Bicameralism is a type of legislature that is divided into two separate assemblies, chambers, or houses, known as a bicameral legislature. Bicameralism is distinguished from unicameralism, in which all members deliberate and vote as a single group. , roughly 40% of the world's national legislatures are bicameral, while unicameralism represents 60% nationally and much more at the subnational level. Since the 1970s, the number of bicameral legislatures has increased significantly, following a period of decline in the early 20th century.
Often, the members of the two chambers are elected or selected by different methods, which vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This can often lead to the two chambers having very different compositions of members.
Enactment of primary legislation often requires a concurrent majority—the approval of a majority of members in each of the chambers of the legislature. When this is the case, the legislature may be called an example of perfect bicameralism. However, in many parliamentary and semi-presidential systems, the house to which the executive is responsible (e.g. House of Commons of the UK and National Assembly of France) can overrule the other house (e.g. House of Lords of the UK and Senate of France) and may be regarded as an example of imperfect bicameralism. Some legislatures lie in between these two positions, with one house able to overrule the other only under certain circumstances.
History of bicameral legislatures
Significance of the British Parliament
The British Parliament is often referred to as the "Mother of Parliaments" (in fact a misquotation of John Bright, who remarked in 1865 that "England is the Mother of Parliaments") because the British Parliament has been the model for most other parliamentary systems, and its Acts have created many other parliaments.
The origins of British bicameralism can be traced to 1341, when the Commons met separately from the nobility and clergy for the first time, creating what was effectively an Upper Chamber and a Lower Chamber, with the knights and burgesses sitting in the latter. This Upper Chamber became known as the House of Lords from 1544 onward, and the Lower Chamber became known as the House of Commons, collectively known as the Houses of Parliament.
Debate in the founding of the United States
The Founding Fathers of the United States also favoured a bicameral legislature. The idea was to have the upper chamber, the Senate, be appointed by the legislatures of the states unlike the lower chamber, the House of Representatives. Benjamin Rush noted, however, that "this type of dominion is almost always connected with opulence". The Senate was created to be a stabilising force, not elected by mass electors, but selected by the State legislators. Senators would be more knowledgeable and more deliberate—a sort of republican nobility—and a counter to what James Madison saw as the "fickleness and passion" that could absorb the House.
He noted further that "The use of the Senate is to consist in its proceeding with more coolness, with more system and with more wisdom, than the popular branch." Madison's argument led the Framers to grant the Senate prerogatives in foreign policy, an area where steadiness, discretion, and caution were deemed especially important. Accordingly, state legislators initially chose the Senate; this lasted until 1913, after which the 17th amendment required Senators be elected by popular vote. As part of the Connecticut Compromise, the Founding Fathers invented a new rationale for bicameralism in the context of federalism. The Senate would have exactly two delegates per state, and the House would have representatives by relative populations.
Rise of the Commonwealth
Many monarchies then followed, and to some degree emulated, the British "three-tier" model. In the 20th century, some countries in Europe and the Commonwealth abolished the monarchy and the upper house, although the trend towards abolishing upper houses has since halted. Often a largely ceremonial head of state who formally opens and closes parliament was introduced, a larger house representing the population, and a smaller house mostly representing the regions was established.
Rationale for bicameralism and criticism
Federal states have often adopted it as an awkward compromise between existing power held equally by each state or territory and a more democratic proportional legislature. For states considering a different constitutional arrangement that may shift power to new groupings, bicameralism could be demanded by currently hegemonic groups who would otherwise prevent any structural shift (e.g. military dictatorships, aristocracies).
The growing awareness of the complexity of the notion of representation and the multi-functional nature of modern legislatures may be affording incipient new rationales for second chambers, though these do generally remain contested institutions in ways that first chambers are not. An example of political controversy regarding a second chamber has been the debate over the powers of the Senate of Canada or the election of the Senate of France. Liberation.fr , Sénat, le triomphe de l'anomalie
The relationship between the two chambers varies: in some cases, they have equal power, while in others, one chamber (the directly elected lower house with proportional representation) is clearly superior in its powers. The first tends to be the case in federal systems and those with presidential governments. The second tends to be the case in unitary states with parliamentary systems. Two streams of thought exist: critics believe bicameralism makes meaningful political reforms more difficult to achieve and increases the risk of gridlock—particularly in cases where both chambers have similar powers—while proponents argue the merits of the "checks and balances" provided by the bicameral model, which they believe help prevent ill-considered legislation.
