Venice Commission - Report on Bicameralism
www.venice.coe.int
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 ever had a bicameral parliamentary (or congressional) system in the past? If so, in which period? Why was it decided to change into a unicameral system? Is there a public debate about changing to a bicameral system? What are the terms of the debate?
Yes. During the years of 1925 to 1928 (Albanian Republic).The main arguments for the change were related to the size and the population of the country. There were also political reasons for the control of the power.
Never bicameral.
Since 1995 Legislative power is vested in the Azgayin Zhoghov or National Assembly, which is a unicameral parliament consisting of 105 members. Never bicameral before because annexed by the Red Army and along with Georgia and Azerbaijan in 1922,
The country never had the bicameral parliamentary system.
The first National Assembly was established in 1879 with the Tarnovo Constitution, following the country's liberation from the Ottoman Empire,
It remained a peripheral colony of the empire until independence as part of the First Mexican Empire, followed by membership in the Federal Republic of Central America, from which it formally declared independence in 1847. Following the brief Costa Rican Civil War in 1948, it permanently abolished its army in 1949, becoming one of only a few sovereign nations without a standing army. Bicameralism for a time : The Constitution of 1844 established a House of Senators of five senators and their alternates who was renewed by thirds on an annual basis with the possibility of re-election. It has a Legislative Assembly (unicameralism) since 1953.
1945 – 1990 Communist/Socialist period – multicameralism
In Cyprus Republic we have a Unicameral – House of Representatives (80, but only 56 are currently engaged)
Yes, Denmark had a bicameral system from 1849 (when our first free constitution came into force) until 1953 (when our current constitution came into force). The basic reason for the abolition of the 2nd chamber was that the representation of political parties over decades had become the same in both chambers and the 2nd chamber had therefore become politically irrelevant.
The Republic of Estonia had a bicameral system in its 1937 Constitution which came into force on 1 January 1938. In June 1940, the Soviet Union occupied the Republic of Estonia and in August 1940, annexed it, illegally in terms of international law. Estonia's independence was restored in August 1991 and then it was decided to, proceeding from the Constitution of 1937, work out a new Constitution which was adopted by referendum in 1992. The 1992 Constitution (which is currently valid) has a unicameral system.
Finland has never had a bicameral parliamentary system.
The idea of limiting royal power and creating a parliamentary-type body of government was conceived among the aristocrats and citizens in the 12th century Kingdom of Georgia, during the reign of Queen Tamar, the first Georgian female monarch.
The answer is yes. First between 1844 and 1862, under the Constitution of 1844, which was modelled over the Belgian Constitution of 1831 and the French Charte of 1830. At the time, the senators were appointed by the King for life from a list of high ranked State officials. In spite of that, the Senate proved to be more independent toward the Crown than the popularly elected House of Representatives, whose election was almost always falsified by the royal court. And, second, between 1927 and 1935, under the republican Constitution of 1927, which provided for a second Chamber (the Senate) of 120 members, who were elected for a 9 year term. 90 members were popularly elected, 20 were designed by various stakeholders and 10 were elected by the House and the Senate sitting in a joint session. The composition of the Senate was renewed by 1/3 every three years. In spite the Senate’s positive record during the above periods, the widespread feeling in Greece is that the second Chamber is a conservative (if not aristocratic) institution, whose presence is a “luxury” in modern democracies. The answer is definitively no, with the exception of a very small number of intellectuals and politicians who raise from time to time the issue of bicameralism in connection with the low quality of the laws voted by the unique Chamber.
Hungary had a bicameral legislature for many centuries. The rules of this system were laid down in Article I of Act I of 1608, which established the bicameral legislature as the basis of Hungarian bicameral parliamentarism until the middle of the 20th century.
Iceland had a bicameral parliamentary system until 1991. Constitutional amendments with Act No. 56/1991 [1] to merge the two chambers into a single one were adopted by the Althing on 31st May 1991 and subsequently confirmed by the President and published in the Official Gazette. The change marked the restoration of the unicameral system which was brought about when a re-established Althing convened in 1845 (a royal decree had been handed down in 1843 to establish a new Althing) with 26 members sitting in a single chamber, acting as a consultative body to the Crown of Denmark [2]. The unicameral system was kept until 1874 when a new Constitution for Iceland was adopted on the millennial anniversary of the settlement of Iceland with a bicameral system. This Constitution granted Iceland legislative powers in its domestic affairs while the King had veto power, carried out by the Danish Minister of Justice who became a Special Minister for Iceland (the executive power was not in the hands of Icelanders until 1904 with a constitutional amendment in 1903 granting Icelanders home rule and the first Icelandic minister. With the Act of the Union on 1 December 1918, an agreement with Denmark recognized Iceland as a fully sovereign state, only in personal union with Denmark through a common Monarch). The Althing in 1874 was now divided into an upper chamber, known as Efri deild and a lower chamber, known as Neðri deild. Half of the upper chamber consisted of the Danish King’s nominated representatives while the lower chamber consisted of elected representatives. Simultaneously, a plenary session of a united Althing was held when the Althing convened and at the end of each parliamentary session and also to rule on disputes between the two chambers when they were in dispute on amendments to draft laws.
There is unicameral system and there has never been a serious proposal to change into bicameral system.
During the First Republic (1948) : Under the first constitution, the National Assembly was unicameral. Under the second and third constitutions, the National Assembly was to be bicameral and consist of the House of Representatives and the House of Councillors, but in practice the legislature was unicameral because the House of Representatives was prevented from passing the law necessary to establish the House of Councillors. Same for the Second Republic. Third Republic : Since the reopening of the National Assembly in 1963 until today, it has been unicameral.
