Bicameralism under Pressure
Edited by Richard Albert, Antonia Baraggia and Cristina Fasone
Chapter 16: Concluding chapter - Bicameralism as a normative choice in the tension between its reform and its passing
Reforming bicameralism does not necessarily mean modifying the structure or the procedures of both the Houses. Elaborating on four national cases (Bosnia-Herzegovina, France, Poland and Slovenia), this chapter focuses on the issues arising in the attempt to modify only one of the two branches of a parliament. The claim is that the modification of the upper house implies a change in the fundamental structure of the form of state, the upper house being ‘the’ distinctive feature of a given bicameralism. Finally, as a normative choice, the chapter supports the idea of reforming bicameralism systems instead of shifting to unicameralism, as the former are more likely to provide for instruments of limitations on the tyranny of the majority within the political process.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.
Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.
Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.