A bicameral parliament is a system of the legislative branch of the government made up of two complimentary houses that work together to pass laws. This system of parliament ensures that both the citizens and the government are adequately represented in the house and that sufficient consultations are made before any bills are passed into laws. In the case of the United States, the Senate embodies the interests of the state whereas the House of Representatives exemplifies the views of the country population as a whole (Moran 1895).
The modes of qualification into these houses vary from one nation to another whereby the members could be appointed, nominated or elected. The two houses could be referred by different names in various countries. For instance, in the United States, the two houses are referred to as the Senate and the House of Representatives and collectively as Congress (Moran 1895).
This system is used in numerous countries around the world including Brazil (the Chamber of Deputies and the Federal Senate), Algeria (the National Assembly and the Council of the Nation), the United Kingdom (the House of Lords and the House of Commons), India (the People’s Assembly and the Council of States), and Australia ( the Senate and House of Representatives).
The bicameral system of legislature can be divided into two distinct approaches. In some cases, the system has a parliament with executive powers, meaning they can draft and independently pass their own ordnances whereas in others the executive branch of the government passes laws after they have been drafted by the legislative arm.
The American House of Representatives is composed of 435 members who qualify through election in their home states. The state allocation of members is done proportionally depending on its population i.e. the higher the population of a particular state, the more the representatives it allocated to it. The state of California has the most number of representatives with 53 in 2015 whereas states such as Vermont, Wyoming, and South Dakota had a single representative each.
There are several qualifications highlighted in article I of the American Constitution that an individual ought to attain to be eligible for membership in the House of Representatives. One is required to have attained the age of twenty-five years of age, have been a citizen of the United States for at least seven years, and be a denizen of the state that they wish to represent. Members of the House of Representatives serve for two-year terms after which they may run for re-election.
Frequent elections ensure that the representatives strive to keep in touch with and develop their respective regions so as to earn the trust, the credibility, and support of the citizens. The House of Representatives is normally more active than the Senate although the two have to unanimously approve a bill for it to be passed into law by the head of state.
A unicameral system of legislature refers to a system of parliament made up of a single chamber or house. There are still states and territories that run under the unicameral system of legislature in the US e.g. the Virgin Islands, Nebraska, and Guam. The parliament of Nebraska is made up of 49 members, half of which run for re-election after every two years. The members of unicameral parliament are non-partisan hence are not affiliated to any particular political parties which eliminates infighting and disagreements.
The two systems of legislature have their advantages and shortcomings. This paper is dedicated to outlining the advantages that the bicameral system has over the unicameral system. The bicameral system of legislature has the following advantages over the unicameral system. First, the presence of two chambers raises the number of members in the legislature (Bittner 2011). The high number of members increases the level of representation across the country as it raises the senator-to-citizen ratio.
Consequently, any laws passed or amended by the houses are bound to receive higher approval rates. In contrast, a unicameral system contains a relatively few number of representatives hence limited in its representation (Bittner 2011). The uneven level of representation means that laws passed in by this system are not entirely representative of the opinions of the country.
The existence of two houses provides a system where incoming or inexperienced representatives in the lower house get to learn and emulate their counterparts in the upper house, a process that imparts wisdom and prudence in the junior members of the house. This system creates a firm foundation for the future and ensures that the leadership of the country is handed to competent and knowledgeable successors (Bittner 2011). A unicameral system does not have mentorship mechanisms hence runs the risk of being infiltrated with unqualified representatives who would be a hindrance in the legislation of laws and consequently the development of the country in general.
The bicameral system of legislation also ensures that all issues are adequately considered regardless of their significance i.e. the upper house, having a composition of citizens from various locations around the country, majorly focuses on national issues whereas the lower house delves into local issues affecting the people and make decisions about them. The system ensures there is equity in the representation of both the majority and the minorities. The minorities are able to elect their own in the lower house, an achievement that would be difficult to reach if both parties faced off in a winner-takes-all election of a single chamber.
The first chamber is usually made up of elected members whereas the second chamber contains reserved slots for members of the minority groups which allow them to play a crucial role in the decision-making process. According to Bhardwaj (2010), the Rajya Sabha in India has twelve reserved seats for experts in the field of science, literature, and arts. A unicameral system is mainly composed of national figures hence causes the disregard of issues that maybe considered to have little value. The house, being the sole legislative body in an entire country may also fail to address some issues on the basis of their significance, giving a preference to more weighty issues.
A system with two legislative houses also helps to balance the political order and stabilizes governance. According to Moran (1895), the relationship between the two houses ensures that each chamber keeps the other accountable hence helping protect the interests of the public and preventing the abuse of power by either house. Tsebelis (2002) says that in the case of a single chamber, the house has no body to vet its accountability, running the risk of incompetence and misuse of public funds and encouraging laxity.