The country has always had a unicameral system. It has never in the past had a bicameral or congressional system.
In accordance with the Constitution of the Kyryyz Republic, adopted on May 5, 1993, in
The Republic of Latvia has always had a unicameral parliament (Constitutional Assembly (Satversmes sapulce) in 1920-1922 and Parliament (Saeima) in 1922-1934 and 1993-now) and there have never been serious debates concerning a change to a bicameral system.
There was never a bicameral system in Liechtenstein. Given that Liechtenstein is a small state with a current population of about 39.000 inhabitants (and about 11.000 in 1921 as the Constitution now in force was drafted) it is not surprising that there has never been a discussion on this issue.
The modern State of Lithuania – the Republic of Lithuania, which was established in 1918, has never had a bicameral parliamentary system.
Always unicameralism. In 1839, following the turmoil of the Belgian Revolution, the purely French-speaking part of Luxembourg was ceded to Belgium and the Luxembourgish-speaking part (except the Arelerland, the area around Arlon) became what is the present state of Luxembourg
In the Republic of Moldova is a unicameral legislature. The country had never a bicameral parliamentary system in the past.
No, the dimension and the unitary character of the country do not allow to envisage a bicameral system.
1) The Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia as independent country was adopted in 1991, providing unicameral Parliament. During socialism, when Macedonia was part of Yugoslavia, three constitutions were adopted. The Constitution of the People’s Republic of Macedonia from 1946 provided unicameral Assembly. The Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia from 1963 introduced 5 “chambers”(sobor) of the Assembly: Republican chamber, Chamber of the delegates of the citizens in the municipalities, Educational-cultural chamber, Social-health chamber and Organizational-political chamber. The Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia from 1974 introduced 3 chambers of the Assembly: Chamber of joint labor, Chamber of municipalities and Social-political chamber.
The Parliament of Montenegro was initially established by the Constitution of the Principality of Montenegro in 1905 and was called the Popular Assembly (Narodna skupština). It had a limited legislative role, limited by the authority of the Knjaz (Prince). The first parliament was constituted in 1906 Following the incorporation of the Kingdom of Montenegro into the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1918, the Parliament of Montenegro was disbanded until World War II. The Parliament was reinstated in 1944, in the form of the Montenegrin Anti-Fascist Assembly of National Liberation (CASNO), which changed its name to the Montenegrin National Assembly, and later the National Assembly. This lasted until 1946, when a new Assembly was elected for the Socialist Republic of Montenegro, a constituent republic within the SFR Yugoslavia. The current parliament is the 23rd since the foundation of the Parliament.
Between 1921 and 1933 the Parliament was bicameral, consisting of a Senate (Senat) as well as a Legislative Assembly (Assemblea Leġiżlattiva).
Norway had formally a bicameral system until 2009. A constitutional amendment in 2007, in force following the election in 2009, abolished the two chambers. However, since the adoption of the constitution in 1814 until the abolishment of the two chambers in 2009, Norway did not have a true bicameral system. The reasons for this is that in case of disagreement between the two chambers, and the upper chamber rejected a bill for the second time, the parliament would assemble in unicameral composition and decide with 2/3 majority of all members. In the parliament, the division in two chambers was a purely formal thing, and the MPs were elected in the same election and served on the same committees. Therefore, we can call the bicameral system that existed in Norway between 1814 and 2009 as a quasi-bicameral system. A similar quasi-bicameral system existed in the Batavian constitution of 1798, but in that case, the upper chamber could reject bills from the lower chamber for the second time with a 2/3 majority. If you want to, I can provide a lot of historical information on the adoption of the quasi-bicameral system, but I suppose that is less interesting for the report.
Throughout republican history in Peru, the constitutions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have consistently established the bicameral parliamentary system. Only the constitutions of 1823, 1867 and the current one of 1993 opted for a Congress with a unicameral parliamentary system. In the case of the Constitution of 1823, the justification was that the constituents were influenced by the Spanish Constitution of 1812 and the French letters of 1791 and 1793, to avoid possible internal conflicts in a bicameral parliament. This was the same reasoning as the Constituent Congress that drafted the current 1993 Constitution. The debate on the return to a bicameral system has been a constant since the beginning of the 21st century. It should be noted, the referendum convened in 2018 that proposed a series of constitutional reforms, among which was the restoration of bicameralism. It was not ratified. The terms of the debate, in purity, refer to the analytical capacity of the Senate, the under-representation, the efficiency and promptness in drafting and passing laws, the saving of public resources, the eventual assembly of functions of two chambers, among other points that show arguments for and against both types of parliamentary systems.
The Portuguese State exists as an independent entity since 1140, in historical continuity that was never interrupted, even during the Personal Union – the same King – with the Spanish Crown (1580-1640).
The Republic of San Marino has always had a unicameral system. In this regard, there is no public debate about changing to a bicameral system.
Always unicameralism. From the beginning of the 19th century, National Assembly sessions were called by Serbian monarchs. Sessions were also held during the First and Second Serbian uprising.The members were not elected, but rather appointed by the monarch, and sessions were usually held in open space, in which a couple of thousand members could participate. One of the major groups at this point of time, were the conservative Defenders of the Constitution who were initially allied with the Karađorđević dynasty.[5] After the overthrow of Obrenović dynasty in 1842, they held a majority in the parliament.[6]
Slovakia was founded on 1 January 1993 as a result of the split of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic. Its Constitution, passed on 1 September 1992, provides for a unicameral parliament called the National Council of the Slovak Republic (Národná rada Slovenskej republiky). While Czechoslovakia did have a bicameral parliament, the framers opted for unicameralism. To my best knowledge, there has been no serious debate to introduce bicameralism.
