DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA,

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,
LUCKNOW
SESSION 2018-19

SUBJECT: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-II

TOPIC: UNICAMERAL VS BICAMERAL SYSTEM;PRO

AND CONS
CLASS: B.A. LL.B. (HONS), IVth SEMESTER

SUBMITTED TO - SUBMITTED BY-

Ms. Ankita Yadav Vishal Kumar Arya

Assistant Professor 170101163
DR. RMLNLU SECTION-B

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I express my gratitude and deep regards to my teacher for the subject Ms. Ankita Yadav for for
her exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant encouragement throughout the course of this
thesis.

I also take this opportunity to express a deep sense of gratitude to my seniors in the college for
their cordial support, valuable information and guidance, which helped me in completing this
task through various stages.

I am obliged to the staff members of the Madhu Limaye Library, for the timely and valuable
information provided by them in their respective fields. I am grateful for their cooperation during
the period of my assignment.

Lastly, I thank almighty, my family and friends for their constant encouragement without which
this assignment would not have been possible.

Vishal kumar arya

2|Page
  Contents
 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................4
 TYPES OF LEGISLATURES – .......................................................................6
 Unicameral v. Bicameral Systems: The Pros and Cons ...................................7
 A. The Quality of Representation .....................................................................7
 B. Political Stability ..........................................................................................8
 C. Accountability ..............................................................................................9
 D. Authority ......................................................................................................9
 E. Power ..........................................................................................................10
 F. Decision-making .........................................................................................11
 G. Cost-Effective and Efficient Legislative Process ......................................11
 H. Political Tradition ......................................................................................12
 Key Differences Unicameral and Bicameral Legislature ...............................13
 LEGISLATURES IN PRACTICE..................................................................14
 CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................16
 BIBLIOGRAPHY.........................................................................................................................17

3|Page
 INTRODUCTION
The legislature is an organ of the government which is empowered to make laws and oversee the
administration of the government. There are two kinds of legislatures prevalent in the world, i.e.
unicameral and bicameral. The unicameral legislature is the system of the government where a
single central unit has got the wholesole right to make laws and decide upon government
policies. a bicameral legislature is one where there are two chambers of Parliament, i.e. the
Upper house that represents States, and the other is the Lower house that represents people of the
country. In this type of legislature, the powers are shared by the two houses.

When in a parliamentary system there is only one house to perform all the activities of the
legislature, i.e. enacting laws, passing a budget, looking after administration, discussion on
matters concerning developmental plans, international relations, national plans etc., then this
form is called as Unicameral legislature or Unicameralism.

The members in case of a unicameral legislature are directly elected by the people and so it
represents all the people. Further, due to its simplicity, there are fewer chances of a deadlock
situation.

Some of the countries where the unicameral legislature is practised are New Zealand, Iran,
Norway, Sweden, China, Hungary etc.

The bicameral legislature, or bicameralism, refers to the lawmaking body of a country that
comprises of two separate houses, i.e. the Upper house and the Lower house that shares the
powers. Its primary objective is to ensure just and fair representation of all the sectors or groups
of the society, in the Parliament.

The bicameral structure is adopted in United Kingdom, United States, India, Canada, Spain,
Japan, Italy, etc.

The members of the lower house are elected directly by the people through general elections to
represent the general public. On the other hand, the indirect method is used to elect members of
the Upper house, which indicates political subdivisions. The composition of the two chambers of
the Parliament is different, in the number of seats, powers, voting process and so forth.

A legislature should provide a direct, open and responsive link between citizens and the state. Its
purpose should be collective decision making and problem solving. It should filter complex
information using superior resources and expertise to provide constituents with well-defined
options and inspire citizens to appreciate common goals. Members of the legislature, aware that
their legitimate authority is derived from the consent of the governed, must represent both the
interests of their local constituencies and the interests of the state as a whole, a balance that can
often create tension even in the rosiest of times.

