Venice Commission - Report on Bicameralism

Disclaimer: this information was gathered by the Secretariat of the Venice Commission on the basis of contributions by the members of the Venice Commission, and complemented with information available from various open sources (academic articles, legal blogs, official information web-sites etc.).

Every effort was made to provide accurate and up-to-date information. For further details please visit our site : https://www.venice.coe.int/

1.Has the country always had a bicameral parliamentary (or congressional) system? If not, from when did the country adopt a bicameral system? Is there a public debate about keeping bicameralism or moving to a unicameral system? Why? What are the terms of the debate? What is the public perception of the usefulness and acceptability (legitimacy) of the second chamber?

Algeria

Algeria has a bicameral parliamentary system with one high chamber, the Council of the Nation, (174 senators) and one low chamber, the People's National Assembly (407 deputies). The Algerian constitution of 1996 introduces a constitutional review. The current Constitution has been revised in 2002, 2008, 2016 and 2020.

Austria

The bicameral parliamentary system in Austria has its origins in the times of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. Based on the Constitution of December 1867, the Austrian part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire had two chambers of Parliament (Reichsrat): the Abgeordnetenhaus, with deputies representing people of the various states (Länder) of the empire (general electoral system in 1907), and the Herrenhaus with deputies of the clerical and aristocratical elites, installed by the emperor. In terms of legislation, both chambers had more or less the same legal position. A law passed by the first chamber needed the consent of both the Herrenhaus and the Emperor; in this light there was "perfect bicameralism" in Austria from 1867 to 1918. Notwithstanding this, Austria-Hungary was not a federation in a strict sense, but the empire had rather developed into a decentralised unitary state.

With the end of monarchy and the change to a republican system in 1918, the Herrenhaus was abolished. The previous system with one chamber of parliament, that was not democratically legitimated, became unacceptable. In a federal system the second chamber might regain a certain function like representing the interest of the Länder and participating in federal law-making. Therefore, in the course of the debates between the Central Government and the Länder on the future structure of the Republic, the establishment of a second chamber (Federal Council = Bundesrat) was soon in discussion.

The Austrian (bicameral) parliamentary democracy, as it exists today, was set up by virtue of the Constitution of 1 October 1920. Since then – only interrupted by the period of the corporatist-authoritarian regime from 1934 to 1938 and the annexation to the Third Reich from 1938 to 1945 (the Constitution of 1920 was reinstated with all its amendments in 1945) – Austria always had a bicameral system.

Since its establishment in 1920 there has always been criticism aimed at the usefulness of the bicameral system in Austria (especially regarding the Federal Council). Critical voices are speaking of a "failure" of the Federal Council´s designated function as an organ of representation of the provinces´ interests and that it is only rarely able to exercise effective lobbying for provincial interests. The roots of the Federal Council´s weakness are spotted in the nomination procedure of the Federal Council members on the one hand and in its limited powers on the other hand. The members of the Federal Council are elected by the provincial parliaments to the proportional strength of the parties. This institutional construction and political practice have led to a Federal Council that is dominated by political parties respectively political groups overlapping provincial boundaries. The Federal Council may only challenge a bill proposed by the National Council, which can override this (suspensive) veto by repeating a vote on the bill. An absolute veto is granted to the Federal Council only for a limited number of cases.

Nevertheless, arguments justifying the Federal Council´s existence are seen as well: On the one hand its (absolute) veto-right concerning modifications of the Federal Constitution that could severely damage the competences of the provinces is emphasised. On the other hand the Federal Council actively participates on the subsidiarity monitoring of projects of the European Commission.

Although the usefulness of the Federal Council in Austria has always been criticised there is no apparent public debate about moving to a unicameral system. Reform ideas over the years remained vague (a structural reform of competences in the 1990s failed; the so called "Austrian Convention", an attempt to reform the Austrian political system and its Federal Constitution in the years 2003-2004, finished its work without reaching consent over the most intensively debated matters). These ideas were mainly not aimed at abolishing the bicameral system or the Federal Council itself, but at modifying the organisation or the function of the Federal Council (for example to bind Federal Council members to instructions of the Provincial Parliaments, to entitle provincial citizens to directly vote their delegates or to strengthen and specify the powers of the Federal Council like extended veto-rights).