The Swedish parliament, or Riksdag, originally consisted of the four social estates: the nobility, the clergy, the burghers (property-owning commoners in the towns such as merchants etc.), and the yeomanry (freehold farmers). This form of Ständestaat representation lasted until 22 June 1866, when the Riksdag decided to reconstitute itself as a bicameral legislature, consisting of Första kammaren or the First Chamber, with 155 members and Andra kammaren or the Second Chamber with 233 members. The First Chamber was indirectly elected by county and city councillors, while the Second Chamber was directly elected.
In Türkiye, a bicameral parliamentary structure was preferred during the “1876 Kanun-u Esasi” and “1961 Constitution” periods. In the 1921 and 1924 Constitutions and the 1982 Constitution, a unicameral parliamentary structure was adopted.
No, Ukraine has never had a bicameral system in the past. There is no public debate about changing to a bicameral system.
Albania
No, there is not a significant debate about a bicameral system.
Andorra
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Costa Rica
Croatia
After the Second World War, Croatia was a federal unit of the multinational federation Yugoslavia to whom it transferred a part of its sovereignty. The 1947 Constitution of the Popular Republic of Croatia had defined the parliament (Sabor) as a unicameral body vested by the highest authority in the country. Its structure was altered several times. In 1953 Sabor was divided in two houses: Republican Council and Council of Producers. In 1963 it consisted of five houses/councils: Republican, Economic, Education-Culture, Social-Health and Organizational-Political. In 1974 it became a body with three houses: Council of Labour, Council of Communes and Socio-political Council. These structural arrangements reflected communist/socialist paradigms with a constant focus on improvements by practical legal redesign. Nevertheless, all throughout this period the real power was always concentrated within the Central Committee of the Communist Party and its presidency.
1990 – 2001 Democratic constitution - bicameralism
Still as a federal unit of the former Yugoslavia (at that point the SFRY, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia), Croatia held its first multiparty democratic elections in April and May of 1990 and in turn the newly elected Croatian Parliament passed the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia (also known as the “Christmas Constitution” as it was promulgated on December 22nd, 1990). It reflected the commitment to modern democratic constitutionalism placing separation of powers, multiparty democratic system, free market economy and human rights in its centre. According to the provisions of the “Christmas Constitution“, the Sabor consisted of two chambers: the Chamber of Deputies (Zastupnički dom) with legislative authority, and the Chamber of Counties (Županijski dom) with an advisory role and the right to lodge so-called suspension veto. However, the previous three-house system continued until the end 1992 and it was only in 1993 that the Chamber of Counties was elected. The Chamber of Counties (Županijski dom) consisted of three representatives of 20 territorial units and 5 persons nominated by the President of the Republic.
2001 to present – unicameral system
As Županijski dom failed to fulfill the intended role of informed and competent advisor to the Zastupnički dom, partly due to the same party-in-power in both Chambers, and missing the need for the territorial representation of the kind in a small state as Croatia (see infra explanation in 2)), the powers of the Chamber of Counties were first reduced in 2000, and the Chamber was finally abolished in 2001.
There is no further debate on re-introduction of bicameralism in the Republic of Croatia. The unicameral system is deemed to be the only obviously adequate parliamentary arrangement for the country.
Cyprus
· The Republic of Cyprus is a presidential representative democratic republic. According to its Constitution, Cyprus is a unitary state with a presidential system of government.
· In terms of decentralization, Cyprus does have some limited forms of regional government. The country is divided into six districts, each with its own district administration, which is responsible for local government functions such as town planning, public health, and public works.
· The president is the head of state and government in Cyprus. The president is elected directly by the people for a term of five years and is eligible for re-election for one additional term. The executive power is vested in the president, who is assisted by a council of ministers appointed by him/her.
· The legislative branch of the government is a unicameral parliament called the House of Representatives. Members are elected for a term of five years through a proportional representation system.
Denmark
Estonia
In 1991/1992, there was a sense that the Constitution of 1937, although still formally valid from the perspective of Estonian constitutional law and legal doctrine, was too authoritarian and presidential, reflecting constitutional ideas which were popular in the 1930s but felt outdated by the early 1990s. The Constitution of 1937 was in itself a result of a coup d'etat which happened in Estonia on 12 March 1934 and thus the 1937 Constitution first and foremost reflected the power ambitions of President Konstantin Päts who had gathered the political power in his hands. The bicameralism as it was practiced according to the 1937 Constitution was organized so that the second chamber of the parliament was made inter alia of representatives of professional chambers.
There is currently no debate in Estonia to switch (back) into bicameral system.
Finland
Instead, the Finnish parliamentary system, which is among the oldest in Europe, has been unicameral even since parliamentary reform in 1906, establishing universal suffrage, including women, and proportional election for a unicameral parliament on the basis of the d’Hondt method of distribution of seats. This was a decision with very few contemporary models. At the time, Finland was an autonomous Grand Duchy in the Russian Empire, albeit with the legal system inherited from the period of Swedish rule, including enactments enjoying constitutional status, continuing to be in force.
