Abstract

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.