| Part ofa series on |
| Politics |
|---|
_(cropped).svg) |
Government branches |
 Politics portal |
Power sharing is a practice inconflict resolution where multiple groups distribute political, military, or economic power among themselves according to agreed rules.[1] It can refer to any formal framework orinformal pact that regulates the distribution of power between divided communities.[2] Since the end of theCold War, power-sharing systems have become increasingly commonplace innegotiating settlements for armed conflict.[3] Two common theoretical approaches to power sharing areconsociationalism andcentripetalism.
At the state level, "power sharing is intended to hold the existing state together with the active participation and support of its minorities, unlike strategies of genocide, expulsion, partition and control".[4]
Alternatives to power sharing[5] may includecoercive assimilation,assimilationist strategies,integrationist strategies,accommodationist strategies,multiculturalism,consociation, territorialpluralism and straightforwarddecolonisation.
 | This article or sectionappears to contradict itself. Please see thetalk page for more information.(September 2025) |
Broadly, power-sharing agreements contain provisions relating to at least one of the following: Political, economic, military, or territorial control.[1]
Political power-sharing involves rules governing the distribution of political offices and the exercise of decision-making powers. Power may be shared by guaranteeing the inclusion of all significant parties simultaneously in the governingcabinet through rules ongrand coalition formation.[6] Alternatively, it may involve sharing power by guaranteeing sequential access to political office, like a rotating premiership.[2]: 18 Electoral systems can provide power-sharing through politicalproportionality, which better allows for minority groups to remain competitive and win a portion of political power through democratic elections.[7]
Proportionality also informs economic power-sharing, as the distribution of public resources may be instituted respective to the size of communities.[6]: 320 Inneopatrimonial systems, political office may also be closely related to economic opportunity, meaning an equitable distribution of political power overlaps with economic power-sharing.[8] even equitable distribution of political power overlaps with economic power-sharing.[9]
Power-sharing theories make empirical and normative claims about the utility or desirability of power-sharing systems for conflict management individed societies. Two salient power-sharing theories, which stake competing claims, are consociationalism and centripetalism. Empirically, each theory prescribes different systems for power-sharing, such as consociationalism'sproportional voting compared to centripetalism'salternative vote.
Some political scientists argue that power sharing is an effective way to reduce the likelihood of conflict in divided states.[10]
Consociationalism is a form of democratic power sharing.[11]Political scientists define a consociationalstate as one which has major internal divisions along ethnic, religious, or linguistic lines, with none of the divisions large enough to form a majority group, but which remains stable due to consultation among theelites of these groups. Consociational states are often contrasted with states withmajoritarian electoral systems.
Consociational power-sharing in ethnically pluralistic societies consists in a set of measures and rules which distribute decision-making rights in order to guarantee fair and equal participation of the representatives of all main ethnic groups in decision-making; in this way it reassures minorities that their interests will be preserved.[12]
The goals of consociationalism are governmental stability, the survival of the power-sharing arrangements, the survival ofdemocracy, and the avoidance ofviolence. In a consociational state, all groups, including minorities, are represented on the political and economic stages. Supporters of the consociationalism argue that it is a more realistic option in deeply divided societies thanintegrationist approaches toconflict management.[13]
Centripetalism, sometimes called integrationism,[14] is a form of democratic power sharing fordivided societies (usually along ethnic, religious or social lines) which aims to encourage the parties towards moderate and compromising policies and to reinforce the centre of the divided political spectrum. As a theory, centripetalism developed out of the criticism ofconsociationalism byDonald L.Horowitz. Both models aim to provide institutional prescriptions for divided societies. While consociationalism aims to give inclusion and representation to each ethnic group, centripetalism aims to depoliticize ethnicity and to encourage the establishment of multi-ethnic parties.[15] Horizontal power sharing refers to different organs of the state such as legislature, judiciary and executive. It is a democratic system in which power is divided among various bodies such as legislature, executive and judiciary.
Research by Killian Clarke, Anne Meng and Jack Paine, which examined all rebellions that overthrew a government since 1900, found that unified rebellions (with one major group taking power) tended to build lasting governments. Rebel governments formed through a coalition of rebel groups tended to produce short-lived governments, as coalition partners might renege on agreements, leading the country back into civil war.[16]
Examples of power sharing include thePeace of Augsburg, thePeace of Westphalia,[17] and theGood Friday Agreement of 1998 inNorthern Ireland.[18]
Examples of consociational power sharing include the Netherlands (1917–1967),Belgium since 1918, and Lebanonsince 1943.[19]
Examples of centripetal power sharing include Fiji (1999–2006),Northern Ireland (June 1973 – May 1974),Papua New Guinea,Sri Lanka,[15]Indonesia,Kenya andNigeria.[20]
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link){{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help)often termed "integrationism," but is also sometimes referred to as "centripetalism." Though the two terms are often used interchangeably, McGarry et al. (2008, Chapter 2) argue, convincingly, that they are analytically distinct and should be dealt with as such.