4|Page
There have been a number of rationales put forward in favour of bicameralism, federal states
have often adopted it, and the solution remains popular when regional differences or sensitivities
require more explicit representation, with the second chamber representing the constituent states.
Nevertheless, the older justification for second chambers—providing opportunities for second
thoughts about legislation—has survived.
Growing awareness of the complexity of the notion of representation and the multifunctional
nature of modern legislatures may be affording incipient new rationales for second chambers,
though these do generally remain contested institutions in ways that first chambers are not. An
example of political controversy regarding a second chamber has been the debate over the
powers of the Senate of Canada or the election of the Senate of France.
The relationship between the two chambers varies; in some cases, they have equal power, while
in others, one chamber is clearly superior in its powers. The first tends to be the case in federal
systems and those with presidential governments. The latter tends to be the case in unitary states
with parliamentary systems.
There are two streams of thought: Critics believe bicameralism makes meaningful political
reforms more difficult to achieve and increases the risk of gridlock—particularly in cases where
both chambers have similar powers—while proponents argue the merits of the "checks and
balances" provided by the bicameral model, which they believe help prevent the passage into law
of ill-considered legislation.
Countries across the world have, at one time or another, wrestled with the question of how to
design political institutions that best support an open, stable and prosperous society governed by
the rule of law. The results of these debates are generally reflected in a country=s constitution, in
which citizens establish their governing institutions. Legislative institutions, in particular, are an
area in which countries have a variety of choices. How should legislators be selected? What
powers should be attributed to the legislature? These are only some of the issues that require
resolution before a legislative body can act. An additional key decision concerns the structure of
the legislature itself: should the country adopt one legislative chamber (unicameral) or two
(bicameral)?
While the question of cameral selection is not easily resolved, experience over the last century
has helped to reveal the strengths and weaknesses of each model. Although historical, cultural
and ultimately political factors specific to a particular country will influence this decision, the
experience of other countries provides a useful basis on which to determine whether a bicameral
or unicameral model better serves the current needs and future goals of that country.

5|Page
TYPES OF LEGISLATURES-

Bicameral Legislatures-

A bicameral legislature is comprised of two chambers, often described as the lower house and
the upper house. Usually, the composition of the lower chamber (with such names as the House
of Representatives, House of Commons, Chamber of Deputies and Federal Assembly) is based
proportionally on population with each elected member representing the same number of
citizens. Upper chambers tend to be the smaller of the two legislative bodies. Members of upper
houses customarily serve longer terms, but frequently possess less power than their lower
chamber counterparts. The upper chamber (sometimes called the Senate, House of Lords or
Federal Council) varies considerably in its composition and in the manner in which its members
are selectedCthrough inheritance, appointment and indirect or direct elections. Some upper
chambers reflect regional or state divisions, as in Germany and the United States. Citizens often
exhibit greater confidence in those upper chambers where they participate in the selection of the
legislators through direct or indirect elections. In direct elections, voters cast their ballots directly
for a specific candidate or for the party they wish to see in power. With indirect elections,
citizens elect local or provincial governments, who then in turn select the upper house members.
Chambers formed by direct or indirect elections, unlike appointed or heredity chambers, are
more accountable to the people and, for that reason, are deemed to be more democratic.

Unicameral Legislatures-

One-chamber, or unicameral legislatures, are most often established in countries structured on a

unitary governmental system. Unlike the federal model, where power is distributed between the
central government and constituent territorial units, power in the unitary system is concentrated
in one central unit. The unitary model is generally found in geographically small countries with
homogenous populations of fewer than 10 million inhabitants.

6|Page
Unicameral v. Bicameral Systems: The Pros and Cons -
Unicameral legislatures occur more frequently in systems where the national government is a
single unit.1 “Approximately half of the world’s sovereign states are presently unicameral,
including both the most populous (the People’s Republic of China) and the least populous (the
Vatican City).”8 With a few exceptions, governments with unicameral legislatures tend to be
found in geographically small countries that have homogeneous populations of fewer than 10
million people in addition to few opposing political interests. Some, but not many, unicameral
legislatures have adopted a quota system to guarantee that certain minority groups are provided
with adequate representation.