The main reasons impeding any reforms are among other things that the National Council does not want to share its powers with another organ, that political parties do not want to give up valuable political resources like Federal Council members and that the provinces and its representatives themselves are indecisive regarding any reforms of the political negotiation culture in Austria. Moreover, any structural or organizational changes regarding the Federal Council would entail a change of constitutional law that can only be passed by the National Council in the presence of at least half the members and by a majority of two thirds of the votes cast (Art. 44 para. 1 Federal Constitutional Law, Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz – B-VG) and can be submitted to a referendum by the federal people if one third of the members of the National Council or the Federal Council so demands (Art. 44 para. 3 B-VG). A complete abolition of the Federal Council would be considered as a total revision of the Federal Constitution (respectively its republican principle, Art. 1 B-VG) that must be submitted to a referendum by the federal people (Art. 44 para. 3 B-VG). The government program of the present coalition between the Austrian people´s party and the Austrian Green Party does not contain a single mention concerning a reform of the bicameral system or the Federal Council.

Belgium

La Belgique a depuis son indépendance (1831) un système bicaméral, avec une Chambre des Représentants et un Sénat. A trois reprises (1921, 1993, 2014) le système a été réformé. Dans le système actuel le Sénat est la deuxième chambre dans laquelle les entités fédérées (communautés et régions) participent e.a. à la révision de la constitution et des lois spéciales relatives à l’organisation du système fédérale.

Il y a un débat politique sur l’avenir du Sénat. Plusieurs propositions ont été lancées, e.a.
-la suppression du Sénat, dans le cadre d’une réforme du système fédérale en système confédérale.
-la reconversion du Sénat en l’ouvrant à la démocratie participative.
-la reconversion du Sénat en Assemblée constitutionnelle composée de parlementaires fédéraux et de parlementaires des entités fédérées.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

In the form in which it has existed since the entry into force of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina at the end of 1995, Bosnia and Herzegovina has always had a bicameral parliament. There are no public debates related to the issue of retaining the bicameral system. However, it could be said that there are two streams of political views regarding the functioning of the House of Peoples of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina. One advocates for the House of Peoples to remain in the form in which it currently exists, while the other prefers reducing the powers of the House of Peoples only to deciding on the issue of protecting the vital national interest.

Brazil

In 1824, the first Constitution of Brazil established a tradition of bicameralism inspired by the French Monarchist Charter. The National Congress (Parliament) is based on a lower house, the Chamber of Deputies, and a second house, the Federal Senate.

Canada

Since Canada was established as a Dominion in 1867, unifying several British colonies into a federation under the British North America Act (now called the Constitution Act, 1867). Canada has always had a bicameral parliamentary system at the federal level. During the course of the next hundred years, the five of the ten provinces which also had bicameral legislatures amended their provincial constitutions and abolished their upper houses (called legislative councils). However, although the option of abolishing the federal Parliament’s upper house, called the Senate, has been examined from time to time, including in two advisory opinions rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada, this option has never been seriously pursued. This is because it is broadly recognized that almost every federation in the world has an upper house in its central parliamentary or congressional system to represent, to a greater or lesser degree, regional or local state or provincial interests, including those of minorities. As well, in Canada, a constitutional amendment under the unanimous consent procedure would be required to abolish the Senate, which would be very difficult to achieve (requiring the concurrence of the House of Commons (the Senate having only a suspensive veto over the process) and all ten provincial legislative assemblies.
Public debate about the usefulness and legitimacy of the Senate has occurred from time to time, particularly in the Western provinces, which would like equal representation in the Senate, and with respect to the fact that the Senate is a body that is appointed, not elected. The debate was at its height about ten years ago, when several Senators were suspended for alleged misuse of public funds or other irregularities. One prominent political party, the New Democratic Party, has consistently argued for the abolition of the Senate. When incremental reforms proposed by the previous Conservative government were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court as exceeding Parliament’s powers to enact without a complex constitutional amendment, the current Liberal administration put in place policy measures to make the Senate less partisan and to ensure a more independent appointments process.

Chile

Created in 1811, the National Congress is a bicameral parliament. At the same time, statutes pursued guaranteeing the autonomy of the Captaincy General of Chile before the Spanish Crown, and later gaining full independence and consolidating an institutional system. The first texts were only provisional decrees and later became more established normatives.

