Power-sharing · Class 10 Political Science: 228 MCQs with answers

59 per cent

59 per cent of Belgians live in the Flemish region and speak Dutch. The distractors are the other three figures that appear in this chapter, attached to the wrong places.

French

Wallonia is the French-speaking region. 'Flemish' names the region in the north, whose people speak Dutch.

80 to 20

Brussels is 80 per cent French-speaking and 20 per cent Dutch-speaking. The 59-to-40 figure is the national picture, and 74-to-18 belongs to Sri Lanka.

the French-speaking minority

It was the minority French-speaking community that was relatively rich and powerful — the opposite of what students usually assume.

France, the Netherlands, Germany and Luxembourg

Belgium borders France, the Netherlands, Germany and Luxembourg — all four in western Europe.

Tamil Nadu

Sri Lanka lies just off the southern coast of Tamil Nadu, which is one reason the Tamil connection between the two countries runs deep.

74 per cent

Sinhala-speakers are 74 per cent. The 18 per cent figure belongs to Tamil-speakers, while 59 and 80 belong to Belgium.

The north and east

They are concentrated in the north and east, which is why a demand for regional autonomy was possible for them.

Buddhism

Most Sinhala-speakers are Buddhists, while most Tamils are Hindus or Muslims.

shared culture and a belief in common descent

Ethnicity rests on shared culture and a belief in common descent arising from similarities of physical type or of culture or both.

two crore

About two crore, which the textbook notes is roughly the population of Haryana. Belgium's is a little over one crore.

The Dutch-speaking share is the largest of the three language groups

Dutch-speakers lead at 59 per cent, followed by French at 40 and German at 1.

—

1948

1948. The 1956 distractor is the year of the language Act, which is the next date in the sequence.

university positions and government jobs

University positions and government jobs — both of them opportunities controlled directly by the state.

protect and foster Buddhism

The constitution placed an obligation on the state to protect and foster Buddhism, which gave one faith a standing the others did not have.

repeatedly denied

It was repeatedly denied, and that repetition is what pushed the demand beyond autonomy altogether.

fighting between rival groups inside one country, at a pitch indistinguishable from war

The defining features are that the conflict is internal, violent, and intense enough to resemble a war.

2009

2009 — only a year or two before most students sitting this paper were born.

—

The existence of regional differences and cultural diversities

Recognising the differences is what distinguishes accommodation from the Sri Lankan approach of legislating a difference away.

Between 1970 and 1993

Between 1970 and 1993 — four amendments spread across twenty-three years, not four in one year.

Cultural, educational and language-related issues

Culture, education and language — precisely the matters on which Sri Lanka's Tamils felt ignored.

That it is very complicated, even for people living in Belgium

An unusually candid admission, and a better answer acknowledges the complexity and explains what it bought rather than hiding it.

Brussels

Brussels — the city that had been Belgium's hardest internal problem became the place where a continent negotiates.

different from any other country and very innovative

It was invented for one specific problem and has no exact copy anywhere else.

—

Two

Two sets, named prudential and moral. They differ in kind, not merely in content.

helps reduce the possibility of conflict between social groups

Reducing the possibility of conflict is the first step of the prudential chain, which ends in the stability of political order.

violence and political instability

This is the middle link of the prudential chain and it is what makes stability the conclusion.

a deeper reason

The moral reason is called the second, deeper reason — an unusual moment of a textbook ranking its own arguments.

the very spirit of democracy

The moral case makes no appeal to stability or cost. It claims that sharing power is what democratic rule already involves.

An entitlement to a say in the terms on which they are governed

The right to be consulted follows directly from having to live with the effects of how one is governed.

—

The notions of undivided political power

The old assumption, held for a very long time, was that a government’s power belonged whole in one pair of hands in one place.

none of the organs can exercise unlimited power

Each organ checks the others, which results in a balance of power among various institutions.

a system of checks and balances

Checks and balances is the name the chapter gives to the balance of power produced by horizontal distribution.

Central or Union Government

The general term is federal government; India calls it the Central or Union Government, and the regional tier the State Governments.

Because the Flemish and Wallonia shares of 59 and 40 already leave only one per cent

59 + 40 = 99, so only 1 per cent remains. The three shares must total 100, which makes the arithmetic a reliable check on memory.

