CBSE Class 10 · Power-sharing

Why Power-sharing Is Desirable Class 10: Prudential and Moral Reasons

Updated 14 October 2026 · Fact-checked

Power-sharing is desirable for two sets of reasons. Prudential reasons: it reduces conflict between social groups, so it ensures political stability, while imposing majority will undermines national unity in the long run. Moral reasons: it is the very spirit of democracy, because people affected by power have a right to be consulted, which makes government legitimate.

Notice the two paths: prudential reasons give stability by cutting conflict, while moral reasons make government legitimate as the spirit of democracy.

Illustration drawn for QuestionBuddy.

Understand Why Power-sharing Is Desirable

The old idea it replaced. For a long time it was believed that all power of a government must rest in one person or group in one place, because dispersed power would make quick decisions and their enforcement impossible. This notion changed with democracy. A basic principle of democracy is that people are the source of all political power: they rule themselves through institutions of self-government, diverse groups and views get due respect, and everyone has a voice in shaping policy. So political power should be distributed among as many citizens as possible.

Two sets of reasons for power-sharing.

1. Prudential reasons (better outcomes).

Power-sharing reduces the possibility of conflict between social groups.
Social conflict often leads to violence and political instability, so sharing power is a good way to ensure the stability of political order.
Imposing the will of the majority may look attractive in the short run, but in the long run it undermines the unity of the nation (as in Sri Lanka).
Tyranny of the majority is oppressive for the minority and often harms the majority too.
'Prudential' means based on prudence, a careful calculation of gains and losses, as opposed to purely moral considerations.

2. Moral reasons (the act itself is valuable).

Power-sharing is the very spirit of democracy.
Democratic rule involves sharing power with those affected by its exercise and who have to live with its effects.
People have a right to be consulted on how they are governed.
A legitimate government is one where citizens, through participation, acquire a stake in the system.

The key difference. Prudential reasons stress that power-sharing brings better outcomes; moral reasons emphasise that the act of sharing power is valuable in itself.

Examples from the chapter.

Belgium shared power and avoided civic strife and a possible split: a prudential gain.
Sri Lanka refused to share power and its majoritarian measures led to civil war: the cost of ignoring prudence.
Germany's grand coalition (cartoon): the two historic rivals, the Christian Democratic Union and the Social Democratic Party, had to govern together because neither won a clear majority in the 2005 elections.
Khalil's dilemma (Lebanon): after a bitter civil war, Lebanon's leaders fixed top posts by community: the President must be a Maronite Catholic Christian, the Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim, the Deputy Prime Minister an Orthodox Christian, and the Speaker a Shi'a Muslim. Christians agreed not to seek French protection and Muslims not to seek unification with Syria. Khalil, who has political ambitions but belongs to neither community by practice, wants a 'normal' open election; his elders, who saw the bloodshed, say the pact is the best guarantee of peace. The story shows the tension between prudential stability and open competition.

Exam link. This idea leads straight into the forms of power-sharing (horizontal, vertical, among social groups, among parties and pressure groups) on the next topic page.

Why Power-sharing Is Desirable: key facts

Prudential reasons: 1.Reduce conflict between social groups
2.avoid violence and instability
3.stable political order; Also: majority tyranny undermines unity and harms the majority too. Stress better outcomes.
Moral reasons: Very spirit of democracy; those affected have a right to be consulted; legitimate government gives citizens a stake through participation; Stress the value of the act itself.
Prudential (definition): Based on careful calculation of gains and losses; Contrasted with purely moral decisions.
Democratic principle: People are the source of all political power; power distributed among as many citizens as possible; Replaced the idea of undivided power.
Lebanon's pact: President: Maronite Catholic; PM: Sunni Muslim; Deputy PM: Orthodox Christian; Speaker: Shi'a Muslim; Khalil's dilemma.

How to answer Why Power-sharing Is Desirable questions

Expect MCQs and assertion-reason on prudential vs moral, 2- and 3-mark 'why is power-sharing desirable' answers, 5-mark answers with examples, and case passages such as Khalil's dilemma.

1Name both sets of reasons, prudential and moral, and define each in one line.
2Give two points under prudential: reduces conflict and instability; majority tyranny harms unity.
3Give two points under moral: spirit of democracy; right to be consulted and legitimacy.
4Add one example: Belgium (shared power, stayed united) or Sri Lanka (refused, civil war).
5For 'which reason is this', check whether the statement talks about outcomes (prudential) or rights and values (moral).