Prior to 1906, the Finnish political system was based on the Diet of the Four Estates (nobles, clergy, burghers and peasants) which had started meeting regularly in 1863.
Finland gained independence in 1917. The constitutional framework of the newly independent state was laid down by the adoption of the Constitution Act of 1919 and three other enactments enjoying the status of the Constitution. The Finnish Parliament (Eduskunta, Riksdagen ) continued to be a unicameral body although the tasks of the Grand Committee, one of Parliament’s permanent committees, were somewhat reminiscent of those of the “second chamber” since the Committee was originally organized as a legislative body. However, the tasks of the Grand Committee were changed in the early 1990s, and it nowadays serves as “Parliament’s EU committee” which expresses Parliament’s stance on the national preparation of European Union matters.
Currently, unicameralism of the Finnish parliamentary system is enshrined in Section 24 of the Constitution as follows: “The Parliament is unicameral. It consists of two hundred Representatives who are elected for a term of four years at a time.”
Finland has a deeply-rooted tradition of unicameralism and, accordingly, all public debate about changing the Finnish parliamentary system to a bicameral system has practically been conspicuous by its absence.
Georgia
In the view of Queen Tamar's oppositionists and their leader, Qutlu Arslan, the first Georgian Parliament was to be formed of two "Chambers": a) Darbazi – or assembly of aristocrats and influential citizens who would meet from time to time to take decisions on the processes occurring in the country, the implementation of these decisions devolving on the monarch b) Karavi – a body in permanent session between the meetings of the Darbazi. The confrontation ended in the victory of the supporters of royal power. Qutlu Arslan was arrested on the Queen's order.In 1918 the first Georgian National Parliament was established in the newly independent Democratic Republic of Georgia. In 1921 the Parliament adopted the first Georgian Constitution. However, shortly after the adoption of the Constitution, Georgia was occupied by the Bolshevik Red Army. This was followed by a 69-year-long absence of independent parliamentary government in Georgian history. In 1995, the newly elected Parliament adopted a new Constitution. Georgia now has a semi-presidential system with a unicameral parliament.
Greece
Hungary
Until the middle of the 19th century, the relationship between the two chambers was characterised by equality in public law. From then on, however, the political centre of gravity shifted to the chamber organised on the basis of popular representation (this was reflected in its new name: the House of Representatives).
The reform of the upper house took place at the end of the 19th century: it mainly changed its composition, with a certain marginalisation of ecclesiastical representation. The composition was also affected by the fact that the monarch could appoint fifty members to the House of Lords for life, at the suggestion of the government.
The revolution following the First World War led to the dissolution of the upper house, which was not re-established until 1926. Since then the upper house acted as a balancing and compromising body, bringing together representatives of the aristocracy, the churches, industry, finance, business, academia and local government.
A Provisional National Assembly operated from December 1944 until the autumn of 1945. The National Assembly reconvened in the autumn of 1945 and has been unicameral ever since.
The 1949 Constitution established the Presidential Council of the Hungarian People's Republic, which replaced the Parliament with broad powers. Thereafter, until 1987, the role of the National Assembly was relegated to the background and became essentially formal, holding only four sessions a year, each lasting a few days.
Although the idea of reintroducing a bicameral legislature was mooted during the 1989-90 regime change, there was no real support for it from either the communist state party or the newly formed democratic parties.
Since then, the situation has been similar: although positions in favour of a bicameral parliament appeared sporadically in Hungarian public life during the drafting of the 2012 Fundamental Law, they did not gain political support.
Iceland
Early in the 20th century a plenary session (a united Althing) took over tasks from the chambers and gradually became a special chamber, the third chamber, with its own structure and committees. This division was affirmed in 1934 when the passage of the fiscal budget was taken over by the plenary session of united Althing with an amendment of the Constitution.
During the latter part of the 20th century most of the Althing’s tasks were handled by the plenary session of the united Althing, the discussions on the fiscal budget, parliamentary resolutions, questions to government ministers, transactions and discussions outside the formal agenda. The quest for abolishing the bicameral system started in the early 1950s and various proposals brought up in the 1970s and 1980s with f. ex. a draft law amending the Constitution in1983 which was not adopted. Finally, during the session of the Althing in 1990-1991 there was a broad political consensus to abolish the bicameral system and move all the tasks to the plenary session. In this respect notice was taken of the Danish abolishment of the bicameral system in 1953 and the amendment of the Swedish system in 1971 – both examples regarded as improving the legislature. [1] Article 32 of the Constitution amended with Act No. 56/1991, Article 7. https://www.althingi.is/altext/stjt/1991.056.html / [2] The 1849 Constitution in Denmark repealed the absolute monarchy and established a constitutional monarchy in which power of most important issues was handed over to parliament elected by the people. This change was not well received with Icelanders as in reality it meant reduced autonomy for Icelanders who had officially ruled themselves in domestic matters. / [3] Constitutional amendments in 1934 confirmed the division of constituencies; increased the number of MPs and that the fiscal budget had to be adopted by a plenary session of a united Althing.
Israel
Korea, Republic
Kosovo
Kyrgyzstan
February 1995, elections to the Jogorku Kenesh of the Kyrgyt Republic of the first convocation
were held.
In the period 1995-2000, Kyrgyzstan had a bicameral parliament of the first convocation of the
Jogorku Kenesh - the Legislative Assembly and the Assembly of People's Representatives,
whose deputies were elected by the majority system in single-mandate districts.