Czechia

Since its creation on 1st January 1993, Czechia had always a bicameral parliamentary system. Article 15 para 2 of the Constitution of the Czechia (Act No. 1/1993 Coll.) provides that „The Parliament consists of two chambers, the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate“. The said constitutional provision was inspired by the then Czechoslovak Constitution of 1920 (Act No. 121/1920 Coll.) which stipulated that the National Assembly consisted of two chambers, the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. Nevertheless, prior to the Constitution of 1920 there had been a short period of unicameral General Assembly established by the Provisional Constitution of 1918 (Act No. 37/1918 Coll). For the sake of completeness, during the communist regime (1948-1989) the facade parliamentary system was unicameral until the federalization of Czechoslovakia in 1968: the Federal Assembly then consisted of two chambers, the House of People and the House of Nations. Both republics then had unicameral national councils - the Czech National Council and the Slovak National Council - as legislatures in areas not entrusted to the federation. However, the ruling monopoly was held by the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and its Central Committee, so that serious disputes over the extent of competences between the federal and state bodies or between the two states were out of the question. The inherited federal system proved dysfunctional without the unifying will of the Communist Party and, hand in hand with the emancipation of the Slovak national representation, eventually led to the dissolution of Czechoslovakia before a new Czechoslovak federal constitution was agreed.
 There was also a pragmatic political motive behind the incorporation of the Senate in the present Constitution of the Czechia. Given the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, it was anticipated that Czech deputies from the then Federal Assembly will form the Provisional Senate under Art. 106 para 2 of the Constitution (in exchange of their consent to the dissolution of Czechoslovakia). However, the Provisional Senate has never been actually established. Today´s Senate was firstly assembled after the first elections in 1996 when one third of the senators were elected for 6 years, one third for 4 years and one third for 2 years.
 There is currently no serious public debate about keeping bicameralism or moving to a unicameral system.
 Czech legal experts and constitutional lawyers consider the bicameral model as an important contribution to the checks and balances principle. Not only executive is counterbalanced by the legislative branch, but also the legislative branch is tainted by
two distinctive parts, where the upper chamber, the Senate, has important control powers. Besides the experts, the general public often shows a limited understanding of the role of the Senate (and bicameralism as such). Moreover, there are some voices to dissolve Senate which is believed to be superfluous and expensive. However, these voices are not marginal and are often fueled by important political figures and political parties. The public trust in the Senate is rather low and culminates at around 33 %. The same goes for the public interest in the Senate elections, where the election turnout culminates at around 37 %, in the second round even less (20 %).

France

France is a bicameral country. It has been so since 1795, with rare and short interruptions (the last one during the Second World War). Since 1958 (Constitution of the Fifth Republic), the second chamber has regained the name of Senate that it had had most often in the course of history. There is a latent debate on the maintenance of bicameralism, but it is quite minor and has never, to date, seriously threatened the existence and legitimacy of a second chamber. On the contrary, on two occasions, in 1946 and 1969, French voters consulted by referendum refused to abolish the second chamber. In opinion polls conducted in recent years, the second chamber enjoys a level of confidence equivalent to or slightly higher than that of the lower chamber. It is seen as a factor of checks and balances in institutions where the lower house is very close to the executive. The second chamber is also recognised for the positive role it plays in improving the quality of legislative standards. Criticism of the second chamber comes mainly from political groups on the left of the political spectrum, which contest the overly conservative nature of the second chamber. The French Senate has had a left-wing majority for only three years since 1958 (2011-2014).

Germany

All German constitutions since 1871 (Constitution of the German Empire of 1871; Weimar Constitution 1919, Basic Law 1949) were based on a bicameral parliamentary system. This was due to the specific history and the long-term formation of a Bund (Federation) out of different sovereign States. During the period of national socialism (1933-1945) the bicameral system still existed on paper as the Weimar Constitution was never formally repealed. Yet, in practice it was a unitary system. The Länder were degraded to administrative units. With the "Enabling Act" of March 1933, the second chamber, the “Reichsrat”, lost its importance, as laws could also be enacted by the Reich government alone. On 13 February 1934, the Reichsrat was dissolved. In the Basic Law bicameralism was restored and considered to be an essential element of German constitutionalism not even changeable by constitutional reform. Therefore, there is no debate about moving to a unicameral system. The public perception is that bicameralism is decisive for vertical separation of powers. What is criticized is the potential of the Bundesrat to block legislative acts and to be an instrument of party politics.