They are a majority in the country as a whole but a minority in the capital

At 59 per cent they lead nationally, but they are only 20 per cent of Brussels. This mismatch is precisely what made Brussels a special problem.

the community that was the country's majority formed only a minority there

The capital reversed the national ratio, so a settlement that worked for the country would not automatically work for Brussels.

smaller in area than Haryana with about half its population

Belgium is smaller in area than Haryana and its population of a little over one crore is roughly half of Haryana's.

18 per cent

Tamil-speakers are 18 per cent in total. The 13 per cent figure covers only the Sri Lankan Tamils, and 7 per cent is the Christian share.

Those whose forefathers came from India as plantation workers in the colonial period

Indian Tamils descend from plantation workers brought from India during colonial rule. The first option describes the Sri Lankan Tamils instead.

Sri Lankan Tamils

13 per cent is the share of Sri Lankan Tamils, the Tamil natives of the country. All Tamil-speakers together come to 18 per cent.

need not always share the same religion or nationality

This is the clause students most often drop. Sri Lanka's Christians, for example, belong to both the Tamil and the Sinhala communities.

an even bigger majority, allowing it to impose its will on the whole country

74 per cent against 59 per cent. That larger margin meant the Sinhala community could act without needing anyone's agreement.

Brussels

Brussels was the sharpest point of tension because the country's numerical majority was a local minority there.

Brussels — French-speaking majority

Brussels is 80 per cent French-speaking. Wallonia is French-speaking and the Flemish region is Dutch-speaking, so the first two are reversed.

A capital city in which Dutch-speakers formed a clear majority

Dutch-speakers were only 20 per cent of Brussels. The other three statements are all accurate.

Because it gives an Indian reader a familiar sense of how small both countries are

The comparison is one of scale. Belgium is smaller in area with about half Haryana's population, and Sri Lanka has roughly the same population as Haryana.

—

—

—

they formed the majority of the country's population

The claim rested on numbers alone — dominance 'by virtue of their majority', not on any argument about competence or agreement.

A belief that the majority community may rule in whichever way it wants, disregarding the minority

Majoritarianism is a belief about entitlement. Deciding by majority vote is ordinary democratic procedure and is not the same thing.

That Sinhala would be the only official language, disregarding Tamil

The word 'only' is the whole point. Recognising Sinhala alongside Tamil would have been a different measure entirely.

Buddhist Sinhala leaders

The complaint covered all the major parties, every one of them led by Buddhist Sinhala leaders — which is why it felt like there was no party to turn to.

Recognition of Tamil as an official language, regional autonomy, and equality of opportunity in education and jobs

Each of the three mirrors a specific measure taken against them, which is why the two lists can be reconstructed from one another.

an independent Tamil Eelam in the northern and eastern parts

The demand had escalated from a share of power within the country to a separate state in the north and east.

Thousands of people of both communities were killed

Both communities buried their dead. Examiners look for that phrase because it carries the argument that majoritarianism harmed the majority too.

families being forced to leave the country as refugees and many more losing their livelihoods

Refugees and lost livelihoods are both named, and the war dealt the country's social, cultural and economic life a severe blow.

It came to power by overthrowing an elected administration

There was no overthrow. The government was elected, which is exactly why the example carries a warning about relying on elections alone.

only

Recognising Sinhala as an official language alongside Tamil would have been unobjectionable. 'Only' is what disregarded Tamil.

It was for a separate state in the northern and eastern parts of the country

Organisations demanding an independent Tamil Eelam in the north and east were formed by the 1980s, not in 1948.

That they were denied the right to vote in national elections

The right to vote is not among the grievances the textbook lists. The three that were: denial of equal political rights, discrimination in jobs and opportunities, and their interests being ignored.

—

—

—

—

Any five points. 1 mark — independence in 1948 and the Sinhala claim to dominance by virtue of their majority. 1 mark — the 1956 Act making Sinhala the only official language, disregarding Tamil. 1 mark — preferential policies for Sinhala applicants to university positions and government jobs. 1 mark — the constitution…

—

Any five points. 1 mark — the measures were adopted by a democratically elected government, with no coup involved. 1 mark — at least one measure correctly stated (1956 language Act, preferential policies, or the constitutional clause on Buddhism). 1 mark — elections settle who holds authority but not how it is used. 1…

—

Any five points. 1 mark — the demand for recognition of Tamil as an official language. 1 mark — that this answers the 1956 Act making Sinhala the only official language. 1 mark — the demand for equality of opportunity in education and jobs, answering the preferential policies. 1 mark — the demand for regional autonomy,…

That Dutch-speaking and French-speaking ministers must be equal in number

Equality is written into the constitution, so the composition of the cabinet does not depend on who won the election.

a majority of members from each linguistic group

Each linguistic group must supply a majority, which is what prevents any single community from deciding unilaterally.

