Social Science (087) — AI-generated practice question

I disagree with the student's argument. Both prudential and moral reasons are equally important for power sharing.

Prudential reasons focus on practical outcomes. In Sri Lanka, the Sinhala-majority government made Sinhala the only official language, denying Tamils equal opportunities in education and jobs. This majority imposition led to prolonged civil conflict, proving that ignoring power sharing causes political instability and violence. Belgium, by contrast, adopted a federal structure and community governments to prevent ethnic conflict — a prudentially sound decision that kept the country united.

Moral reasons state that power sharing is the very spirit of democracy. People have a right to be consulted on how they are governed. In Belgium, French and Dutch communities were given equal representation — not just for stability, but because it was the right thing to do.

Thus, prudential reasons ensure stability, while moral reasons ensure legitimacy and justice. One without the other is incomplete; both are equally necessary.

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

---

• Examiners expect you to disagree with the student and defend both reasons equally.
• Clearly define/contrast prudential (practical benefit) vs moral (democratic right) reasons.
• Use Belgium and Sri Lanka as contrasting examples — Sri Lanka shows the cost of not sharing power; Belgium shows the benefit.
• The textbook explicitly says: "prudential reasons stress better outcomes; moral reasons emphasise the very act of power sharing as valuable" — both matter.
• Don't just list facts; link examples to the type of reason they illustrate.