Communication between houses Formal communication between houses is by various methods, including: Sending messages Formal notices, such as of resolutions or the passing of bills, usually done in writing, via the clerk and speaker of each house. Transmission of bills or amendment to bills requiring agreement from the other house. Joint session a plenary session of both houses at the same time and place. Joint committeeswhich may be formed by committees of each house agreeing to join, or by joint resolution of each house. The United States Congress has conference committees to resolve discrepancies between House and Senate versions of a bill, similar to "Conferences" in Westminster parliaments. ConferencesConferences of the Houses of the English (later British) Parliament met in the Painted Chamber of the Palace of Westminster. Historically there were two distinct types: "ordinary" and "free". The British Parliament last held an ordinary conference in 1860—its elaborate procedure yielding to the simpler sending of messages. A free conference resolves a dispute through "managers" meeting less formally in private. The last free conference at Westminster was in 1836 on an amendment to the Municipal Corporations Act 1835;Blayden 2017 p. 6; the previous one had been in 1740—with not much more success than ordinary conferences, the free type yielded to the greater transparency of messages.Blayden 2017 p. 6; In the Parliament of Australia there have been two formal conferences, in 1930 and 1931, but many informal conferences. the "Conference of Managers" remains the usual procedure for dispute resolution in the Parliament of South Australia. In the Parliament of New South Wales in 2011, the Legislative Assembly requested a free conference with the Legislative Council over a bill on graffiti; after a year the Council refused, describing the mechanism as archaic and inappropriate. The two houses of the Parliament of Canada have also used conferences, but not since 1947 (although they retain the option).
Examples of bicameralism at the national level
Federal
Some countries, such as Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Switzerland, and the United States, link their bicameral systems to their federal political structure.
In the United States, Australia, Mexico, Brazil, and Nepal for example, each state or province is given the same number of seats in one of the houses of the legislature, despite variance between the populations of the states or provinces.
Australia
The bicameral Parliament of Australia consists of two Houses: the lower house is called the House of Representatives and the upper house is named the Senate. As of 31 August 2017, the lower house has 151 members, each elected from single-member constituencies, known as electoral divisions (commonly referred to as "electorates" or "seats") using full-preference instant-runoff voting. This tends to lead to the chamber being dominated by two major groups, the Liberal/National Coalition and the Labor Party. The government of the day must achieve the confidence of this House to gain and hold power.
The upper house, the Senate, is also popularly elected, under the single transferable vote system of proportional representation. There are a total of 76 senators: 12 senators are elected from each of the 6 Australian states (regardless of population) and 2 from each of the 2 autonomous internal territories (the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory). This makes the total number 76, i.e. 6×12 + 2×2.
In many respects, Australia is a unique hybrid with influences from the United States Constitution, as well as from the traditions and conventions of the Westminster system and some indigenous features. Australia is exceptional in this sense because the government faces a fully elected upper house, the Senate, which must be willing to pass all its legislation. Although only the lower house, the House of Representatives, can hold a no-confidence vote against the government, in practice the support of the Senate is also necessary in order to govern. The Senate maintains the ability similar to that held by the British House of Lords, prior to the enactment of the Parliament Act 1911, to block supply against the government of the day. A government that is unable to obtain supply can be dismissed by the governor-general: however, this is generally considered a last resort and is a highly controversial decision to take, given the conflict between the traditional concept of confidence as derived from the lower house and the ability of the Senate to block supply (see 1975 Australian constitutional crisis). Many political scientists have held that the Australian system of government was consciously devised as a blend or hybrid of the Westminster and the United States systems of government, especially since the Australian Senate is a powerful upper house like the U.S. Senate; this notion is expressed in the nickname "the Washminster mutation".
Unlike upper houses in most Westminster parliamentary systems, the Australian Senate is vested with significant power, including the capacity to block legislation initiated by the government in the House of Representatives. This block can however be overridden in a joint sitting after a double dissolution election, at which the House of Representatives has the dominant numbers. As a result of proportional representation, the chamber features a multitude of parties vying for power. The governing party in the lower house rarely has a majority in the Senate, and so generally needs to negotiate with other parties and independents to get legislation passed.