Social Science (087) — AI-generated practice question

Belgium and Sri Lanka were both multi-ethnic democracies, but their leaders chose opposite approaches to handle ethnic tensions.

Belgium's approach — Accommodation:
Belgian leaders acknowledged regional and cultural differences. They amended their constitution four times (1970–1993) to share power equally. Dutch and French-speaking ministers were given equal representation in the central government; state governments were given independent constitutional powers; Brussels had equal representation for both communities; and a separate "community government" handled cultural and language matters. No community could make decisions unilaterally.

Sri Lanka's approach — Majoritarianism:
Sri Lankan leaders pursued Sinhala dominance. They declared Sinhala the only official language (1956), gave preference to Sinhala applicants in jobs and universities, and promoted Buddhism constitutionally — completely ignoring Tamil interests.

Outcome:
Belgium's power-sharing prevented civic strife and the country remained united. Sri Lanka's majority-rule policy created alienation among Tamils, leading to demands for a separate Tamil Eelam and eventually a brutal civil war that lasted decades.

Key lesson: Majority rule must not become majority community rule. Sharing power strengthens, not weakens, national unity.

Source: Chapter 1 — Power Sharing; Chapter 2 — Federalism; Chapter 5 — Outcomes of Democracy

---

Examiners look for:

• A clear contrast between the two countries' approaches (not just description of each separately).
• Specific facts: equal ministerial representation, constitutional amendments, Sinhala Language Act 1956, preferential policies, civil war.
• The reason why the approach led to its outcome — this is what the question asks for.
• The concept of majoritarianism vs. accommodation should be named or clearly implied.
• Avoid padding; use tight points or short paragraphs as done above.