The choice between unicameral and bicameral legislatures : a study

Abstract

In a democracy, the legislature is one of the pivotal organs of the government which has the power to make laws and oversee the administration of government. Legislators have an essential duty to express the will of the electorate, and act as the link between them and government. Even though the aim of creating laws is innate in every democracy, the method and legislative process adopted vary from one state to the other. Some states opted for the unicameral method having one legislative chamber, while others adopted the bicameral legislature consisting of two legislative chambers. This subject raises a number of questions such as, what would be the best legislative method for a particular state, and what are the main factors which lead a state to adopt one cameral form over the other? To answer these questions, this study focuses on highlighting the main differences between these two forms. However, in order to fully understand the choice of cameral selection, a historical and legal analysis leading to such a decision is analysed by looking at three particular states; Malta, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Through this analysis, a comparative study of these states’ practices is compiled, which pinpoint their salient processes through unicameralism or bicameralism. Additionally, the research also highlights the main advantages and disadvantages that each state faces in adopting one legislative method over the other. This study shows that choosing between a legislative form is not a walk in the park, since there is not one correct form, but rather it depends on the different factors, aims and needs of each state. Moreover, arguments raised by different people who support unicameralism or bicameralism as the best legislative method for their state, play an important role when a state comes to make such a choice.