Belgium shifted from a unitary to a federal system, while Sri Lanka has remained essentially unitary. Using the key difference between these two systems, explain why Tamil leaders in Sri Lanka demanded a federal arrangement rather than simply asking for more government spending in their regions.
Generated by claude-sonnet-4-6 · 2026-06-26 13:16 · grounding rag
Model Answer
The key difference between a federal and unitary system is that in a federal system, regional governments have constitutionally guaranteed powers that cannot be taken away by the central government. In a unitary system, all powers rest with the central government, and regional units are subordinate to it.
Tamil leaders demanded a federal arrangement because more government spending can be withdrawn at any time by the Sinhala-dominated central government. Only constitutionally protected powers — as in a federation — would give Tamils secure autonomy over language, culture, and regional administration. Without such guarantees, any spending benefit could be reversed through majoritarian decisions.
Source: Chapter 2, "What is Federalism?" and Chapter 1, "Majoritarianism in Sri Lanka"
---
Explanation
- The examiner wants you to apply the federal vs. unitary distinction directly to the Tamil demand — not just define the terms.
- The crucial insight is constitutional guarantee vs. discretionary grant: spending can be reversed; constitutionally entrenched powers cannot.
- Link back to Sri Lanka's context: Sinhala majoritarian policies (1956 language act, job discrimination) showed Tamils that the central government would not protect their interests — making guaranteed autonomy essential, not just funds.
- At 3 marks, you need: (1) define the key difference, (2) explain why spending is insufficient, (3) explain why federal powers are necessary. One clear paragraph or 3 bullet points works.