Ireland

Ireland has a long history of bicameralism which has largely been influenced by Westminster. Each of the constitutional frameworks drafted for Ireland in the twentieth century included a bicameral parliament, which in the Irish system is known as the “Oireachtas”. The name Seanad Éireann was first used as the title of the upper house of the Oireachtas of the Irish Free State in 1922. The Seanad was controversially abolished in May 1936 following a bill introduced by the Fianna Fáil government of Éamon de Valera, which was frustrated by the Seanad’s repeated use of its power to delay (though not veto) legislation. The modern Seanad Éireann was established by the Constitution of Ireland in 1937, ending Ireland’s brief period of unicameralism. This new Seanad was considered to be the direct successor of the Free State Seanad and so the first Seanad convened under the new constitution was referred to as the "Second Seanad".
There has been much public debate surrounding the Seanad in the last hundred years. Since 1928, twelve separate official reports have been published on reform of the Seanad. In 2009 debate moved from reform of the Seanad to plan for its abolition and a shift to a unicameral system when Enda Kenny, leader of opposition party Fine Gael stated that a Fine Gael government would seek to abolish the Seanad. By the time of Ireland’s 2011 general election the majority of Ireland’s major political parties advocated Seanad abolition in their manifestos.
In 2013 a referendum was called on whether or not to abolish the Seanad. The proposal to abolish the Seanad was defeated, with 51.7% voting against abolition.
One argument put forward by abolitionists related to the cost of the Seanad. It was claimed that abolishing the Seanad would save the taxpayer approximately €20 million a year. However, these claims were hotly contested and even the politically neutral Houses of the Oireachtas Commission struggled to determine a sum that a switch to unicameralism would save. It was also argued that the Seanad was little more than a powerless rubber-stamp. The populist argument that abolition would lead to fewer politicians was also put forward.
Anti-Abolitionists argued that the Irish political system was already heavily centralized. While it was largely agreed that the Seanad had not been a particularly effective watchdog, the removal of a second chamber would nevertheless grant too much control to the government (and the remaining single chamber – which in effect is dominated by the government). It was also argued that the then recent Irish financial crisis showed the need for increased governance and scrutiny of government.

Italy

1. The Italian Parliament has always been composed of two chambers: The Chamber of deputies and the Senate of the Republic, since the origin of Italy (1861). The Republican Constitution (1948) confirms the bicameral structure.
The Constituent Assembly has debated the possibility to adopt a monocameral system but has dismissed it.
At present, the model adopted in the Italian constitution is that of symmetrical bicameralism, with the two chambers having exactly the same powers. This is considered inefficient. It requires doubling each decision, and in the praxis this double passage is only formally respected.
In recent years there is an ongoing debate on the bicameral system, aiming at fixing some diseconomies, and a recurrent proposal is to differentiate the two chambers as to the structure, the composition, the powers and the competence.
A proposal of constitutional reform in 2016 aimed at reforming the bicameral system with the intention to differentiate the composition and the competences of the two chambers. It was approved in parliament, but rejected by a referendum 4 December 2016.
A recent reform – constitutional law n. 1 of 19 October 2020 - has drastically reduced the number of the members of parliament: the Chamber of Deputy from 630 to 400; the senate from 315 to 200. Yet it has not altered the powers nor the constituencies of the two chambers.

Kazakhstan

The first Constitution in the history of independent Kazakhstan was approved at the ninth session of the Supreme Council in 1993. According to this document, Kazakhstan was declared a republic with a parliamentary form of government. The Supreme Council was the country's only legislative and highest representative body, it had extensive powers, including the right to appoint the president, prime minister, ministers and other officials. At the same time, the president was accountable to the Supreme Council and had limited power.
According to the current Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated August 30, 1995, the Parliament consists of two Chambers (Article 50 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan Parliament consists of two Chambers: the Senate and the Majilis, acting on a permanent basis).
On June 5, 2022, a referendum was held in Kazakhstan on the adoption of amendments to the Constitution. This was the first time in the history of the country when changes were made to the basic law through a nationwide vote. In addition to the transition from a super-presidential form of government to a presidential one with a strong parliament, a new rule was introduced into the Constitution - the president's relatives are no longer allowed to hold high government positions. The provision on the special role of the first president was excluded. In addition, a clause appeared according to which the land and its subsoil became the property of the people, as well as the formation of the Majilis deputies under a mixed electoral system. Established the Constitutional Court.

Mexico

Since the first Constitution that Mexico adopted as an independent country, the 1824 Constitution, the Legislative Power had a bicameral composition, with a Senate and a Chamber of Deputies.

