Examining the Effectiveness of Bicameralism - Essay Example

Examining the Effectiveness of Bicameralism Examining the Effectiveness of Bicameralism Bicameralism entails a legislature that is characterized by the division of legislators into two assemblies. This approach tends to have an influence on presidential and parliamentary systems. The presidential system would have the legislators elected directly by the separate chambers. A parliamentary system assumes a different approach as it is characterized by the presence of a lower and an upper chamber. The first chamber has the legislators elected directly while those in the second chamber can be elected directly or indirectly. The effectiveness of a bicameral system has been contended as some see it as a virtue of any constitutional design as another term it as a suggestion of weakness in any legislative system. Citing related literature, we can establish that bicameralism has a unique history and was established with an aim of balancing the needs of the majority and the minority, but the division can make deliberation of legislature slow and laborious. Bicameralism finds its roots in Europe where the likes of Aristotle suggested the need for a multi-chambered legislature. The logic behind Bicameralism was the fact that the society always has people on both extreme ends. The groups have unique features that are distinctively defined such that they should be represented separately. This notion became popular in medieval Europe, and many European countries were inspired to assume this direction (Tsebelis & Money, 2009). The English parliament is credited for having had in place two different chambers back then in the form of House of Commons and the House of Lords. This could have influenced the founders of the United States, who were in favor of a bicameral system. Their argument was that the senate would be more resourceful gathering informed insight from the two pools of legislators. It would be a force that would establish a balance as it would feature individuals elected by the senate rather than the public mass. James Madison saw it as a virtue of the constitution as the senate would be a pool of informed characters who would be inspired by wisdom to deliberate sensitive decisions as foreign policy for the better of the entire nation. The virtue of selection of such legislators was interesting as it was based on such factors as wealth for eligibility. Future developments paved the way for the 17th Amendment that stated that state legislatures would no longer elect senators. Senators instead would have to be elected as based on popular vote. While the contemporary progressives argue that bicameralism makes a system weak, we can evaluate its role and its effectiveness. The proponents of bicameralism argue that it helps to check on the tyranny of the majority. This in turn prevents the establishment of ill-considered bills that would affect the minority negatively. The pace at which such deliberations are done is monitored and thus ensures that the electorate is protected from laws that would prove non-beneficial to them. The presence of two bodies of legislature counter checks a bill before it becomes law and eliminates the chances of having placed a law that would go against the interests of the public especially the minority. The senate would have to give their views on a bill while the House of Representatives airs the opinion of those they represent. The logic is that both sides are wise and knowledgeable and have the best interest at hearts for the electorate. The house of the representatives tends to ensure that the powerful senate house does not overlook the rights of the minority. The bicameral system is backed as a parameter of political order. The division of legislators into different assemblies brings about a balance in the distribution of power. As such, the legislative branch of the government has no chance of accumulating such amount of power that would be termed as excessive. There is always two sides counter checking each other such that legislators cannot override an executive veto. This implies that the electorate is cautioned from ill decisions that would otherwise be made by leaders who would choose to abuse their power. Such cases have been evident in less developed democracies where the political leaders take advantage of their legislative powers. They establish laws that override the desires of the electorate. This in turn means that the needs of the minority groups are overlooked. Bicameral legislature tends to shape up the political parties of a given nation or state (VanDusky-Allen & Heller, 2014). This works best for the electorate. The fact that the two chambers hold legislators from different parties, the parties involved tend to shape up their policies in a manner that appeals to the public eye. While the democrats are in power, republicans might take advantage of a situation that may go public and affects one of the legislators. As such, democrats assume policies that meet the needs of both the minority and the majority. This has a long-term benefit to the public. Despite the party in power, they are assured of good conduct and execution of policies that meet their needs. Researches and studies have proved that a bicameral system increases accountability among legislators (Testa, 2010). This always the case when a single party assumes control of the two chambers. More so, it works even better when the party is highly polarized. As such, the legislators pass laws that meet the needs of both the minority and the majority. Cases of corruption are monitored, and legislators are held accountable for any misconduct. The two houses tend to uncover sins done behind the scenes. This has long term benefits upon the electorate. Resources are distributed fairly and equally. Cases of unaccounted resources are followed, and legislators face disciplinary actions. Bicameral systems have been found to strike a balance between broad issues of a given state and the local issues (Russel, 2013). Having an upper chamber and a lower chamber allows a given system to address those issues that affect the electorate from a general perspective and those that affect a narrower range of people. As such, the chambers can specialize on attending at various matters at a time. For instance, having to establish infrastructure in a given state would demand a different kind of approach unlike when addressing the needs of a minority group. This suggests that having different chambers earns the government flexibility. The proponents of the bicameral system argue that it allows quality and informed decision-making (Daniel, 2011). Having to feature both sides of the legislature allows more room for rethinking, evaluation and adjustments. Some legislators are thorough to ensure that the right procedure is followed while deliberating a bill. They counter check to see that both chambers approve the bills. For instance, the bill on sexual equality is one aspect that attracted thorough attention from both sides. They were keen to measure it against the values of United States culture and the American dream. Through those deliberations, a chapter of equality and equal treatment under the same law was established. But the bicameral legislature is not popular with everybody. It has been found to lack efficiency as far as such factors as time and flexibility are concerned. On the overall, having to feature both assemblies in deliberating a bill slows the legislation process turning it laborious. This makes the entire process unnecessarily expensive in the long run (Daniel, 2011). Having important bills taking so long to pass leaves some minority groups being discriminated under the same laws. This does not ogre well with the public. Additionally, some states and are unequally represented in the chambers. Some are more populous than others but are spared the same number of positions as the less populous states. Alaska is less populous than New York yet the two have the same number of representatives. This would leave some people unimpressed. The bicameral legislature finds roots in medieval Europe. It is has a place for the minority and the majority segments of the electorate. As much as it may seem slow, laborious, and expensive, it has long-term benefits for the public mass. References Daniel, H. (2011, April 12th). Benefits of bicameral legislature. Retrieved Oct 10, 2015, from Benefitof.net: http://benefitof.net/benefits-of-bicameral-legislature/ Russel, M. (2013). Rethinking a bicameral strength: A three-dimensional approach. Journal of legislative studies, 19(3):370-91. Testa, C. (2010). Bicameralism and corruption. European economic review, 54(2):181-198. Tsebelis, G., & Money, J. (2009). Bicameralism in historical perspective. Retrieved Oct 10, 2015, from Cambridge University Press: http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9780511609350&cid=CBO9780511609350A012 VanDusky-Allen, J., & Heller, W. B. (2014). Bicameralism and the logic of party organization. Comparative political studies, 47(5):715-745. Read More