Perfect and Imperfect Bicameralism: A Misleading Distinction?

Open access

Abstract

The aim of this contribution is to make some points on the distinction between ‘perfect’ (or equal) and ‘imperfect’ (or unequal) bicameralism and its relevance to contemporary discussions about second chambers and their constitutional position. The analysis starts with an assumption that this distinction is somehow under-theorised. The distinction between perfect and imperfect bicameralism, finally resulting in a clear prevalence of the latter, mainly focuses on two aspects: the exercise of legislative function and, in parliamentary regimes, the confidence vote. In spite of the unquestionable relevance of these two components to the activity of parliaments, these analyses are incomplete. The functions and competences of a given second chamber depend on the way it represents pluralism: the weight that each legal system attaches to the representative role of its own second chamber decisively shapes the perimeter of their functions. Important evidence for validating this claim comes from the procedures for passing constitutional amendments, in which second chambers, even in a number of ‘unequal’ bicameral systems, are put on equal footing with first chambers.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Albert Richard 2013 ‘The Expressive Function of Constitutional Amendment Rules’ McGill Law Journal LIX(2): 225-281.

  • Albert Richard 2014 ‘The Structure of Constitutional Amendment Rules’ Wake Forest Law Review XLIX(4): 913-975.

  • Albert Richard 2016 ‘The Conventions of Constitutional Amendment in Canada’ Osgoode Hall Law Journal LIII(2): 399-441.

  • Albert Richard Contiades Xenophon and Fotiadou Alkmene (eds) 2017 The Foundations and Traditions of Constitutional Amendment Hart Publishing Oxford.

  • Ambrosini Gaspare 1944 Autonomia regionale e federalismo. Austria Spagna Germania URSS Edizioni Italiane Roma.

  • Beaud Olivier 2007 Théorie de la Fédération Presses universitaires de France Paris.

  • Behrendt Christian 2003 ‘La possible modification de la procédure de révision de la Constitution belge’ Revue française de droit constitutionnel no. 54: 279-308.

  • Bernard Sébastien 2001 ‘La commission mixte paritaire’ Revue française de droit constitutionnel no. 47: 451-478.

  • Bifulco Raffaele 2003 ‘Il bilancino dell’orafo. Appunti per la riforma del Senato’ Politica del diritto XXXIV(2): 207-229.

  • Bon Valsassina Marino 1959 ‘Il bicameralismo imperfetto o limitato nelle costituzioni contemporanee’ Rassegna di diritto pubblico XIV: 207-334.

  • Bonfiglio Salvatore 2005 Il Senato in Italia. Riforma del bicameralismo e modelli di rappresentanza Laterza Roma-Bari.

  • Bourmaud François-Xavier 2018 ‘Réforme constitutionnelle: Macron entame une difficile négociation’ Le Figaro 24 January.

  • Brun Henri Tremblay Guy and Brouillet Eugénie 2008 Droit constitutionnel 5th edition Éditions Yvon Blais Cowansville Québec.

  • Bryce James 1921 Modern Democracies vol. I Macmillan New York.

  • Carmines Edward G. and Fowler Matthew 2017 ‘The Temptation of Executive Authority: How Increased Polarization and the Decline in Legislative Capacity Have Contributed to the Expansion of Presidential Power’ Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies XXIV(2): 369-397.

  • Castellà Andreu Josep Maria 2006 ‘The Spanish Senate after 28 Years of Constitutional Experience. Proposals for Reform’ in Luther Jörg Passaglia Paolo and Tarchi Rolando (eds) A World of Second Chambers: Handbook for Constitutional Studies on Bicameralism Giuffrè Milano 859-909. de Vergottini Giuseppe 2004 Diritto costituzionale comparato 6th edition Cedam Padova. de Vos Pierre 2006 ‘The Role of the National Council of Provinces in the Governance of South Africa’ in Luther Jörg Passaglia Paolo and Tarchi Rolando (eds) A World of Second Chambers: Handbook for Constitutional Studies on Bicameralism Milano Giuffrè 613-664.