With the adoption the 1857 Constitution, Mexico transitioned to a unicameral system, in terms of article 51. Nevertheless, on November 13th, 1874, the Constitution was reformed, in order to reincorporate the bicameral system.

The bicameral system was also included in the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, in force nowadays.

In Mexico there is not an active and wide-spread public debate about moving to a unicameral system for the country, nevertheless, there has been an initiative that proposed a unicameral parliament, but it was rejected.

The last initiative of that nature was proposed by federal Deputies of New Alliance party (PANAL) -political party that lost its registry in 2018-, on March 14th, 2017. That initiative pursued that the federal Legislative Branch would be exercised by a sole chamber of 500 members. The referred initiative was discarded on February 2nd, 2018, because it was not ruled in the time limit established in the internal regulation.

Mexican Congress, understood as both chambers, has low public trust, for instance, according to Latinobarómetro, non-governmental organization that elaborates public trust surveys about democratic and economic affairs in Latin-America, the public trust that Mexicans have in their Congress, according to the 2020 report, is of the 22%.

With respect of the public perception of the Senate, the 2023 National Survey about the Senate realized by the Belisario Dominguez Institute -research body of the Senate-, states that 77% of the respondents considered that the Senate was important for democracy, while 16% considered that it was not important for democracy.

Regarding to the public trust that citizens have on the Senate, the Survey states that 41% trusts the Senate, while 54% does not trust the Senate.

Morocco

Oui depuis sa première constitution en 1962. Le bicaméralisme est consensuel car il a permis notamment à l’opposition d’obtenir à côté d’une seconde chambre plus contrôlée par le régime du fait de son suffrage indirect, une chambre élue entièrement au suffrage universel direct ; pour l’opposition active depuis les débuts de l’indépendance, ce fut une longue bataille et un gage d’équilibre des pouvoirs et de démocratie. Entre la 1 ere constitution(1962) et l'actuelle toutes deux instituant le bicaméralisme, il y a eu une longue éclipse de monocaméralisme qui a duré 36 ans

The Netherlands

Since 1815, the Netherlands, as an independent State, has had a bicameral system. There is the politically predominant Tweede Kamer: House of Commons/Lower House/House of Representatives; and the Eerste Kamer or Senate. As the Eerste Kamer (literally First Chamber) would generally be referred to in English-speaking countries as the upper or second Chamber, the term Senate is used here to avoid confusion.
There is some public debate going on concerning the usefulness and adequacy of the Senate. To some it is superfluous, others even believe that currently the Senate - formerly a ‘chambre de reflexion’ - has now become too political and has lost its quality of guardian of legal rationality and feasibility.

Poland

It is assumed that the institution of the Senate - the second chamber of the Polish parliament - originated from the Royal Council, which operated at the royal court from the mid-14th century. The composition of the council was decided each time by the king. Always invited to participate in the Council were Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops, the chancellor, sub-chancellor, treasurer and grand marshal of the crown, as well as land officials - voivodes and castellans.

The Polish parliament (Sejm) evolved from the general assemblies of the nobility, representatives of cities and cathedral chapters. Beginning with the general convention in Piotrków in 1493, the nobility sent their representatives - deputies, elected at provincial assemblies. In this way, the Chamber of Deputies was formed. The Royal Council came to be known as the Senate (Latin: senatus: council of elders), and its members as senators (Latin: senex: old man). The King also participated in the deliberations of the Sejm. The Sejm thus consisted of 3 sitting states: The Chamber of Deputies, the Senate and the King. In addition to the Sejm, the Senate continued to function as the Royal Council.

In 1768, the Cardinal Laws were enacted, which were the main and immutable principles of the Republic's political system. Laws were to be enacted by the Sejm, consisting of 3 states: royal, senatorial and knightly.

The end of the 18th century brought sweeping changes to the political system. The 1788-1792 Diet, known as the Great or Four-Year Sejm, passed a constitution on May 3, 1791, which overhauled the state's political system. The role of the Senate was reduced in favor of the Chamber of Deputies. The king ceased to be a separate parliamentary state and became president of the Senate. The House was deprived of the right of legislative initiative, and was left with the right of suspensive veto over political, civil and criminal laws passed by the deputies. In the future, successive kings were to appoint senators from among candidates elected by the sejmiks. (https://senat.edu.pl/historia/)