Bicameral legislatures are featured in federal systems where power is disbursed among power
structures, such as federal, state and local governments. The people are represented in both an
“upper” and “lower” house. Representation in lower houses is usually based on a proportional
division of the population to create districts; thus, each member represents nearly the same
number of citizens. There is greater variation in how upper houses represent the people.
Members of upper houses may be elected either through direct or indirect elections, appointed, or
inherit their positions. Representation in upper houses is usually based on subdivisions that may
be drawn based on regional divisions, as with the United States Senate. Chamber responsibilities
and authority varies among nations.

A. The Quality of Representation-

Quality representation requires legislators to take into account the policy preferences and
interests of their constituents and to develop policies in accordance with those interests.2

Unicameralists argue that having an upper and a lower house in state legislatures is unnecessarily
duplicative because the legislators serve essentially the same populations. They maintain that a
unicameral system simplifies the legislative process, allows greater transparency, brings
representatives closer to their constituents and reduces the power and influence of money and
special interests. The public benefits in unicameral systems because its simpler legislative
process can be more easily observed and understood, allowing citizens a greater possibility of
participating in it. Unicameralists point out that minority representation in any such body is
dependent on the quality of the institution and not on the number of chambers.

1
Unitary Government is a system of government in which all governmental authority is vested in a central
government. The regional and local governments derive their powers from the central government. Sovereign
power. is vested with the central government and governance is conducted by it. The central government will stay
supreme even if powers are delegated to regional governments. The United Kingdom is an example of a nation
having a unitary system of government.
2
Whitby, Kenny J., The Color of Representation. Congressional Behavior and Black Interests, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor (2003)

7|Page
Bicameralists counter that legislators in the two houses serve different districts and therefore
different constituencies. In a bicameral system, one’s representatives may include members in
two houses from different parties, who serve on different committees, have different
relationships with communities and different life experiences to draw on. These features, they
argue, create a legislative system that is more responsive to the political interests of diverse
communities. Further, providing the electorate with more than one representative gives
constituents more opportunities to connect with any one of their representatives. They point to
the Founding Fathers’ goal of adopting a bicameral system to thwart the tyranny of the majority
and balance opposing political interests. They suggest that the complexity of the bicameral
system creates additional barriers against the influence of special interests by forcing those
interests to gain the support of larger numbers of political leaders.

B. Political Stability-

The Founding Fathers created a dual chamber legislature because they envisioned a House of
Representatives filled with “firebrands” and a more staid Senate that “cools the legislative tea.”3
They intended to create a government with checks and balances and a legislature that was both
deliberative and responsive to the interests of the people. Whether a two-house or a one-house
legislative structure contributes to a more stable government (which ideally is both responsive
and deliberative) is an area of major disagreement.

Unicameralists point to Nebraska as proof that a unicameral legislature can be both deliberative
and responsive to the popular will resulting in stable sound government. Nebraska’s four-year
legislative terms are overlapping. Half of the members, thus, are up for re-election every two
years. This type of electoral process results in legislative stability, because half the legislature,
knowing that voters will hold them accountable in the next election, is more responsive to public
opinion. The other half knows it seats are secure until the following election, allowing those
members to take a longer view of the legislative agenda, and resulting in a legislature that is both
responsive and deliberative.

Bicameralists argue that the legislative process was intentionally created to move slowly, and
with restraint, to accommodate the competing interests of the electorate and to provide stability
in the law. They contend that creating separate chambers that are elected at different times and
serve for different periods of time embodied these principles because one branch is structured to
act more quickly to reflect the changing mood of the electorate while the other is by design
deliberative. They point to Nebraska’s system with its overlapping four year terms and rotating
elections and note that every election half of the electorate is disenfranchised. They also argue
against unicameral systems that require all legislators to stand for election every two years
because the legislature would thus be vulnerable to the mercurial whims of popular opinion.