In the period 2000-2005, the Jogorku Kenesh of the second convocatibn carried out its activities
in Kyrgyzstan. It consisted of 105 deputies, since during the third constitutional reform, in 1998, .
changes were made to the electoral system and the quantitative composition of the chambers of
the Kyrgyz parliament was again revised. The constitutional reform of 2003 established that in
2005 a unicameral parliament would be formed. The reforms were introduced in response to a
number of factors, including concerns about the efficiency and effectiveness of the bicameral
system, and a desire to cut govemment spending.
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
However, if to look at the historical development of the State of Lithuania, it had a bicameral parliamentary system in time of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania when it was a part of the Commonwealth of Two Nations (together with the Kingdom of Poland) before its annexation (the final division of the Commonwealth) by Russia, Prussia and Austria in 1795. The Constitution of 3 May 1791, which was the first written Constitution in Europe, established a constitutional monarchy and consolidated a bicameral parliament of estates (see more in: Lithuanian Constitutionalism: the Past and the Present, p. 49-56, 392-394, https://lrkt.lt/data/public/uploads/2017/12/lithuanian-constitutionalism.pdf) The Convention was composed of the lower Chamber of Deputies (representatives of lower estates) and the upper Chamber of Senators (higher nobility).
Art. VI of the Constitution of the Commonwealth (the Government Law) proclaimed that “the Diet [Seimas], or the Assembly of Estates, shall be divided into two Houses; viz. the House of Deputies, and the House of Senate, where the King is to preside. The former being the representative and central point of Supreme national authority, shall possess the pre-eminence in the Legislature; [...] In regard to the House of Senate, it is to consist of Bishops, Palatines, Castellans, and Ministers, under the presidency of the King, who shall have but one vote, and the casting voice in case of parity, which he may give either personally, or by a message to the House”.
The Constitution of 1791 was valid only a few years. After the re-establishment of the Lithuanian statehood in 1918, the modern State of Lithuania was not seen as a direct continuator of the Commonwealth of Two Nations. It was rather perceived as a qualitatively new State, established on the grounds of popular rather than estate democracy, and as a separate nation State from Poland (even the Constitution of 1791 a long time (approximately until 2000s) has been perceived as a negative symbol of the former dependence on Poland). Thus, due to the radically changed circumstances there were no preconditions or specific reasons to consider the re-establishment of a bicameral parliamentary system. This remains true until today, though the attitude to the Constitution of 1791 has been changed in a positive way.
During the independence of the Republic of Lithuania, there was no serious public debate about the possibility of re-establishing of a bicameral system.
Luxembourg
Moldova
Article 60 of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova: Parliament – the Supreme Representative and Legislative Authority
(1) Parliament is the supreme representative body of the people of the Republic of Moldova and the sole legislative authority of the State.
(2) Parliament is composed of 101 members.”
Monaco
North Macedonia
After the break-down of Yugoslavia, the new Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia from 1991, introduced unicameral Parliament, because of the small size of the country and its unitary character.
The debate about changing to a bicameral system was opened in 2005 by one political party of Macedonians and was repeated usually during electoral campaigns by few political parties of Albanian community in North Macedonia. Neither of these political parties were major ruling parties and the debate was not upheld by mainstream ruling political parties.
In 2005, the parliamentary group of Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization – Peoples’ Party (VMRO-NP) proposed constitutional amendments for introducing bicameral parliament consisted of Senate and House of Representatives. It was proposed Senate to be consisted of 20 Senators and House of Representatives of 120 MPs. Two senators would be elected in each of six electoral districts, six would be elected as representatives of minority communities and two would be elected by state universities and Macedonian Academy of Science and Art. The mandate of the senators would be 8 years. The Senate would elect members of the Constitutional court, Supreme Court, ambassadors, high officials in the Army etc. The introduction of Senate would mean that the House of Representatives will not carry procedure for double vote (voting by all MPS and voting by MPs from national minorities) that was introduced for certain issues with the constitutional amendments from 2001.
Beside this proposal, some political parties of Albanians in Macedonia proposed introducing bicameral parliament. The Democratic Party of Albanians (DPA) stated that it demanded bicameral parliament, while its MPs were boycotting the Parliament in 2010. Also, the leader of the Democratic Party of Albanians (DPA) during the campaign for parliamentary elections in 2014 and in 2016, stated that his party proposes bicameral system. In 2015 the leader of the new political party formed by members of DPA - Movements for reforms DPA, also stated that they will propose introduction of the bicameral parliament. The same idea was expressed by one MP from the Alliance of Albanians in 2022.
Montenegro
Malta
Norway
The bicameral system was abolished by constitutional amendment with only 1 vote against, if I remember correctly. All parties in parliament agreed. There was little public discussion. This is probably due to the fact that since the 19th century, the upper chamber had lost much of its importance and was considered by MPs as less important than the lower chamber since it did not have a right to initiate legislation. In its reasoning, the standing committee of constitution and scrutiny argued that the traditional rationale for bicameralism in Norway was to ensure quality in legislation, and that this aim could be ensured by other means. The specific reason for its abolishment was a practical one, as the committee cited problems with MPs in the upper chamber that couldn’t be rapporteurs on legislative bills. This was due to the fact that the separation in two chambers was only formal, and that MPs from both chambers served in the standing committees. Thus committee members from the upper chamber would then be prevented from participating in parliamentary debates on legislative bills belonging to their committee.
Peru
Portugal
In this long time, different political forms followed each other – from traditional monarchies, historically characterized, to the democratic Republic.