Why Power-sharing Is Desirable in real life

The idea, met in an everyday situation. Answer the question in your own words, then compare with the model answer. The one-line hook is what to remember.

Prudential versus moral reasons

Suppose a housing society plans to change its parking rules. One member says, 'Let us include tenants in the decision, or they will keep fighting with owners.' Another says, 'Tenants must be included because they too live here and will bear the effects.'

Identify which member gives a prudential reason and which gives a moral reason.

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution

Prudential: focuses on outcomes, such as avoiding conflict.
Moral: focuses on the right of those affected to be consulted.
Match each statement.

Answer: The first member gives a prudential reason: including tenants avoids conflict and keeps peace, a better outcome. The second gives a moral reason: tenants live with the effects of the rules, so they have a right to be consulted. In democracy, both reasons support power-sharing.

Memory hook: Prudential asks 'what works?'; moral asks 'what is right?'

Tricks to remember Why Power-sharing Is Desirable

Short memory aids. Say each one aloud once, then use it on a question the same day.

P = Peace, M = Meaning
Prudential brings Peace (fewer conflicts, stability); Moral gives Meaning (spirit of democracy, legitimacy).
Use it when: Sorting reasons in MCQs.
Short run vs long run
Majority rule tempts in the short run, breaks unity in the long run.
Use it when: Prudential answers.
Affected = consulted
Those who live with the effects must have a say.
Use it when: Moral answers.

Why Power-sharing Is Desirable: solved examples

Ordered from board level to HOTS. Try each one before you open the solution.

Example 1: Identify the reason · 1 mark · MCQBoard level

'Power-sharing helps to reduce the possibility of conflict between social groups.' This is a:
(a) moral reason
(b) prudential reason
(c) legal reason
(d) historical reason

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution

It stresses a better outcome (less conflict), so it is prudential (1 mark).

Answer: (b) prudential reason

Example 2: Two reasons (2 marks) · 2 marks · Very short answerBoard level

Give one prudential and one moral reason for power-sharing. (2 marks)

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution

Prudential: it reduces conflict between social groups, which ensures stability of political order (1 mark).
Moral: it is the very spirit of democracy; people affected by power have a right to be consulted (1 mark).

Answer: Prudential: power-sharing reduces conflict between social groups and so keeps the political order stable. Moral: it is the spirit of democracy, as people affected by decisions have a right to be consulted.

Example 3: Assertion-reason: tyranny of the majority · 1 mark · Assertion-reasonHOTS / competency

Assertion (A): Imposing the will of the majority may look attractive in the short run.
Reason (R): Tyranny of the majority is oppressive for the minority and often affects the majority adversely as well.
(a) Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A.
(b) Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A.
(c) A is true, but R is false.
(d) A is false, but R is true.

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution

Both are true, but R explains why majority rule fails in the long run, not why it looks attractive in the short run (1 mark).

Answer: (b) Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A.

Example 4: Prudential vs moral (3 marks) · 3 marks · Short answerHarder board level

Distinguish between prudential and moral reasons for power-sharing. (3 marks)

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution

Prudential reasons are based on careful calculation of gains and losses; they stress that power-sharing brings better outcomes (1 mark).
Example: it reduces conflict and violence and ensures political stability; majority tyranny undermines unity (1 mark).
Moral reasons treat the act of sharing power as valuable in itself: it is the spirit of democracy, and those affected have a right to be consulted, giving legitimacy (1 mark).

Answer: Prudential reasons rest on a careful calculation of gains and losses and stress better outcomes: sharing power reduces conflict, violence and instability, while majority tyranny weakens unity. Moral reasons value the act of sharing itself: it is the spirit of democracy, people affected by decisions have a right to be consulted, and their participation makes government legitimate.

Example 5: Case: Khalil's dilemma · 4 marks · Case-basedHOTS / competency

Read the case and answer the questions.

