|
Bicameral
and Unicameral Compared
Introduction
The constitutional
decision of whether to establish a bicameral (two chamber) or
unicameral (one chamber) system is an important one. Although
there are no simple answers to this question, some generalizations
can be made. While federal systems tend to have bicameral
legislatures, presumably to ensure representation of states or
provinces, smaller countries with unitary governments tend to
establish unicameral legislatures. It is also generally
the case that larger states, with larger populations, tend to
have bicameral systems.
Bicameralism
A bicameral
legislature has two chambers, often classified as the lower and
upper house. The composition of the lower chambers (with
such names as the House of Representatives, House of Commons,
Chamber of Deputies and Federal Assembly) is generally proportionally
based on population whereby each elected member represents a certain
number of citizens. Upper chambers (sometimes called a Senate,
House of Lords or Federal Council) vary considerably in their
composition and in the manner in which their membership is selected.
Some upper chambers represent regional and state divisions, such
as in the United States and Germany, while others, like the United
Kingdom and Canada, are appointed (or hereditary). In general,
upper chambers tend to be the smaller legislative body whose members
serve longer terms than their lower chamber counterparts.
In bicameral
systems, the authority of the two chambers varies widely from
country to country. In most cases, the upper chamber has
more limited authority than the lower chamber. This limitation
on the upper chamber's authority may mean that it only has the
power to delay or to review legislation adopted by the lower chamber,
and/or that it has more limited power in budget and fiscal issues.
On the other hand, there are also bicameral systems, like that
of the United States, in which the two chambers have equal or
offsetting powers and both chambers have equal power to review,
amend and adopt legislation.
The advantages attributed to bicameralism are its ability to:
formally represent a more diverse constituency in a legislative
chamber, whether it be on behalf of the states, provinces or territories,
or a specific (ethnic- or class-based) segment of the population;
facilitate a more deliberative approach to legislation; hinder
the passage of flawed or impulsive legislation; and provide an
opportunity for enhanced control of the executive branch.
Unicameralism
Unicameral
legislatures have one chamber and are frequently found in countries
with unitary -- rather than federal -- governmental systems.
A study conducted of 66 unitary states showed that 54 had unicameral
legislatures and only 12 had bicameral systems. Unicameral
legislatures comprise a single, popularly-elected chamber.
In 1976 Portugal adopted a new constitution with a unicameral
system; as a country with a population of 10 million Portugal
is today the largest Western democracy without a second chamber.
The advantages
attributed to unicameralism are its ability to: rapidly enact
proposed legislation because there is no need to reconcile divergent
bills produced in different chambers; provide for increased accountability
because elected representatives cannot point to the other chamber
if legislation is not approved and there are fewer elected officials
for the population to monitor, and; be less costly to the government
and tax payers.
Cameral Change
Among
the newly emerging democratic states, several have replaced unicameral
legislatures with bicameral ones. One leading example is
Romania (with a population of 8 million) which, after the fall
of communism in 1989, established a two- chambered institution.
Romanian legislators reported that they favored bicameralism because
they felt that it would prevent the concentration of power in
the executive branch and would improve the quality of legislation.
The 143-member Senate and 328-member Chamber of Deputies have
roughly similar powers and are both elected for four-year terms
through proportional representation. Romanian critics of this
arrangement argue that the chambers are redundant because they
have the same authority and the same electoral base. Those
critics also note that deadlock between the two houses has undermined
the legislature's ability to act as a check on the executive and
has diminished the institution's public credibility.
Kurgyzstan
has also adopted a bicameral system in the post-communist era
and, perhaps in part due to vagueness in the constitutional text
itself, and legislators are still addressing the problem of
resolving differences in legislative texts adopted by the two
chambers.
While
some new states have moved towards bicameralism, other established
legislatures have moved in the opposite direction. Sweden,
a country with a population the size of Romania's, adopted a bicameral
legislature in 1867. In 1971, however, in response to legislative
stalemate and political stagnation, Sweden's political parties
agreed to amend the constitution and provide for a one chamber
legislature. Similarly, in 1950, after 96 years of
a bicameral legislature, New Zealand converted to a unicameral
system because of a consensus that the appointed upper house was
politically and legislatively irrelevant.
Conclusion
In sum,
bicameral legislatures tend to be found in larger and more
heterogeneous countries and unicameral legislatures in relatively
small and homogeneous countries. As some experts have pointed
out, a strong case for bicameralism can be made when an upper
house represents regions such as states or provinces or distinct
ethnic groups in a society that is deeply divided. However,
these experts also emphasize that even in federal and/or divided
countries, bicameralism does not make sense if the two houses
are elected in the same fashion.
Submitted by Susan R. Benda
National Democratic Institute for International Affairs
1717 Massachussetts Avenue, NW Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: 202-328-3136
Fax: 202-265-0168
E-mail: demos@ndi.org
|