The parliament of Poland is the bicameral legislature of Poland. It is composed of an upper house (the “Senate”) and a lower house (“Sejm”). Following a brief period of existence under the Second Polish Republic (1918-1939), the one of the chamber – the Senate, was abolished by the authorities of the communist Polish People's Republic. It was not re-established until the collapse of the communist government and reinstatement of democracy in Poland in 1989. The evolution of parliamentarism in Poland led to a bicameral model with an unequal position of both chambers. In this model, the Senate is the “weaker” chamber. The Constitution grants this chamber much less powers than the second chamber – i.e. Sejm. For example, in the legislative process, the Senate's amendments to the bill may be rejected in one vote in the Sejm. The Senate does not supervise the work of the government (“rząd”), its committees do not question ministers, nor can they pass a vote of no confidence in the minister. For this reason, the Senate is considered as an “unnecessary body”, not fulfilling its task as (due to higher electoral thresholds) the "assembly of wise men". Therefore, since the entry into force of the current constitution, there have been debates over the legitimacy of this body. The theme of its liquidation appeared many times in the agendas of the election programs of many political parties.

Romania

The constitutional framework of Romania has undergone multiple changes over time. After the fall of the communist regime, Romania has adopted, by a national referendum, held on 8 December 1991, a democratic Constitution, which established a bicameral Parliament (composed of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate). A consultative referendum on the adoption a unicameral system (and also reducing the number of the members of the Parliament) was approved in 2009, but not implemented. There are no immediate plans to implement the result of the referendum, nor is there currently a significant public debate on the topic.

Slovenia

The idea of a bicameral Slovenian parliament emerged in the late 1980s when the draft for the Slovenian Constitution was created. The first draft anticipated a unicameral parliament that would include Members of Parliament representing regional interests in a special legislative procedure. Later on, two ideas of a bicameral parliament arose. The first anticipated a foundation of the Assembly of Regions which would be equal to the National Assembly. The second anticipated the foundation of a “weaker” National Council.

Later on, when Slovenian Constitution was in phase of adoption, different suggestions about the Slovenian representative body arose. One of them involved an idea of a unicameral representative body which would represent local and regional interests. These representatives would have been voted in a different way than other members of the representative body. This would serve as a mean of correction of the electoral system only for the part of the parliament that would represent local and regional interests. The second suggestion included an idea of a second chamber which would represent employers and employees, regions and professionals, and which would induce varying approaches to the parliamentary decision making. This idea was based on the Bavarian Senate. The third idea was an Assembly of Regions as a “half-chamber” based on the Norwegian model, which would discuss certain issues separately. There also existed other different ideas, which envisaged that Slovenia would adopt a bicameral system based on the experience of some of the upper chambers internationally e.g. France, Spain and Italy.

The National Council, the upper house of the Slovenian parliament, was established in 1991 as a compromise based on the structure of the Bavarian Senate. As Slovenia gained its independence there was great pressure to adopt its constitution rapidly, because it wanted to become a member of Council of Europe and United Nations as soon as possible. It is because of this short time frame that a lot of constitutional compromises had to be made, one of them being the definition of the structure of the Slovenian parliament.

In Slovenia, there is a permanent discussion in the media about reforming or abolishing the National Council. A lot of ideas about the reform of the National Council deal with the introduction of a chamber of regions. A bigger constitutional reform should take place after establishing the second level of local self-government – regions. It is important for the National Council to strive not only to reform the local self-government, but also to become the contact point for the Slovenian regions, which shall certainly have an impact on its competences and its composition. Nevertheless, the National Council does not represent only Slovenian local interests but also other interests – the reform must affect not only representation of the local interests but also representation of other interests and competences of the National Council.

On the other hand, there were also lots of ideas of abolishing the National Council but only one formal proposal in 2012. In this regard a group of deputies initiated the procedure to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia in the field of organization of the National Council, but they did not succeed in their attempt.

As already mentioned the National Council was created as a compromise based on the structure of the Bavarian Senate, which was abolished by a referendum, which came into effect in 2000. The National Council has similar competences as Croatian Chamber of Counties (Županijski dom), which was abolished by the Croatian Sabor in 2001. Both of them, Bavarian Senate and Croatian Chamber of Counties, were quite similar to the National Council but abolished.

