Social Science (087) — AI-generated practice question

No, I do not fully agree with the student's argument.

While Sri Lanka is a democracy, the government's policies were an example of majoritarianism — the belief that the majority community can rule in any way it wishes, disregarding the needs of the minority. The Sri Lankan government recognised only Sinhala as the official language (1956), gave preferential treatment to Sinhala applicants in jobs and universities, and promoted Buddhism through the constitution. These measures alienated the Tamil minority, led to civil war, and caused immense suffering.

Democracy is not simply majority rule. Rule by majority must not become permanent domination based on religion, race, or language. True democracy requires the majority to work with the minority so that every citizen has a chance of being in the majority. Sri Lanka's policies violated this principle, making them undemocratic in spirit.

Source: Chapter 1 (Majoritarianism in Sri Lanka); Chapter 5 (Accommodation of social diversity)

---

• Examiners want you to define majoritarianism, cite the Sri Lankan examples (Sinhala Official Language Act, job preference, Buddhism clause), and explain why this is undemocratic (alienation, civil war, minority rights denied).
• The key conceptual point from Chapter 5 is: majority rule ≠ rule by majority community; every citizen must have a chance to be in the majority. State this explicitly.
• Don't just narrate the Sri Lanka story — you must evaluate it using the concept of majoritarianism. That earns the full 3 marks.