3
Stewart, Charles III, “Congress and the Constitutional System,” The Legislative Branch, ed. Paul J. Quirk and
Sarah A. Binder, Oxford University Press (2005), chapter 1.

8|Page
C. Accountability-

An essential part of representation is providing the electorate with the means of holding their
legislature accountable for their legislative actions. This requires the legislative process to be
visible and open to public scrutiny.

Unicameralists argue that the simplicity of the legislative process in a single chamber provides
greater transparency and, by extension, accountability of legislative acts to citizens. This
streamlined relationship between the representative and the represented encourages legislators to
be more accountable to the people they serve. It also requires legislators to become individually
more responsible, since they know the “buck stops with them,” and that they must therefore
accept responsibility for their legislative actions. Unicameralists argue that the overly complex
nature of a bicameral legislature provides opportunity for members to “pass the buck,” or place
blame on the other house, in addition to frustrating efforts by constituents to place credit or
responsibility for legislative actions on the proper member or members. They point out that
bicameral legislatures provide fertile soil for legislative log-rolling, where members vote for bills
that they do not support to curry favor with other legislators, knowing that bills frequently “die”
in the other chamber. Finally, they disparage conference committees which effectively remove
legislative decisions from the rank-and-file members because the members on the floor cannot
amend conference committee reports.

Bicameralists contend that simplicity does not necessarily lead to greater transparency and
accountability. They argue that the bicameral system is significantly transparent because the
work of conference committees is open to public view and debate and therefore provides the
electorate with opportunities to hold the legislature accountable. If conference committees are
too powerful, they argue, the solution is to reduce the power of the conference committee, not
remove the second legislative house. In addition, the committee of one house may find problems
in a bill that the committee in the other house did not. They further argue that citizens in
Nebraska, home of the nation’s only unicameral state legislature, are no more well-informed than
their counterparts in other states. Further, the democratic process requires that responsibility be
diffused through collective decision-making. Bicameralists insist that log-rolling and other types
of legislative bargaining will always be a part of the legislative process because legislators in any
system will try to increase individual influence as they represent constituents regardless of the
number of chambers in the legislature.

D. Authority-

Legislative authority provides members with the expertise, confidence and ability to act in the
interests of their constituents during the policy process and to maintain a check on the executive
branch when the executive over reaches its authority.

9|Page
Unicameralists argue that the nature of bicameral systems dilutes legislative authority because it
splits decision-making between the competing principals of the two houses, multiple committees
and two sets of legislators. The slow-moving nature of a bicameral system thwarts
decisionmaking and encourages rivalry and conflict among the members of the two chambers.
On the other hand, they say unicameral legislators feel beneficial pressure to acquire their own
in-depth expertise, since they cannot rely on a second chamber to catch their mistakes.
Unicameralists also say its legislators are checked and constrained by the electorate, judicial
review and executive veto.

Bicameralists4 say that a bicameral legislature affords the legislators greater opportunity to
develop higher levels of expertise that foster more independence and authority when dealing
with the executive branch. They contend that a unicameral legislature is inherently weaker,
because it has fewer committees, and provides fewer opportunities for members to develop
specialized knowledge which weakens legislative oversight of the executive branch. Further,
they point to Nebraska and suggest that its one-house legislature has no more influence over its
executive than bicameral legislatures in the other states. Finally, countering the unicameral
argument that suggests that members of unicameral bodies have greater authority because they
can act “alone” and do not have to reconcile legislation with a second legislative chamber,
bicameralists maintain that legislative restraint, rather than greater legislative authority, is the
basis of democratic governance and it is inherent in a bicameral system.

E. Power -

Bicameralists and unicameralists each argue that the other legislative system has undesirable
consequences for the concentration of legislative power either in the hands of a few powerful
leaders or by a chamber unrestrained by a second legislative check.

