizontal (organs of government), vertical/federal (different levels), sharing among social groups (community government), or sharing among political parties (coalition). Name the form and briefly identify who shares power. Avoid long explanations.