There were four main reasons enlisted in the proposal to abolish the National Council. The first reason was the improvement of effectiveness of the legislative process and the quality of the legislation adopted. The second reason was the simplification of the political system and state regulation. The third reason was the final resolution of the dilemma whether the parliament in Slovenia is bicameral or not. The last but not the least was the balance of public finances and reduction of public spending. These reasons were weak and easy to reject. The abolishment of the National Council does not improve the effectiveness of the legislative process; moreover, it affects the quality of the adopted legislation. The most ridiculous argument was the reason to balance public finances with the abolishment of the National Council, although the National Council has a low annual budget. Proposal to abolish the National Council did not receive enough support by deputies in the National Assembly and the National Council was not abolished.

Regardless all these arguments the most important aspect that has been overlooked by all the ideas for abolishment is the principle of division of powers and the well-established system of check and balances that has been incorporated in the National Council role in the state organisation structure. Because of its competences the National Council is not just a coercive mechanism in the legislative procedure with its opinions and suspensive veto right but also a supervisor of the executive when exercising its right to request a parliamentary inquiry. The structure of the National Council (interest groups representation) and its engagement with civil society is one of the advantages of the Slovenian parliamentarian system which gives more legitimacy to adopted legislation and deeper scrutiny of the legal system.

Spain

Spain has moved from bicameralism to unicameralism throughout its constitutional history. The choice between uni/bicameralism has been an important constitutional issue because bicameralism has been chosen in "conservative" constitutions while unicameralism is a central feature of "progressive" constitutions. In the case of the 1978 Constitution (in force), bicameralism was easily adopted insofar as it represented continuity with the constituent Parliament (which was bicameral and partially elected by the King himself) and was the logical choice because Spain became a decentralised state in which the Senate was to represent the territories (art. 69 SC) although this, as will be underlined below, did not turn out to be true
There is no public debate on the preservation of bicameralism but, paradoxically, there is widespread criticism of the usefulness of the Senate. The reason may lie in the need to maintain a bicameral system because Spain is fully decentralised but, at the same time, the Senate's constitutional design makes it impossible for it to perform as a chamber representing the territories (Autonomous Communities). The Senate is perceived by public opinion as a useless chamber that merely replicates the debates of the lower chamber but with less political relevance. As a result, its legitimacy and usefulness are fiercely attacked, but its survival is not questioned. Rather, the debate focuses on how to reform the Senate so that it can play a role in representing the Autonomous Communities in the national parliament. This debate has been going on almost since the adoption of the Constitution, and many proposals for reform of the Senate have been put forward by academics, but none of the political parties has ever seriously considered a constitutional reform of the Senate.
Some (few) scholars have recently argued that it is impossible to channel territorial representation through a second chamber (particularly in Spain) and that it should be abolished or reformed to perform other functions such as better law-making or new study and research powers related to other parliamentary functions

Switzerland

The first Federal Constitution of 1848 introduced a National Parliament (Federal Assembly) based on the bicameral system (Council of Representatives, Council of States). Thus, Switzerland has always had a bicameral parliamentary system. If criticism is voiced, it refers to the fact that cantons with a low number of inhabitants have disproportionate voting weight in the Council of States, as they have the same number of representatives in the Council of States like the cantons with a significantly higher population (however note that six very small cantons each elect one representative, whereas the other cantons each elect two representatives, irrespective of their size). At the same time, this asymmetry is also considered as an advantage, as it prevents the small cantons from being dominated by the larger cantons.

Tunisia

Tunisia has not always had a bicameral parliamentary system. The new Constitution adopted by referendum on 25 July, 2022 establishes a bicameral parliament. De facto, the first elections for constituting the second chamber took place in December 2023.
However, the public perception on the new Constitution is largely unfavourable, as it is perceived to be designed to enhance the president's authority by granting him ultimate control over the parliament.

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom is a bicameral country.

United States of America

Under the 1777 Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress consisted of a unicameral house. However, the founders adopted a bicameral legislature at the Constitutional Convention (1787) and that system is enshrined in Article 1, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. By providing a national legislature comprised of two houses, the founders sought to further reinforce a separation of powers. The Great Compromise, one of the critical decisions leading to the Convention’s successful completion, provided for a House of Representatives apportioned on population, and a Senate in which the states were equally represented. Bicameralism thus enabled a composite National and Federal Government, but it also provided for a further separation and diffusion of powers.

There is currently no public debate on moving to a unicameral system - at least not one that’s dominant and that pertains to the federal government. However, there may be a debate on the matter happening at the state level for certain state legislatures.

There is a lot of debate on and discontent with some of the ancillary features of bicameralism (e.g., that it makes federal-level legislation more difficult to pass) but not with bicameralism as such.