Unicameralists contend that in a bicameral system power coalesces around a few members
(powerful party leaders, committee chairs and conference committee members), while power in a
unicameral legislature is distributed among the rank-and-file members.

Bicameralists argue that power in a unicameral legislature is unrestrained because it is

concentrated in one house with no additional legislative check. Bicameral legislatures do not
depend on legislators to keep themselves in check, but rather depend on the constitutional
protections provided by a dual-chamber legislature. They say that Nebraska’s small legislature
(49 members) allows for a greater dispersion of power and that this dispersion of power is not
likely in a larger unicameral legislature.

4
https://www.leg.state.mn.us/docs/pre2003/other/990527.pdf

10 | P a g e
F. Decision-making-

Legislative deliberation and decision-making is directly affected by the rules, procedures and
organizational structures developed by a legislative body.11 Bicameralists and unicameralists
disagree about what organizational structures create the most effective legislative
decisionmaking environment.5

Unicameralists argue that the legislative process in one house creates an atmosphere that allows
more time for thoughtful reflection of legislation and more deliberative decision-making because
the process is not burdened by the redundancy of two houses. Unicameralists believe that the
judicial and executive branch checks are sufficient to assure quality control over legislation.
They counter that the evidence does not support the argument that the additional check in a
bicameral system improves the quality of legislation or safeguards against legislative errors. In
fact, the dual-chamber process encourages poor legislative decisions and even errors because
members take less care when voting on legislation as they know that errors can be “fixed” in
conference committee. Finally, unicameralists point to the constant backlog of the bills at the end
of legislative sessions in bicameral systems as evidence that the nature of two chambers fosters
inefficiency that can lead to hasty, end-of-session decisions that are not in the best interest of the
people.

Bicameralists argue that the redundancy found in two chamber legislatures is essential in
creating a sound legislative process. While both types of legislatures are subject to the quality
controls of the executive and judicial branches, those other two branches can only nullify or veto
laws enacted by the legislature. Their checks cannot replace the legislative check that catches
errors and improves bills before they are enacted. Multiple committee hearings and debates
create a redundancy that forces legislators to take a second and third look at legislation that will
impact the lives of their constituents. This redundancy provides additional oversight by multiple
committees and members that may catch potential errors and improve the quality of legislation.
Such oversight is not provided for as extensively in a unicameral legislature. Further, it is
redundancy that provides citizens with the opportunity for greater participation because the
extended process allows them time to understand the issues, develop opinions about efficacy of
legislation and communicate their opinions to their legislators.

G. Cost-Effective and Efficient Legislative Process-

Effective representation of the people’s interests includes the assurance that members perform
their legislative duties in a manner that is both cost-effective and efficient. Both bicameralists
and unicameralists claim that their system inherently produces such traits. Unicameralists argue
that a one-house legislature could contain fewer members, fewer committees, and is more direct.
The elimination of redundancy and duplication is more efficient and consequently less costly.
They point to the approximately 50% decrease in annual legislative

5
Quirk, Paul J., “Deliberation and Decision Making,” The Legislative Branch, ed. Paul J. Quirk and Sarah A.
Binder, Oxford University Press (2005), chapter 11.

11 | P a g e
costs that Nebraska has realized since 1937, even though it still spends more on legislative staff
than neighboring states.12

Bicameralists counter that any savings achieved through the reduction of legislators and staff in
a unicameral body is insignificant, compared to the loss of legislative effectiveness, if the size of
a state’s budget is taken into consideration. They note that Nebraska’s annual savings of $20
million is less than two-tenths of one percent of its annual budget -- a relatively negligible
amount.6 They suggest that because Nebraska has such a small legislature, and because it is non-
partisan (and thus does not appropriate funds for political caucuses), comparing the savings that
might be achieved in other states to that achieved in Nebraska is unreasonable.

H. Political Tradition-

Bicameralists and unicameralists each argue that their legislative system has been tested and is
well represented in American legislative tradition.