They are not subordinate to the central government

The textbook states plainly that the state governments are not subordinate to the central government, which is the clause students most often drop.

both communities have equal representation in a separate government

Brussels has a separate government with equal representation for both communities, since neither the national nor the local ratio could govern it fairly.

people belonging to one language community, no matter where they live

This is what makes it unusual: it is organised around a people rather than a territory.

Dutch, French and German

Dutch, French and German-speaking — including the community that makes up only one per cent of the country.

open conflict between the two big communities, and a country split along language lines

Two outcomes are named, one social and one territorial: civic strife, and a division of the country along language lines.

That a country stays whole only when the feelings and interests of its communities and regions are respected

This realisation is what produced mutually acceptable arrangements for sharing power, and it is the conclusion the chapter draws from Belgium.

A guarantee that the office of head of government rotates between the communities

Rotation of the head of government is not among the four elements. The other three are.

Three

Three kinds: the central government, the state government, and the community government. Brussels has its own arrangement within that framework.

'no matter where they live'

Without that phrase the community government reads like an ordinary regional body. With it, the government is organised around people rather than territory.

—

—

—

Any five points, of which at least three must be distinct elements of the model. 1 mark — equal Dutch and French-speaking ministers in the central government. 1 mark — special laws requiring a majority from each linguistic group, so no community decides unilaterally. 1 mark — powers devolved to the state governments of…

—

Any five points. 1 mark — the French-speakers accepted equal representation in Brussels because the Dutch-speakers accepted equal representation at the centre. 1 mark — the French-speakers were the large majority in Brussels and gave up that advantage. 1 mark — the Dutch-speakers were the majority of the country and ga…

—

Any five points, of which at least two must concern each country. 1 mark — Sri Lanka's leaders sought dominance for the majority community. 1 mark — any one Sri Lankan majoritarian measure correctly stated. 1 mark — Belgium's leaders recognised regional differences and cultural diversities. 1 mark — the four constituti…

Based on prudence, or on careful calculation of gains and losses

The definition also notes that prudential choices are normally set against choices made on moral grounds alone.

is a good way to ensure the stability of political order

Two of the other options come from the moral argument, a different kind of reason entirely; the third is not a claim the chapter makes.

attractive in the short run but undermining the unity of the nation in the long run

The contrast is between two time horizons: the attraction is real but short-lived, while the damage is slow and lasting.

affects the majority adversely as well

This is the half of the sentence students drop, and it is the half that carries the prudential case.

those affected by its exercise, who have to live with its effects

Being affected by a decision is what grounds the claim to a share in making it — the moral argument in one line.

citizens, through participation, acquire a stake in the system

Legitimacy here is about participation and a stake, which is a different question from whether a government lawfully holds office.

the very act of power sharing as valuable

This is the chapter's own closing statement of the distinction: outcomes against the act itself.

People are entitled to a say in the terms on which they are governed

The other three all appeal to what will happen. Only the right to be consulted appeals to something people are owed regardless of results.

It reduces the possibility of conflict between social groups

Reducing conflict is a claim about consequences. The other three describe what democracy is or what citizens are owed.

A grand coalition government

A grand coalition, formed because neither of the two historically rival parties got a clear majority of seats on its own.

'It reduces the possibility of conflict between social groups' — prudential

Only the conflict-reduction pairing is right. Stability and conflict reduction are prudential; the right to be consulted and the spirit of democracy are moral.

The consequences for political stability

The absence of any appeal to stability, conflict or the unity of the nation is precisely what marks the moral argument off from the prudential one.

—

—

—

Any five points, of which at least two must come from each set. 1 mark — the definition of prudential as based on a careful calculation of gains and losses. 1 mark — power sharing reduces the possibility of conflict between social groups. 1 mark — social conflict leads to violence and instability, so power sharing ensu…

—

Any five points. 1 mark — tyranny of the majority is not just oppressive for the minority but often affects the majority adversely as well. 1 mark — if only the minority were harmed, power sharing would be a concession that could be withdrawn. 1 mark — imposing the majority's will is attractive in the short run and und…

—

Any five points. 1 mark — identifying the reduction of corruption and increase of administrative efficiency as the prudential reason. 1 mark — explaining that it is prudential because it justifies the action by its results. 1 mark — identifying that Panchayati Raj establishes true democracy and restores power to where…

That people are the source of all political power

From this principle it follows that people rule themselves through institutions of self-government, and that power should be distributed among as many citizens as possible.

distributed among as many citizens as possible

The sentence begins with 'therefore', because the conclusion is derived from the principle that people are the source of all political power.

the organs are placed at the same level and exercise different powers

Horizontal refers to the direction of the division. Same level means side by side, as against the vertical division across levels.

