Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow:
In the city of Beirut, there lived a man called Khalil. His parents came from different communities — his father was an Orthodox Christian and his mother a Sunni Muslim. At the end of the civil war, Lebanon's leaders agreed to some basic rules for power sharing. The country's President must belong to the Maronite sect of Catholic Christians, the Prime Minister must be from the Sunni Muslim community, the post of Deputy Prime Minister is fixed for Orthodox Christians and that of the Speaker for Shi'a Muslims. When the Christians and Muslims came to this agreement, they were nearly equal in population. Both sides have continued to respect this agreement though now the Muslims are in clear majority. Khalil does not like this system. He believes that in a 'normal' democracy, elections should be held freely and whoever wins maximum votes should become the president, regardless of community.
(i) What type of power-sharing arrangement does Lebanon's system represent? (1 mark)
(ii) Why do Khalil's elders, who witnessed the civil war, support the existing power-sharing rules even though the demographic balance has shifted? (1 mark)
(iii) Evaluate Khalil's argument for 'normal' democratic elections versus the existing community-based system. Which approach is more suitable for a deeply divided society like Lebanon, and why? (2 marks)
Generated by claude-sonnet-4-6 · 2026-06-26 13:17 · grounding rag
Model Answer
(i) Lebanon's system represents power sharing among different social groups (communities) — specifically, key government posts are distributed among religious communities (Maronite Christians, Sunni Muslims, Orthodox Christians, Shi'a Muslims).
(ii) Khalil's elders, who witnessed the bloodshed of the civil war, believe the existing arrangement is the best guarantee for peace. They understand that without such safeguards, one community may dominate others, risking a return to violent conflict.
(iii) Khalil's argument favours majoritarian democracy, which can lead to tyranny of the majority in a divided society. In Lebanon, if the Muslim majority (now larger) wins all top posts, minorities may feel excluded, potentially reigniting civil war. The community-based system, though imperfect, ensures every group has a stake in governance, preventing conflict. For deeply divided societies, power sharing is more suitable as it provides stability and accommodates diversity, even if it overrides strict majority rule.
Source: Khalil's dilemma — Chapter 1; Why power sharing is desirable? — Chapter 1
---
Explanation
- (i) Examiners want the specific type of power sharing — among social/religious groups. Avoid vague answers like "federal" or "coalition."
- (ii) The passage directly states elders say it is the "best guarantee for peace" — quote/paraphrase this; don't add outside reasoning.
- (iii) This is a 2-mark evaluative question. You must address both sides briefly, then give a clear verdict with reasoning. Key terms to use: tyranny of majority, social conflict, political stability, power sharing as spirit of democracy. The passage's prudential reason (reducing conflict) is the core justification here.