  • Dehousse Renaud 1990 ‘Le paradoxe de Madison: réflexions sur le rôle des chambres hautes dans les systèmes fédéraux’ Revue du droit public et de la science politique CVI(3): 643-676.

  • Delpérée Francis 2006 ‘The Belgian Senate’ in Luther Jörg Passaglia Paolo and Tarchi Rolando (eds) A World of Second Chambers: Handbook for Constitutional Studies on Bicameralism Giuffrè Milano 697-719.

  • Di Manno Thierry 2006 ‘The Sénat of the French Republic’ in Luther Jörg Passaglia Paolo and Tarchi Rolando (eds) A World of Second Chambers: Handbook for Constitutional Studies on Bicameralism Giuffrè Milano 153-256.

  • Dixon Rosalind 2011 ‘Constitutional amendment rules: a comparative perspective’ in Ginsburg Tom and Dixon Rosalind (eds) Comparative Constitutional Law Edward Elgar Publishing Cheltenham 96-111. Domínguez Íñigo and Alberola Miquel 2017 ‘El Senado aprueba aplicar el artículo 155 en Cataluña’ El País 27 October 2017.

  • Duguit Léon 1896 ‘Le Sénat et la responsabilité politique du ministère’ Revue du droit public et de la science politique V: 426-433.

  • Dumont Hugues El Berhoumi Mathias and Hachez Isabelle (eds) 2016 La sixième réforme de l’État: l’art de ne pas choisir ou l’art du compromis? Larcier Bruxelles.

  • Einaudi Luigi 2012 ‘Governo parlamentare e presidenziale’ [1944] in Il buongoverno. Saggi di economia e politica (1897-1954) Laterza Roma-Bari 79-84.

  • Esmein Adhémar 1896 Éléments de droit constitutionnel Larose Paris.

  • Faraguna Pietro 2016 How Does the EU Challenge Bicameralism? First Reflections from the Italian Constitutional Experience at www.papers.ssrn.com 2 May 2016.

  • Fasone Cristina 2017 ‘Secession and the Ambiguous Place of Regions Under EU Law’ in Closa Carlos (ed) Secession from a Member State and Withdrawal from the European Union: Troubled Membership CambridgeUniversity Press Cambridge 48-68.

  • Ferejohn John 1997 ‘The Politics of Imperfection: The Amendment of Constitutions’ Law and Social Inquiry XXII(2): 501-530.

  • Fernández Riquelme Sergio 2009 ‘Ángel Ossorio y Gallardo ante la “solución corporativa” (1913- 1931). El impacto histórico de la representación política del trabajo’ Historia Constitucional X: 181-200.

  • Frau Matteo 2016 ‘L’attualità del parlamentarismo razionalizzato’ Nomos: le attualità nel diritto XXIX(3) www.nomos-leattualitaneldiritto.it.

  • Fusaro Carlo and Oliver Dawn (eds) 2011 How Constitutions Change: A Comparative Study Hart Publishing Oxford.

  • Gamper Anna 2006 ‘The Austrian Bundesrat’ in Luther Jörg Passaglia Paolo and Tarchi Rolando (eds) A World of Second Chambers: Handbook for Constitutional Studies on Bicameralism Milano Giuffrè 781-828.

  • García Herrera Miguel Ángel 1978 ‘La Comisión Mixta Congreso-Senado’ Revista de Estudios Políticos no. 4: 67-95. · Garrigues Jean 2010 ‘Le Sénat de la Troisième République 1875-1914. Réflexions sur une chambre méconnue’ in Garrigues Jean et al. (eds) Assemblées et Parlements du Moyen-Âge à nos jours Assemblée nationale Paris 1169-1180.

  • Ghisalberti Carlo 2002 Storia costituzionale d’Italia 1848-1994 2nd edition Laterza Roma-Bari.

  • Goyard Claude 1982 “La critique parlementaire des administrations sous la IIIe République” in Bruguière Michel et al. Administration et parlement depuis 1815 Librairie Droz Genève 59-76.

  • Granat Mirosław 2006 ‘The Senate in Poland’ in Luther Jörg Passaglia Paolo and Tarchi Rolando (eds) A World of Second Chambers: Handbook for Constitutional Studies on Bicameralism Giuffrè Milano 961-1001.