Unicameralists contend that single chamber legislatures are not unprecedented in American
tradition as two of the colonies (Delaware and Pennsylvania), the Continental Congress, three
early American states (Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Vermont) and Nebraska have employed or
employ the unicameral form. They say that local governments effectively utilize unicameral
systems in jurisdictions across the country. They argue that many parliamentary systems in other
countries are essentially unicameral bodies, since upper houses in many of those countries have
become almost vestigial and lack significant power. Finally, they contend that private industry
does not employ multiple governing boards in decision-making, because that would be
inefficient and ultimately ineffective to carry out corporate missions.

Bicameralists believe that instituting a unicameral legislature is a sweeping change that runs
counter to the Founding Fathers’ vision of bicameral legislatures in America. They argue that it
is unreasonable to expect outcomes similar to Nebraska’s non-partisan unicameral legislature in
states more populous and diverse. They reject comparisons to unicameral systems in other
nations as not relevant, because of their differing environments, traditions and expectations.
Finally, they cite a lack of parallel experiences, even in the business world; to be sure, private
corporations would not allow two governing boards, but they are profit making entities that are
not entrusted with or responsible for sound law-making that reflects the will of the people and
the state’s Constitution.

6
Minnesota. House of Representatives, House Research, Unicameral or Bicameral State Legislatures: The Policy
Debate (1999)

12 | P a g e
Key Differences Unicameral and Bicameral Legislature-

The difference between unicameral 7and bicameral legislature can be drawn clearly on the following
grounds:

 Unicameral legislature or unicameralism is the legislative system having only one house
or assembly. Conversely, bicameral legislature refers to the form of government, wherein
the powers and authority are shared between two separate chambers.

 In a unicameral government, the powers are concentrated in a single house of the

Parliament. As against, in a bicameral government, the powers are shared by the Upper
House and Lower House
.
 The unicameral legislature is followed when a country is structured on a unitary system
of government. On the contrary, the bicameral legislature is practised in a country where
there is the federal system of government.
 The decision making on policies and lawmaking is more efficient in the unicameral
legislature, as compared to the bicameral legislature. This is because, in a unicameral
legislature, there is only one house so the passing of law consumes less time. In contrast,
in a bicameral legislature, the bill has to be passed by both the houses of the parliament,
to become an act.
 In a unicameral legislature the chances of deadlock situation is rare. But, in case of a
bicameral legislature, deadlock is common, when the two chambers are in disagreement,
with respect to an ordinary bill. Then in such a case a joint sitting of both the houses is
summoned by the President to resolve the gridlock.
 The unicameral legislature is best for countries which are small in size. In contrast, the
bicameral legislature is appropriate for large countries.

7
Charles W. Shull, Ph. D., American Experience with Unicameral Legislatures, Detroit Bureau of Governmental
Research, Inc. and the School of Public Affairs and Social Work, Wayne University (1937), 9

13 | P a g e
 LEGISLATURES IN PRACTICE

Bicameral Legislatures-
The United Kingdom, a country occupying roughly 240,000 square kilometers (93,000 sq. mi.),
has a bicameral legislature that evolved despite the absence of a written constitution. The House
of Commons, the lower house, convened during the 13th century as a consultative body to the
House of Lords, in which membership was based on royal appointment, inheritance and seniority
in the Catholic church. By the 1650s, the elected House of Commons was regularly protesting
the unchecked power of the upper chamber. Throughout the 1820s and 1830s, parliament's lack
of political accountability grew increasingly contentious, and ignited enough public discontent to
force a reexamination of British electoral laws. Legislative reforms passed in 1832 redistributed
seats through a formula that diminished the influence of aristocracy and clergy in the House of
Commons. Gradually, the increased accountability of the popularly elected House of Commons
and the continued entrenchment of the aristocracy in the House of Lords prompted yet further
legislative reforms, in 1911 and 1949. As a result of these initiatives, the House of Commons
emerged as the central lawmaking body, and the House of Lords was obliged to accept a reduced
legislative role.8

The United States, with a population of approximately 265 million and an area of more than 9.4
million square kilometers (3.6 million sq. mi.), provides an example of a strong bicameral
legislature with two equally powerful chambers. Although both chambers must approve
legislation, only the House of Representatives can initiate spending bills, while the Senate alone
confirms presidential appointments, presides over presidential impeachment proceedings and
ratifies international treaties.