NCERT tells the story of Khalil of Beirut, whose father was an Orthodox Christian and mother a Sunni Muslim. After Lebanon's civil war, its leaders fixed the top posts by community: the President must be a Maronite Catholic, the Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim, the Deputy Prime Minister an Orthodox Christian and the Speaker a Shi'a Muslim. Khalil, who follows neither parent's religion and has political ambitions, asks why Lebanon cannot simply hold open elections where anyone can win. His elders reply that the present system is the best guarantee for peace.

(i) Which community must the President of Lebanon belong to under this pact? (1)
(ii) What did the Muslims agree not to seek under the pact? (1)
(iii) Which reason for power-sharing do the elders rely on, and what is one limitation of the system that Khalil points to? (2)

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution

(i) The Maronite sect of Catholic Christians (1 mark).
(ii) Unification with the neighbouring state of Syria (1 mark).
(iii) The elders use a prudential reason: fixed sharing among communities prevents a return to civil war and keeps stability (1 mark).
(iii) Limitation: it shuts out able people who do not wish to be identified by a community, such as Khalil, from the top posts, limiting open competition (1 mark).

Answer: (i) The Maronite sect of Catholic Christians. (ii) Unification with Syria. (iii) The elders rely on a prudential reason: guaranteed shares for each community have kept peace after the civil war. Khalil points to a limitation: people who do not want to be identified by a community, like him, are shut out of the top posts, so open political competition is restricted.

Example 6: Why power-sharing (5 marks) · 5 marks · Long answerHarder board level

'Power-sharing is desirable in a democracy.' Justify the statement with prudential and moral reasons and examples from the chapter. (5 marks)

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution

In democracy people are the source of all power; so power should be distributed among as many citizens as possible (1 mark).
Prudential: power-sharing reduces conflict between social groups, avoiding violence and instability (1 mark).
Prudential: majority tyranny undermines national unity in the long run and harms the majority too, as in Sri Lanka's civil war; Belgium's sharing avoided strife (1 mark).
Moral: it is the very spirit of democracy; those affected by power and who live with its effects should share it (1 mark).
Moral: people have a right to be consulted; legitimate government gives citizens a stake through participation (1 mark).

Answer: Democracy rests on the principle that people are the source of all political power, so power should be spread among as many citizens as possible. Prudentially, sharing power reduces conflict between social groups, which otherwise leads to violence and instability. Imposing the majority's will may seem attractive at first but undermines unity later and harms the majority too: Sri Lanka's majoritarian measures led to civil war, while Belgium's power-sharing kept the country united. Morally, power-sharing is the spirit of democracy: those affected by decisions, who must live with their effects, have a right to be consulted. A government becomes legitimate when citizens, through participation, gain a stake in the system.

Where students lose marks in Why Power-sharing Is Desirable

The slips examiners see most often, and what to write instead.

Mistake: Swapping prudential and moral
Both sound like good reasons.
Wrong working
Reducing conflict is a moral reason.
Right working
Reducing conflict is prudential (outcome); right to be consulted is moral (value).
Do this: Outcome = prudential; value = moral.
Usually costs: 1 mark.
Mistake: Giving only one set of reasons
Questions on 'why desirable' expect both.
Wrong working
Power-sharing reduces conflict.
Right working
Add a moral reason: spirit of democracy, legitimacy.
Do this: Always two sets.
Usually costs: 1-2 marks.
Mistake: No example
Answers stay abstract.
Wrong working
Majority rule causes problems.
Right working
Sri Lanka's majoritarianism led to civil war; Belgium's sharing kept unity.
Do this: Add one country example.
Usually costs: 1 mark in 5-mark answers.
Mistake: Getting Lebanon's posts wrong
Four communities.
Wrong working
The President must be a Sunni Muslim.
Right working
President Maronite Catholic; PM Sunni Muslim.
Do this: Learn the four posts.
Usually costs: 1 mark in case questions.

Exam tips

Label your points 'Prudential:' and 'Moral:' in answers; examiners can tick them easily.
Use 'tyranny of the majority' and 'legitimate government' as key phrases.
Use Belgium and Sri Lanka as ready examples for prudential reasons.
Political Science word limits: 40 (2 marks), 60 (3 marks), 120 (5 marks).

Practice questions on Why Power-sharing Is Desirable

Write each answer on paper first. Open the hint only if you are stuck, and the answer only when you have finished.