Plenty of countries have no provincial or state tier at all

The arrangement is common but not universal, and the chapter says so explicitly.

It clearly lays down the powers of the different levels

Writing the powers down is what distinguishes a federal division from an informal arrangement that could be altered at will.

refused in Sri Lanka

Belgium gave many powers of the centre to its two regional governments; Sri Lanka repeatedly denied autonomy to Tamil-populated provinces.

vertical division of power

Because the levels sit above and below one another, running from the Union government down to a village.

the community government in Belgium

The community government is the chapter's named example of power shared among social groups, which is the third form.

among different social groups

It is a constitutional device to represent social groups, alongside arrangements representing socially weaker sections and women.

I, II and IV

Statements I, II and IV are correct. Statement III is wrong: the tension was most acute in Brussels, not in Wallonia.

A is false but R is true

The resentment ran the other way, so the assertion is false. The reason explains why the Dutch-speakers felt it.

They are drawn from both the Tamil and the Sinhala communities

Christians come from both language communities, so this is the one identity in Sri Lanka that cuts across the language divide rather than reinforcing it.

Language, religion and region largely reinforce one another rather than cutting across

Sinhala-Buddhist and Tamil-Hindu or Muslim identities stack on top of each other, and the Tamils are regionally concentrated. Divisions that reinforce each other are deeper than ones that cross.

Because they share one religion yet belong to both the Tamil and the Sinhala communities

One religion found in two different ethnic groups shows that shared culture, not shared faith, is the defining test.

a messy partition of the country with both sides claiming Brussels

Because Brussels was the French-speakers' stronghold inside the Dutch-speakers' country, any partition would have left both sides claiming the capital.

I, III and IV

I, III and IV are correct. Statement II reverses the position: Sri Lanka's majority is 74 per cent against Belgium's 59 per cent.

Because the size and location of communities shape who can rule without consent

Numbers and geography together determine whether a majority can govern alone and whether a minority can press a regional claim. Neither factor makes conflict inevitable.

Because autonomy is a claim over a territory, which a concentrated community can point to

Regional autonomy needs a region. The concentration of Sri Lankan Tamils in the north and east is what made such a demand available to them.

Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A

Both statements are independently true, but R concerns a different country entirely and cannot explain A. Brussels needed a special arrangement because its language ratio reversed the national one.

The concentrated majority will find it easy to rule without the minority's consent

A large majority can govern alone, as the Sinhala community could at 74 per cent. A scattered minority has no territory on which to base an autonomy claim.

when and why their ancestors came to be in the country

Both groups speak Tamil. What separates them is origin: Sri Lankan Tamils are natives, while Indian Tamils descend from plantation workers brought over during colonial rule.

Because what each majority community was able to do followed directly from its size

A 74 per cent majority can govern alone; a 59 per cent majority facing a rich minority and a reversed capital cannot so easily. The options each community had came straight from the numbers.

—

—

—

Any five points, of which at least two must come from Belgium and two from Sri Lanka. 1 mark — Belgium's shares: 59 per cent Dutch, 40 per cent French, 1 per cent German. 1 mark — Sri Lanka's shares: 74 per cent Sinhala-speakers, 18 per cent Tamil-speakers. 1 mark — the size of the majority determined whether it could…

—

1 mark — the definition, including shared culture and belief in common descent from similarities of physical type or culture or both. 1 mark — the qualifying clause: members need not share the same religion or nationality. 1 mark — the religious pattern: most Sinhala-speakers are Buddhists and most Tamils Hindus or Mus…

—

Any five points. 1 mark — Tamil-speakers total 18 per cent. 1 mark — Sri Lankan Tamils are natives of the country and form 13 per cent. 1 mark — Indian Tamils descend from forefathers who came from India as plantation workers in the colonial period. 1 mark — the 13 per cent figure belongs to Sri Lankan Tamils alone, so…

I, II and III

I, II and III are correct. Statement IV is false: these were the acts of a democratically elected government, which is what makes the case instructive.

Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A

Both are true, but the size of the majority is not the point here; that an elected government passed those measures is.