There were in Portugal, in the Middle Ages, Assemblies [Cortes], similar to Parliaments or «General States», that integrated the nobility, clergy and representatives of municipalities [organizations and institutions of local power]; the most relevant moments in overcoming serious political crises occurred in 1385 and 1640, when the Cortes elected and acclaimed the King.
In absolutist regimes of the 17th and 18th centuries, the Cortes were no longer summoned.
2.. In 1820, with the first liberal revolution, modern constitutionalism emerged in Portugal. The first political Assembly, in the modern sense, was the Constituent Assembly of 1821-1822 [Cortes Gerais Extraordinárias e Constituintes da Nação Portuguesa] composed by elected deputies.
The Constitution of 1822, which resulted from the work of the Constituent Assembly, created a Parliament with a single Chamber, elected by direct suffrage tending to be universal.
The Constitution of 1822 was short-lived: signed on September 23, 1822, it only lasted until June 4, 1823, as result of the counter-revolutionary movement on May 28, 1823; but on September 10, 1836, the validity of the Constitution of 1822 was re-established, even if in ambiguous terms, until the Constitution of 1838.
3. The Constitutional Charter of 1826 [Carta Constitutional da Monarquia Portuguesa], was a Constitution granted [dada] and decreed by the King on April 29, 1826, and was based on the idea of reconciling the principles of national sovereignty with the monarchical principle, and therefore with broader powers for the King in a compromise between liberal-parliamentary participation and the monarchical principle.
The Constitutional Charter of 1826 attributed legislative power to the Cortes (Parliament), composed by two Chambers, in a bicameral system: the Chamber of Peers [Câmara dos Pares] and the Chamber of Deputies (Câmara dos Deputados]; the attributions are shared between the Cortes Gerais, integrating the two Chambers, and there were specific attributions to the Chamber of Deputies and to the Chamber of Peers (articles 13 to 33; 34 to 38 and 39 to 44).
The Constitutional Charter of 1826 proceeded, with the bicameral distribution, to a share of political power, satisfying sectors of the nobility that had been marginalized in the Constitution of 1822, in a way somehow reactive to directly representative constitutionalism.
The Chamber of Deputies was elective and temporary (article 34); the Chamber of Peers was composed of lifetime and hereditary members [Pares], appointed by the King without a fixed number (art. 39), plus the Peers added by their own right by birth (Art. 40) and Peers in their right due to the position they held (Decree of April 30, 1826).
The justification for the existence of the Chamber of Peers, according to sources at the time, was based on the idea that it should be «an assembly less subject to external influences and passions, more stable, more reserved, less disposed to changes and innovations», which would mitigate « the ardor of the popular chamber when intempestive», and would serve as a counterbalance and corrector of the Chamber of Deputies of popular election; the Chamber of Peers would, at least ideally, provide a counterpoint to partisans and tribune struggles, with a “calming” effect of harmony between the different sensibilities and parties colors.
The choice of deputies to the Cortes Gerais was made through indirect elections (election of Parochial Assemblies by active citizens - provincial voters - which after elect deputies, representatives of the Nation (art. 63)); the criterion for election was censitário (through census: to be a renter, taxpayer, or having a minimum annual revenue as a basis for exercising political rights), in addition to cases of active electoral incapacity (article 64).
In the exercise of legislative power, and in the procedure for approval of laws provided for in the Constitutional Charter of 1826, the two Chambers participated, both in the right of initiative and of proposal, and in the discussion, which was held in each Chamber; the constitutional text regulated in detail the procedure and the way to resolve divergences (art. 51 et seq).
The existence of a broad census criterion for the election of deputies, along with the existence of "Peers in their own right", as well as the heredity of the Peers, raised divergences and criticisms from liberal currents of opinion, giving rise to strong political divisions regarding the nature of, and particularly on the composition and on the use by the King of the powers to appoint Pares do Reino without fixed number.
The Constitutional Charter was therefore subject to some changes; the Additional Act of June 5, 1852 (1st Additional Act) established the direct election of deputies, lowered the census requirements for voters, and later laws extended the scope of suffrage.
The Câmara dos Pares was substantially changed by the Additional Act of July 24, 1885 (2nd Additional Act) and became composed of Life Peers, appointed by the King (100); elective Peers (50), and de jure Peers, admitting heredity on a provisional basis; by the Additional Act of 1895 (3rd Additional Act) the elective Peers were suppressed.
The Constitutional Charter, despite strong criticism, divergences, cleavages and the various political crises that marked the Portuguese XIX century, was the constitutional text in force for the longest time in Portugal (1826-1828), ( 1834-1836) and (1842-1910).
4.. In 1936, following the events that History marks as the «September Revolution» (September 10, 1836), a Constituent Assembly prepared and approved a new Constitution that came into force on April 4, 1838 – the Constitution of 1838.
The Constitution of 1838 was a document of compromise between defenders of national sovereignty and the Constitution of 1822, and supporters of the constitutional monarchy based on the monarchical principle and the Constitutional Charter of 1826.
The Constitution of 1838 emerged as a Constitution agreed upon between the Cortes and the Queen, as revealed by the Queen's "Final Declaration of Acceptance and Oath".
The Constitution attributed legislative power to the Cortes, with the King's Sanction, and the Cortes were integrated by two Chambers: the Chamber of Senators [Senadores] and the Chamber of Deputies, in a bicameral system as it was in the Constitutional Charter of 1826 (art 36).