Q1 · 1 mark · MCQBoard level
'A legitimate government is one where citizens, through participation, acquire a stake in the system.' This supports power-sharing on:
(a) prudential grounds
(b) moral grounds
(c) economic grounds
(d) military grounds
Hint
Rights and values, not outcomes.
Answer
(b) moral grounds
Q2 · 2 marks · Very short answerBoard level
What does the word 'prudential' mean in the context of power-sharing? (2 marks)
Hint
Gains and losses.
Answer
Prudential means based on prudence, a careful calculation of gains and losses. Prudential reasons for power-sharing stress that it brings better outcomes, such as less conflict and more stability.
Q3 · 3 marks · Short answerHarder board level
Why was it believed in the past that power should not be divided, and how did democracy change this belief? (3 marks)
Hint
Quick decisions; people as source of power.
Answer
It was believed that all power must rest with one person or group in one place, since dispersing it would make quick decisions and their enforcement impossible. Democracy changed this: people are the source of all power, they govern themselves through institutions, all groups deserve respect and a voice, so power should be distributed among as many citizens as possible.
Q4 · 3 marks · Short answerHOTS / competency
Suppose a country's majority community argues, 'Sharing power will only weaken our nation.' Using the chapter, explain why this view may harm both the minority and the majority. (3 marks)
Hint
Tyranny of the majority; Sri Lanka.
Answer
Refusing to share power creates tyranny of the majority, which oppresses minorities and leads to social conflict, violence and instability. Sri Lanka's majoritarian measures alienated Tamils and caused a civil war that killed people of both communities and damaged the economy. So the majority also suffers, and national unity is undermined.
Q5 · 1 mark · Assertion-reasonHarder board level
Assertion (A): Power-sharing is the very spirit of democracy.
Reason (R): People have a right to be consulted on how they are to be governed.
(a) Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A.
(b) Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A.
(c) A is true, but R is false.
(d) A is false, but R is true.
Hint
Moral reason.
Answer
(a) Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A.
Q6 · 2 marks · Very short answerHOTS / competency
In Germany's grand coalition shown in the chapter's cartoon, why did two historically rival parties share power? What does this show? (2 marks)
Hint
2005 elections.
Answer
Neither the Christian Democratic Union nor the Social Democratic Party won a clear majority in the 2005 elections, so they formed a coalition. It shows power can be shared among rival parties, even with divergent policies.
Q7 · 5 marks · Long answerHOTS / competency
Evaluate whether Lebanon's community-based power-sharing pact is a good model. Give arguments on both sides. (5 marks)
Hint
Peace after civil war vs Khalil's objections.
Answer
In favour: Lebanon had a bitter civil war; the pact fixing top posts by community (Maronite President, Sunni Prime Minister, Orthodox Deputy PM, Shi'a Speaker) gave every major group a guaranteed share, and Christians and Muslims gave up seeking French protection and unification with Syria. Both sides have respected it, and elders call it the best guarantee for peace, a strong prudential reason. Against: it locks posts by community even though populations have changed (Muslims are now a clear majority), and it shuts out people like Khalil who do not wish to be known by a community, limiting open elections where anyone can win. A balanced view: it buys stability but may need reform as society changes.

Test your recall

Answer in your head or on paper first, then open the card. Pulling an answer out of memory makes it stick far better than re-reading.

1.What are the two sets of reasons for power-sharing?Show answer
Prudential and moral.
2.Who is the source of all political power in democracy?Show answer
The people.
3.Which two German parties formed the grand coalition?Show answer
The Christian Democratic Union and the Social Democratic Party.
4.Which community must Lebanon's Prime Minister belong to?Show answer
The Sunni Muslim community.
5.What does tyranny of the majority do?Show answer
Oppresses the minority and often harms the majority too.

Why Power-sharing Is Desirable: frequently asked questions

Why is power-sharing desirable in Class 10 Civics?

For prudential reasons (it reduces conflict and ensures stability) and moral reasons (it is the spirit of democracy and gives people a right to be consulted).

What is the difference between prudential and moral reasons?

Prudential reasons stress that power-sharing brings better outcomes; moral reasons say the act of sharing power is valuable in itself.

What is Khalil's dilemma?

A story about Lebanon, where top posts are reserved by community for peace; Khalil, who belongs to no community by choice, wants open elections instead.

What is tyranny of the majority?

When the majority imposes its will on others; it oppresses minorities and in the long run undermines national unity.