  • Herzog Roman 2005 ‘Stellung des Bundesrates im demokratischen Bundesstaat’ in Isensee Josef and Kirchhof Paul (eds) Handbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland vol. III Demokratie - Bundesorgane 3rd edition C.F. Müller Heidelberg 943-964.

  • Hobsbawm Eric 1962 The Age of Revolution: Europe 1789-1848 Weidenfeld & Nicholson London.

  • Jennings Ivor 1969 Cabinet Government 3rd edition Cambridge University Press Cambridge.

  • Laffaille Franck 2016 ‘Le president du Sénat’ Pouvoirs no. 159: 41-52.

  • Lauvaux Philippe 1990 ‘L’évolution du régime parlementaire depuis 1944’ Pouvoirs no. 54: 25-36.

  • Lauvaux Philippe 2004 ‘Quand la deuxième chambre s’oppose’ Pouvoirs no. 108: 81-99.

  • López-Basaguren Alberto 2017 ‘Regional Defiance and Enforcement of Federal Law in Spain: The Claims for Sovereignty in the Basque Country and Catalonia’ in Jakab András and Kochenov Dimitry (eds) The Enforcement of EU Law and Values: Ensuring Member States’ Compliance Oxford University Press Oxford 300-315.

  • Luciani Massimo 2010 ‘Governo (forme di)’ in Enciclopedia del diritto Annali III Giuffrè Milano 538-596.

  • Lupo Nicola 2017 ‘La rappresentanza politica oggi: sfide esistenziali e snodi concettuali’ Percorsi costituzionali X(1): 37-52.

  • Lupo Nicola and Piccirilli Giovanni 2017 ‘Introduction: The Italian Parliament and the New Role of National Parliaments in the European Union’ in Lupo and Piccirilli (eds) The Italian Parliament in the European Union Hart Publishing Oxford 1-16.

  • Luther Jörg 2006 ‘The Search for a Constitutional Geography and Historiography of Second Chambers’ in Luther Jörg Passaglia Paolo and Tarchi Rolando (eds) A World of Second Chambers: Handbook for Constitutional Studies on Bicameralism Giuffrè Milano 3-31.

  • Lutz Donald S. 1994 ‘Toward a Theory of Constitutional Amendment’ The American Political Science Review LXXXVIII(2): 355-370.

  • Macchia Marco 2018 ‘Le “instabili” fondamenta del bicameralismo costituzionale’ Rivista trimestrale di diritto pubblico LXVIII(1): 233-267.

  • Maitland F.W. 1909 The Constitutional History of England Cambridge University Press Cambridge. de Mareschal Édouard 2018 ‘Ce que contient la réforme constitutionnelle d’Emmanuel Macron’ Le Figaro 10 March.

  • Mirkine-Guetzévitch Boris 1931 Les nouvelles tendances du droit constitutionnel Marcel Giard Paris.

  • Oleszek Walter J. 1974 “House-Senate Relationships: Comity and Conflict” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science CDXI(1): 75-86.

  • Paladin Livio 1984 ‘Tipologia e fondamenti giustificativi del bicameralismo. Il caso italiano’ Quaderni costituzionali IV(2): 219-241.

  • Palermo Francesco and Kössler Karl 2017 Comparative Federalism: Constitutional Arrangements and Case Law Hart Publishing Oxford.

  • Palermo Francesco and Nicolini Matteo 2013 Il bicameralismo. Pluralismo e limiti della rappresentanza in prospettiva comparata Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane Napoli.

  • Passaglia Paolo 2018 ‘Unicameralism Bicameralism Tricameralism: Evolution and Trends in Europe’ paper presented at the conference ‘Representing Regions Challenging Bicameralism’ University of Innsbruck 22-23 March 2018.

  • Patterson Samuel C. and Mughan Anthony 2001 ‘Fundamentals of Institutional Design: The Functions and Powers of Parliamentary Second Chambers’ Journal of Legislative Studies VII(1): 39-60. · Pelletier Benoît 2017 ‘Amending the Constitution of Canada’ in Oliver Peter Macklem Patrick and Des Rosiers Nathalie (eds) The Oxford Handbook of the Canadian Constitution Oxford University Press Oxford 253-275.