The deputies and senators were elected by direct suffrage (art. 71), but depite that restrictions on access to active electoral capacity have diminished, the conditioning census of an amount of annual income «from real estate trade, capital, industry or employment», as well as some electoral disabilities («excluded from voting»), many limitations to the right to vote remained (art 72 and 73).
The Chamber of Senators was elective and temporary, and not for life or hereditary; the senators were appointed by the King, and the number of senators would be at least equal to half of the deputies (articles 58 and 59).
The Constitution, however, established for senators stricter eligibility rules (art. 77) regarding age (thirty-five years), census condition (annual income in an amount far higher than that established for deputies), or hold high positions (catholic ecclesiastics, and, to the highest degree, judicial, academic, military and diplomats).
The Constitution of 1838 assigned the legislative power to the Cortes, composed by two Chambers; the attributions were, as in the Constitutional Charter of 1826, shared between the Cortes Gerais (art. 37) integrating the two chambers, and the own competences of each Chamber (art 53 to 57, and 58 to 63).
As in the Constitutional Charter of 1826, in the Constitution of 1838 both Chambers participated in the legislative procedure in parity (arts. 64 to 70), both in right of initiative or proposal, as well as in the discussion which took place in sessions of each chamber; the constitutional text regulated the procedure and the way to overcome disagreements in acceptance or rejection of proposals; the right of each Chambers to proceed, by means of commissions of inquiry, with the examination of any object within its competence was innovative (article 39).
The completely elective composition of the Senate constituted a matter of cleavage between the political forces that sought a constitution of compromise, but the ambiguity remained in two moments of the text itself: the constitutional provision of articles 58 and 59 was weakened by the provision of the « transitory article» at the end of the document, that provided that «the ordinary Cortes that first meet […] will be able to decide whether the Chamber of Senators will continue to be composed by simple popular election, or whether in the future the Senators will be chosen by the King on the basis of triple list proposed by the constituencies».
The Constitution of 1838 was short-lived and, therefore, was not significant on portuguese constitutional history: entered into force on April 4, 1838, it ended with the coup d'état on January 27, 1842, which restored the Constitutional Charter of 1826, keeping this the country's fundamental law until October 5, 1910.
5.. The Constitution of 1911, voted on August 21, 1911 by a National Constituent Assembly, was drawn up following the ruptures determined by the republican revolutionary movement of October 5, 1910, which abolished the Monarchy and proclaimed the Republic.
The Constitution of 1911 can be considered as the exponent of portuguese democratic liberalism, and despite the radical “corpus” of social support base of republicanism, did not reject the jusnaturalist and jusrationalist heritage of the great declarations of rights, in a formula that was already in the Constitution of 1822.
In the structure of political powers, the Constitution of 1911 instituted a bicameral parliamentary body [Congresso], composed by two Chambers: the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, elected by direct suffrage of the voting citizens (article 8); the Deputies were elected for three years, and the Senators were elected for six years, but every time there were general elections of Deputies, the Senate would be renewed in half of its members. The organization of the electoral colleges to the two Chambers and the election process were the object of a special law (article 8, single par.).
The number of Senators was fixed in the Constitution by reference to the administrative division: three senators for each district and one for each overseas province (territory) (art. 9).
The Congress had, namely, legislative, financial, electoral powers (election of the President of the Republic), powers for political control of the Government, to authorize the declaration of war, and to declare a state of siege, or constitutional revision (art. 25, 1 to 25).
The Chamber of Deputies and the Senate had equal legislative powers; but the Constitution provided for some exclusive competences of each of the Chambers (articles 23 and 25).
The parliamentary issue – single chamber or bicameralism – was the subject of extensive discussion in the Constituent Assembly. The defenders of the solution that adopted the model of two Chambers were close to the argumentation that justified the conservative role of the Chamber of Peers in the past; a second Chamber representing the social aggregates - the intellectual forces of the country, the forces of public wealth, farmers and workers, being the direct and immediate representation of public wealth; one Chamber would represent the direct force of the people, another would represent the direct force of social interests; one would be the expression in the «Vote Nation», another the possible expression of the «Practical Nation».
The deputies who were opposed to the bicameral solution argued on the basis of the usefulness of the second Chamber: if the Chambers were constituted by suffrage and in the same way, one of them would be useless; if the second Chamber were formed in other ways, by wealth, by the splendor of birth, by reputation or by age, it would become an aristocratic body against democratic values and principles.
The Constitution of 1911 was in force until the military movement of May 28, 1926, that started a political period of military dictatorship.
6.. On March 19, 1933, the Political Constitution of the Portuguese Republic (Constitution of 1933) was approved through a Plebiscite, which established the political and legal basis of the Movement of May 28, 1926, institutionalized a political regime («Estado Novo») with strong authoritarian marks; the Constitution enunciated formally several fundamental rights, but political freedoms were scarce or non-existent; the most relevant rights, freedoms and guarantees were submitted to the regime that would be provided for by law, so degrading constitutionality into mere legality, and freedom of political choice had no space given the prohibition of political parties, with the consequent absence of pluralism in parliamentary representation.
In the constitutional system of 1933, the parliamentary body was the Assembleia Nacional (National Assembly), and the only one directly elected after the 1959 constitutional revision, which changed the mode of election of the President of the Republic, from direct election by suffrage to indirect election through restricted college.
The Assembleia Nacional was a unicameral body, elected by direct suffrage of the citizens, with a four-year mandate (article 85); given the political nature of the regime, there was no basis or sense for a bicameral system.