The interrelationship between the two houses in a bicameralism system prevents the hasty approval of acts of parliament and allows enough time for deliberations and amendments, ensuring that the eventual laws passed are favorable and have been properly discussed and approved. The degree of consensus required is also higher in bicameral than in unicameral systems hence represents a more unified conclusion on adoption of various laws (Tsebelis 2002). The delay also allows the opinions of the members of the public to be heard and be put into consideration. In a single parliament system, the decision of the house is final and may sometimes cause the authorization of biased laws that would have adverse impacts on the state of the nation.
The presence of two chambers mitigates the tyranny of one legislation body. The presence of an alternative chamber acts to protect the freedom and liberty of the citizens of a country against oppression by unscrupulous leaders. A unicameral system propagates despotism and may promote oppression of its people as there is no alternative body to monitor and correct their actions when they go against the will of the people.
Members of a bicameral system of legislation are partisan i.e. they belong to political parties. Political parties have specific stances and views about various issues or topics and need their members to stand by those principles. This approach makes it easier to predict public policy and guarantees a stable governance as the leadership adheres to a particular set of policies and work towards accomplishing the set agendas (Holler et al. 2003). The presence of political party powers facilitates the spirit of cooperation among politicians who share the same political ideologies hence policies and facilitate the adoption of legislative laws for the good of the electorate and the concerned country in general.
The ability to be predicted also helps the electorate in making their choice of representatives as they get to choose them based on the policies of the parties to which they belong. The members of the unicameral system of legislation do not belong to any political parties hence do not have definitive policies or agendas to follow up on after qualification into the house, a precedence that sets a precarious situation with representatives bound to change their views and interests without due consideration. The policies of this system are volatile and difficult to predict (Holler et al. 2003). This situation presents a difficult situation where the direction of the governance can vary from time to time.
Research has been carried out to determine whether it is easier to predict the process of policy formulation in a bicameral system than in a unicameral system. Sweden was used as a case study since it changed its system from a bicameral to a unicameral system. The two chambers were merged to form a single house. Subsequent evidence shows that the mergence had a significant impact on the Sweden’s policy-formulation patterns. There was a huge increase in policy volatility.
The two houses in a bicameral system assist each other and reduce the amount of workload handled by each house. The establishment of teamwork relationship increases the productivity of the houses as some bills are usually analyzed and simplified by the first chamber and passed onto the next house for further deliberations. In a unicameral system, the task of discussing and reviewing bills is assigned to a single house, increasing the duration of time taken and raining the backlog of bills pending discussion and approval.
Bicameral systems are usually composed of members from different political parties and backgrounds. A compromise is usually needed whenever legislation has to be adopted. This compromise controls extremities when it comes to passing new laws as the parties usually engage in negotiations until they reach a common ground. Statistics have shown that the bicameral system checks the variation of policy outcomes by half that of a similar unicameral system (Holler et al. 2003). Compromise cannot be achieved in a unicameral system and the formulation of polices fluctuates from one extreme to the other with the outcome depending on the dominance of a particular faction of politicians.
The bicameral system is indispensable in federal systems of government. The various subsidiaries of the governments need to be represented in a variety of capacities, a phenomenon that necessitates the presence of two branches of parliament: one house represents the public and the other represents the various subsidiaries of the government. The federal system has been proven to be more robust in upholding democracy than its class-based counterpart (Tsebelis 2002). This setup of government allows for the regional governments that are closer to the electorate to fight for the interests of the public. A unicameral system cannot sustain a confederate system of government.
The overall quality of legislation is relatively high in a bicameral system as the second house is usually composed of men of advanced age, experience and hence wisdom. The level of reasoning is considerably higher hence earning public confidence and approval that crucial decisions regarding the important matters affecting the nation are passed competently. Research shows that bicameral legislatures have relatively better proposals. The political pressure generated by the political diversity encompassed in the bicameral system forces governments to better their performance and service delivery to the people. A unicameral system lacks the same level of confidence as its membership consists of mixed age groups hence no firm public confidence.
A two-house legislative system facilitates balance and coherence between radicalism and liberalism (Tsebelis 2002). The majority of members in one house are radical youths whereas the second house is mainly composed of liberals. Amendments should not be overly radical as they would have significant and unmanageable changes in the performance of a country. The changes should not be too conservative either to have any changes. The balance lacks in a unicameral system.
The bicameral system continues to be used in various parts of the world. The system has proven its effectiveness in safeguarding the interests of the electorate and would be recommendable to countries that run under the unicameral system of legislature. The bicameral system may indeed have its shortcomings but they are significantly overshadowed by the advantages.
References
Bhardwaj, A.P., 2010. Legal Aptitude and Legal Reasoning for the CLAT and LLB Examinations. Pearson Education India.
Bittner, A., 2011. Platform or personality?: the role of party leaders in elections. Oxford University Press.
Holler, M.J., Kliemt, H., Schmidtchen, D. and Streit, M.E. eds., 2003. European governance (Vol. 22). Mohr Siebeck.
Moran, T.F., 1895. The Rise and Development of the Bicameral System in America (No. 5). Johns Hopkins Press.
Tsebelis, G., 2002. Veto players: How political institutions work. Princeton University Press.