Because the sequence produced a cumulative alienation no single measure would have

Any one measure could have been argued about separately. Arriving in sequence, they delivered a single message and the alienation grew gradually.

Each demand is the mirror image of a particular loss the measures imposed

Language recognition answers the 1956 Act, autonomy answers the refusal to devolve power, and equal opportunity answers the preferential policies.

That demands escalate when the constitutional route to redress is repeatedly closed

Autonomy is a claim to a share of power within a country; Eelam is a claim to a country. The escalation followed the repeated refusals.

Because the conflict it produces kills its own people and sets the whole country back

Thousands of both communities died and the country suffered a terrible setback to its social, cultural and economic life. The costs did not stop at the community the measures targeted.

Independence, language Act, Eelam demand, end of civil war

Independence in 1948, the language Act in 1956, organisations demanding Eelam by the 1980s, and the war ending in 2009.

Eight years

1948 to 1956 is eight years, so the alienation of the Tamils began very early in the country's life as a free nation.

The excluded community will come to feel alienated and press demands of its own

In Sri Lanka the preferential policies were one of the measures that gradually increased alienation and produced the demand for equality of opportunity.

I, II and III

I, II and III are correct. Statement IV reverses the outcome: the war dealt the country's social, cultural and economic life a severe blow.

Because two similarly divided societies made opposite decisions about sharing power

The pairing is a comparison. It prevents the reader from treating either outcome as the inevitable result of being a divided society.

their launching of parties and struggles for recognition and autonomy

The grievances produced organised political action first. The civil war came much later, after the demand for autonomy had been repeatedly denied.

A government may be properly elected and still forfeit the allegiance of a community it disregards

The government was democratically elected throughout, yet the Tamils concluded that no major party represented them. Election settles authority, not allegiance.

The constitutional clause on Buddhism — equal standing for other faiths

The clause obliging the state to protect and foster Buddhism is what gave one faith a standing the others lacked. The other three pairings are crossed over.

the costs of refusing to share power fell on the majority as well

This is the basis of the prudential argument for power sharing: imposing the will of the majority may look attractive in the short run but undermines the nation, majority included.

the ordinary means of advancing within its own country

Language, employment and religion are the ordinary channels of public life. Closing all three is what produced alienation rather than mere disagreement.

the language Act came only eight years after independence in 1948

Independence in 1948 and the language Act in 1956 leave only eight years, so the alienation of the Tamils began very early.

A share of power within the country, against a separate country of their own

Language recognition, autonomy and equal opportunity are all claims within the state. Tamil Eelam is a claim to leave it.

That a majority refusing to share power can undermine the unity of the country

This is the conclusion the chapter draws explicitly from the contrast with Belgium, where sharing power preserved the country's unity.

—

—

A bill may command an overall majority and still fail to pass

Two separate majorities are needed rather than one overall one, so negotiation has to happen before the vote rather than after it.

Because power held in its own right cannot be taken back unilaterally

Power lent from above can be withdrawn; power held in one's own right cannot. It is the difference between a region being trusted and a region being secure.

Because the Dutch-speaking community accepted equal representation at the centre

It was a reciprocal bargain. Each community accepted parity in an arena where its own numbers would have entitled it to more.

Because each side gave up an advantage it held in exchange for the other doing the same

A concession granted by one side alone tends to be resented and reopened. A trade gives both sides a reason to defend the settlement.

I, III and IV

I, III and IV are correct. Statement II reverses the position: the state governments are not subordinate to the central government.

A is false but R is true

Special laws need a majority from each language group, so the assertion is false. The reason states that requirement.

It serves a language community wherever its members live, rather than a territory

Every other government in the chapter governs a place. This one governs a people, which is why 'no matter where they live' is the phrase to keep.

That the outcome depends on the choice made, not on the fact of diversity

Both countries were deeply divided. One chose accommodation and held together; the other chose dominance and fell into civil war.

Either group imposing its will on the other by weight of numbers alone

This is the Belgian device for special laws. It converts a numerical majority into an obligation to secure the other group's agreement.

State governments not subordinate to the centre — that regions hold power in their own right

Only the pairing of non-subordinate state governments with power held in their own right is correct. The other three attach each element to a consequence belonging to a different element.

I, II and III

I, II and III are correct. Statement IV is false: the German-speaking community elects a community government of its own with power over language-related issues.

Because it makes a claim about evidence to date rather than a promise about the future

A careful qualifier. It reports what has happened rather than guaranteeing what will, which is the appropriate claim to make about any political settlement.