Unicameral Legislatures-

Costa Rica has a tradition of free, democratic elections dating to 1889. At that time, a
unicameral legislature had already been in place for more than 40 years, and that tradition has
continued through the country=s most recent constitution adopted in 1949. Because of a
previous history of authoritarianism, however, Costa Rica has instituted many precautions aimed
at curtailing the concentration of power. Political power is diffused by a constitutional provision
that prohibits both the president and members of the Legislative Assembly from seeking
reelection to consecutive terms. This stipulation has proven effective in preventing one party

8
The Federalist, No. 39 (J. Cooke ed. 1961), 250-257 (Madison)

14 | P a g e
from dominating the Assembly, a tendency that is sometimes attributed to unicameral
legislatures.20

Much like Costa Rica, Portugal9 has a unicameral legislative system strengthened by
constitutional amendments that limit the concentration of power, especially in the hands of the
military. For roughly 40 years, Portuguese politics were dominated by a string of civilian
dictators who used autocratic methods to gain and maintain power. The military remained a
direct guiding force in Portuguese politics until 1982 when a series of constitutional reforms
were adopted that formally excluded direct military participation in the government.21
Additional constitutional reforms in 1989 and 1992 designated the legislature as the sole
legitimate body of political representation. The Portuguese legislature, the Assembly of the
Republic, has 230 members serving four-year terms. Its members are elected from 22 electoral
constituencies, using proportional representation taken from party lists.

9
www.countrywatch.com/Content/pdfs/reviews/B4363663.01c.pdf

15 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION

The unicameral legislature is prevalent in those countries where there is no requirement of the
bicameral legislature, as well as the primary advantage is that lawmaking is easy. A bicameral
legislature is adopted by many countries of the world, to give voice to all the social group and
sectors. In this way, it assures representation of all the classes of people. Further, it prevents
centralization of power but may result in deadlocks, that makes the passage of law difficult.

Unicameralism,10 or a legislative body with one rather than two chambers, has several possible
disadvantages. The biggest disadvantage is that unicameral’s require more work from members
of the legislative body. In a bicameral system, legislators have another chamber to re-evaluate a
bill, while Unicameral's don't have that luxury. In Nebraska (the only unicameral legislature in
the US) bills are vetted extensively in committee (with a public hearing for every introduced
bill), and the bill is debated on three different occasions (stages) on the floor. Bills can be
debated for up to 12 hours, and there is a filibuster. The Nebraska Unicameral also has
nonpartisan rules, which makes partisan coordination among members more difficult. These
checks, designed to prevent hasty legislation, require much more in-debth work from legislators
than that of a bicameral.

Unicameralism also creates a disadvantage for lawmakers in states with term limits. Usually
legislators can run for the other house when term-limited out, remaining active in politics. Since
Unicameral's don't have a second house to provide that loophole, state lawmakers can’t continue
to participate in politics as easily.

10
https://www.javatpoint.com/unicameral-legislature-vs-bicameral-legislature

16 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Bakshi, P.M., The constitution of India, Universal law publishing, New Delhi, 11 th
edition,2011
 J.N.PANDEY.,Constitutional Law Of India,Central law of india,54th edition 2017
 V. N. Shukla’s Constitution of India,13th Edition,New Delhi,13th Edition
 Udai Raj Rai- Constituional Law-I
 D.D. BASU., Introduction to the Constitution of India ,21st Edition,2013
 H.M. SEERVAI., Constitutional Law of India,4th edition,2014

17 | P a g e