  • Pernthaler Peter 2004 Österreichisches Bundesstaatsrecht. Lehr- und Handbuch Verlag Österreich Wien.

  • Pinard Danielle 2006 ‘The Canadian Senate: An Upper House Criticized yet Condemned to Survive Unchanged?’ in Luther Jörg Passaglia Paolo and Tarchi Rolando (eds) A World of Second Chambers: Handbook for Constitutional Studies on Bicameralism Giuffrè Milano 459-520.

  • Rodean Neliana 2018 ‘Upper Houses and Constitutional Amendment Rules. In search of (supra)national paradigm(s)’ federalismi.it XVI(8) www.federalismi.it.

  • Roger Patrick and Lemarié Alexandre 2018 ‘Le plan de Macron pour réduire les pouvoirs du Parlement’ Le Monde 14 April 2018.

  • Rogers Lindsay 1922 ‘Conference Committee Legislation’ The North American Review CCXV(796): 300-307.

  • Romaniello Maria 2015 Assessing Upper Chambers’ Role in the EU Decision-Making Process SOG-WP 26/2015.

  • Romaniello Maria 2016 ‘Bicameralism: a concept in search of a theory’ Amministrazione in cammino 20 September 2016 www.amministrazioneincammino.luiss.it.

  • Romeo Graziella 2017 ‘The Italian Constitutional Reform of 2016: An “Exercise” of Change at the Crossroads between Constitutional Maintenance and Innovation’ Italian Law Journal special issue The 2016 Italian Constitutional Referendum: Origins Stakes Outcome 31-48.

  • Russell Meg 2006 ‘The British House of Lords: A Tale of Adaptation and Resilience’ in Luther Jörg Passaglia Paolo and Tarchi Rolando (eds) A World of Second Chambers: Handbook for Constitutional Studies on Bicameralism Giuffrè Milano 65-96.

  • Russell Meg 2013 The Contemporary House of Lords: Westminster Bicameralism Revived Oxford University Press Oxford.

  • Schoettl Jean-Éric 2018 ‘Non aux “fake news” sur la révision constitutionnelle’ Le Figaro 30 January.

  • Selejan-Gutan Bianca 2016 The Constitution of Romania: A Contextual Analysis Oxford Hart Publishing.

  • Shastri Sandeep 2006 ‘Representing the States at the Federal Level: The Role of the Rajya Sabha’ in Luther Jörg Passaglia Paolo and Tarchi Rolando (eds) A World of Second Chambers: Handbook for Constitutional Studies on Bicameralism Giuffrè Milano 587-611.

  • Stone Bruce 2006 ‘The Australian Senate: Strong Bicameralism Resurgent’ in Luther Jörg Passaglia Paolo and Tarchi Rolando (eds) A World of Second Chambers: Handbook for Constitutional Studies on Bicameralism Giuffrè Milano 529-585.

  • Venice Commission (European Commission for Democracy through Law) 2009 Report on Constitutional Amendment adopted by the Commission at its 81st Plenary Session Venice 11-12 December 2009.

  • Vimbert Christophe 1992 La tradition républicaine en droit public français Publications de l’Université de Rouen-Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence Rouen-Paris.

  • Vipond Robert 2017 ‘1867: Confederation’ in Oliver Peter Macklem Patrick and Des Rosiers Nathalie (eds) The Oxford Handbook of the Canadian Constitution Oxford University Press Oxford 83-101.

  • Weber Karl 1980 Kriterien des Bundesstaates. Eine systematische historische und rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung der Bundesstaatlichkeit der Schweiz der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und Österreichs Wilhelm Braumüller Wien.

  • Weber Yves 1972 ‘La crise du bicaméralisme’ Revue du droit public et de la science politique LXXXVIII(3): 573-606.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 0.04

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.105
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.03

Target audience: researchers, academics, practitioners interested in the field of political, economic and legal issues in federal states, regional organizations, and international organizations at global level
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 256 185 16
PDF Downloads 193 150 11