The French community government, because it serves members of its language community

The community government is organised around a language community rather than a territory, so in bilingual Brussels each family is served by its own community's government for culture and education.

built institutions around its divisions instead of trying to override them

Recognising regional differences and cultural diversities, and then designing around them, is the essence of accommodation.

Because the balance between the two communities there was the reverse of the national one

A settlement built on the national ratio would have disadvantaged Brussels's French-speakers, and one built on the city's ratio would have disadvantaged the country's majority.

A system of government that is admittedly very complicated

Complexity was the price, and the textbook says so openly. A strong answer names the cost and explains what it bought.

The constitutional requirement of equal Dutch and French-speaking ministers

Proportional posts are exactly what equality at the centre replaced, and it was the half of the bargain that bought parity in Brussels.

That a settlement both sides have paid into is more durable than a one-sided concession

Each community accepted parity where its numbers entitled it to more, so each had a stake in defending the arrangement.

The guarantee that the devolved governments are not subordinate to the centre

Powers that can be withdrawn at will are lent, not held. Belgium's state governments are explicitly not subordinate to the central government.

—

—

—

Because it turns power sharing from a favour to the minority into everybody's interest

If only the minority were harmed, power sharing would be generosity the strong could withdraw. Because the majority is harmed too, it has a reason of its own to want it.

I, II and III

I, II and III are correct. Statement IV is false: the two differ in kind rather than in strength.

Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A

Because the moral case never rests on outcomes, evidence about outcomes cannot defeat it. R states exactly why A holds.

Both reasons are prudential, so no moral reason has been given

Both appeal to consequences and therefore belong to the same set. This is the commonest way marks are lost on this topic.

Prudential, because it appeals to the results that would follow

Less corruption and more efficiency are outcomes. An appeal to what would follow is prudential regardless of how desirable the outcome is.

Moral, because it claims where power rightly belongs

A claim about where power belongs is a claim about principle, and it holds independently of whether panchayats govern well.

Because they justify power sharing in fundamentally different ways, one by results and one by principle

One argument is answerable to evidence and the other is not, so collapsing them into a single list loses what each is actually claiming.

That arithmetic can compel sharing even between historical rivals

The two parties take divergent positions on several policy matters and still jointly run the government, because neither won a clear majority.

Evidence that sharing power reliably produced instability and conflict

The prudential case rests on consequences, so contrary evidence about consequences would undermine it. The moral case would be untouched.

Authority is settled by winning an election; legitimacy by whether citizens acquire a stake through participation

A government may hold office lawfully and still leave a community with no stake in the system, which is what happened in Sri Lanka.

power is usually thought of as something diminished when divided

The intuition that sharing equals dividing equals weakening is exactly what the chapter sets out to answer, and the answer is that unity preserved is itself a form of strength.

Give those citizens a stake in the system through participation

Authority was properly obtained, but legitimacy on this definition requires that citizens acquire a stake in the system through participation.

Sri Lanka is the evidence for it — the short-run attraction was taken and the long-run damage followed

The measures looked like gains at the time and a civil war followed in which thousands of both communities died, which is the prudential claim demonstrated.

prudential but not moral

Acting on a calculation of gains and losses is the definition of a prudential decision. A moral justification would have to appeal to the value of the act itself.

I, II and IV

I, II and IV are correct. Statement III reverses the chapter's own ranking: it is the moral reason that is called deeper.

By showing that refusing to share harms the majority too, in the long run

Tyranny of the majority often affects the majority adversely as well, so the incentive to share power is the majority's own interest properly calculated.

That power sharing is both useful in its effects and valuable in itself

Prudential reasons stress better outcomes and moral reasons the value of the act itself, so together they support power sharing on two independent grounds.

calculation

A prudential reason rests on a careful calculation of gains and losses. Reducing the definition to 'practical' loses the weighing that the word actually denotes.

—

—

—

That dispersed power would make quick decisions and their enforcement impossible

The old argument was about efficiency rather than about virtue, and a good answer states it fairly before answering it.

The executive being held responsible to the elected legislature

Ministers and government officials exercise power but are responsible to the Parliament or State Assemblies. This is the legislature checking the executive, two organs at the same level.

That judges appointed by the executive can nonetheless check its functioning

The body that appoints the judges can be overruled by them, and judges can also check laws made by the legislatures.

I, II and III

I, II and III are correct. Statement IV is wrong: the judiciary and legislature sit at the same level and so belong to the horizontal distribution.