The Constitution instituted a body to function alongside the National Assembly – the Câmara Corporativa (Corporative Chamber), composed by representatives of local authorities and social interests, considered in their fundamental branches of an administrative, moral, cultural, economic order; the way for choosing their members, the composition and the term of office of the members of the Câmara Corporativa were determined by law and not by the Constitution (article 102). The functions of the Câmara Corporativa were merely consultative in nature “on all proposals of law presented to the Assembleia Nacional” (Article 103).
Notwithstanding the extension of the statutory guarantees of deputies to the Assembleia Nacional to members of the Câmara Corporativa (article 89, ex vi article 102, § 3), the function of this Chamber was not that of a second deliberative chamber, but only that of an auxiliary body of the Assembleia Nacional.
The Constitution of 1933 was radically disrupted by the military movement of April 25, 1974; Law nº 1/74, of April 25th, dismissed the political bodies, dissolved the Assembleia Nacional and assigned the respective competences to the Junta de Salvação Nacional (National Salvation Board) emanating from the military movement.
7.. Law nº 3/74, of May 14th defined a provisional constitutional structure for the organization of the provisional political bodies of power, and determined in article 3 that it would be up to the Constituent Assembly to prepare and approve the new Political Constitution.
The Constituent Assembly, elected on April 25, 1975, approved the new Constitution of the Portuguese Republic in a plenary session on April 2, 1976 (Constitution of 1976).
In the Constitution of 1976, the Assembleia da República (Parliament) is a unicameral body, in the tradition of the unicameralism of the Constitution of 1822. The existence of a second chamber, as in Constitutions of 1826, 1838 and 1911, would be unjustified in a unitary, and democratic state of law, the introduction of a second «aristocratic», «corporate» or «federal» Chamber being out of the question; a democratic "high chamber" with the same powers and the same legitimation basis as a "lower chamber" would not make sense, would not have the justification traditionally invoked for a second chamber and it would be useless.
[The description of the evolution of the structure of parliamentary bodies in the Portuguese Constitutions was essentially sourced from JJ Gomes Canotilho, Constitutional Law and Constitutional Theory, 7th ed ., Almedina, p. 128-174; and 630-632]
8.. There is currently no public debate, or even expression that deserves special mention, about the unicameral or bicameral nature of parliament, although sporadically there may be some outcropping of the subject: a few months ago, an opinion text linked to a think tank proposed "the discussion of a bicameral system, through the creation of a Senate, whose mission would be to give a sense of stability to the country's fundamental policies and a long-term vision at the level of the legislature and scrutiny of the Government, fulfilling the objectives of reinforcing the representativeness of the territory in the formulation of policies and ensure a more productive intergenerational dialogue".
There was no salient reaction, and in the constitutional revision process that is currently underway there are no proposal about the matter.
San Marino
Serbia
Ilija Garašanin, who was one of the members of the conservative group, called for the adoption of a law that would officially form the National Assembly.This was done in December 1858, when the Saint Andrew's Day Assembly was established Its first name was also adopted at the assembly, which was the "Serbian National Assembly".After the adoption, sessions were initially held every three years, although this was later changed over the time, and later sessions were either held once a year, or once every three or four years.The first law regarding MPs was adopted in 1870.
Slovakia
Sweden
This bicameral system lasted until 1969, when a partial reform of the constitution was passed, creating a unicameral legislature. The origins of the unicameral legislature are that, prior to the 1964 election, the non-socialist parties had agreed to recommend a single-chamber Parliament. The dominant party at the time, the Social Democratic Party (SDP) was originally not in favour of this, as it traditionally had strong representation at the local level (and thus a significant proportion in the indirectly elected first chamber). However, the SDP suffered major losses in the local elections of 1966 and could no longer reckon with a majority in the first chamber. The SDP thus became converted to the idea of a single chamber.
Türkiye
The bicameral parliamentary system was first experienced with the 1876 Constitution during the First Constitutional Period (I. Meşrutiyet). The legislative body, which is called the Meclis-i Umumi, consists of two assemblies, namely the Meclis-i Mebusan and the Meclis-i Ayan. (Articles 42-80 of the 1876 Constitution). The bicameral system came to an end with the opening of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, which was the "constituent assembly" on April 23, 1920. The 1921 Constitution (Teşkilat-ı Esasiye Kanunu) was adopted by this First Turkish Grand National Assembly, which also led the Turkish National War of Independence. According to this Constitution, the parliament had a unicameral structure. The fact that the 1921 Constitution established a unicameral structure is a result of the historical and political conditions at that time, as well as the system itself. Due to the 1921 Constitution's adoption of the parliamentary government system and the need for a parliament with a structure that could take urgent decisions in an extraordinary period such as war, it was not possible to consider a bicameral structure in that period.
Another significant experience with the bicameral system was the Senate of the Republic that was in force between 1961 and 1980, which was accepted in the 1961 Constitution. During the 1961 Constitution period, a bicameral parliament consisting of the National Assembly and the Senate of the Republic was established.
Although the bicameral system was discussed in the preparation process of the 1982 Constitution and in the parliamentary discussions, the legislative body was accepted as a unicameral body, with the thought that the implementation of this system between the years 1961-1980 did not meet the expected benefit from it and caused a waste of time in the legislative processes. In this context, the failure to see the expected benefit in the period of 1961 Constitution led to the abandonment of the bicameral parliamentary system in the 1982 Constitution.
Although some authors from the literature argue that the bicameral system can be beneficial for pluralist democracy, there is no current public debate on the subject.
Ukraine