GHEORGHE ELENA-ADINA

SPE 1, SERIA A

Bicameralism versus unicameralism

The hypothesis of this research is based on the assumption that if the actual symmetrical
bicameralism is inefficient in the constitutional construction of Romania, then the unicameral Parliament
will assure a more superior efficiency of the legislative power. Throughout my research, I would analyze
theoretical and historical aspects of both systems, but also how they are perceived by the population, in
order to understand which form of legislative organization is suitable for the Romanian socio-political
environment.

According to article 61 of the Romanian Constitution 1, the Parliament is “the supreme representative
body of the Romanian people and the sole legislative authority of the country” and it is organized after the
bicameral model, presenting two Chambers: Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. As John Uhr says2, the
term “bicameralism” refers to legislative institutions with two chambers, sharing legislative powers in
order to create a balance. Romania has a tradition in bicameral parliament, first introduced by Alexandru
Ioan Cuza in 1864 and returned to once with the fall of the communist regime, which functioned with one
parliamentary chamber, known as “Marea Adunare Nationala”. The year 1991 marked the return to the
democratic system based on pluripartidism and the principle of separation of powers, where the legislative
power is represented by the bicameral Parliament. The sole difference was that the Romanian interwar
model was no longer followed, where each Chamber had different attributes, but the reduplication of
attributes of the Chamber of Deputies was preferred. Consequently, the absence of effective and visible
differences of attributes between the two Chambers determines the weighting effect desired by the
constituent legislator to be reduced, so, from this point of view, the organic separation of the Parliament is
superficial3. From this perspective, the Romanian Parliament is formally organized after the bicameral
structure, but, practically, works the same as an unicameral parliament, many arguing the the Romanian
parliamentary system is getting closer of what some call “unicameral bicameralism”4. Hence, I am going to
present arguments referring to both advantages and disadvantages of both systems, to get a better
understanding of how the legislative power should be organized according to the state’s characteristics.
1
Constitution of Romania 2003, Title III, Public Authorities, Chapter I – Parliament, Section 1 – Role and structure, article 61;
2
John UHR in R.A.W. Rhodes, Sarah A. Binder, Bert A. Rockman, The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, New York,
Oxford University Press Inc., 2006, p. 474;
3
Razvan Andresanu, Sonia Vigdowvits,Balazs Vincz, “ Bicameralism vs. unicameralism”, Revista Juridica, 13.09.2008, accesat
07.03.2011
4
Mihaela Enache, “ Unicameralism vs. Bicameralism”, Cadran politic, 02.10.2005, accesat 07.03.2011
1
 The decision of establishing whether a bicameral or unicameral parliament is strongly related to the
model of democracy that works in a state, as Bogdan Sima says is his article5. Therefore, we ask ourselves
what kind of legislative organization we want or, using Lijphart terms, do we want a consensus or
majoritarian democracy6. A true majoritarian model of democracy will attract the concentration of the
legislative power in a sole chamber, while the consensualist democracy supposes a bicameral system,
where the power is equally distributed between the two Chambers, differently constituted.

In favour of the bicameral parliament, John Uhr stated that the standard model for the stability
attributed to bicameralism was balanced government, implying that two chambers could bring desirable
balance to the legislative decision-making. He also said that “the larger the democratic state is, the greater
chance of bicameralism”7, as around a third of the world’s legislatures are bicameral and around two thirds
of the world’s advanced democracies have bicameral system. But this is not a substantial proof, as Vatter
and many others argued that bicameralism has become an obstacle to social democracy and a “significant
brake in the expansion of the welfare state”8. Nevertheless, in order to classify the type of bicameralism
specific to the Romanian society, I appeal to Sartori’s9 variables regarding the power and similarity
between the two Chambers. According to the typology used by Sartori, the Romanian bicameralism is
strong and heading towards perfection, due to the equal share of powers between the Chambers, similar in
their nature and composition. Also, Ioan Muraru and Mihai Constantinescu declared that the Romanian
bicameralism is integral and perfect10, generated by the fact that the two Chambers have an equal position,
due to article 62, both are elected through “universal, equal, direct, secret and free suffrage, in accordance
with the electoral law”11. In other words, they have the same power, from here starting the controversy that
is grinding the contemporary political world. Ion Deleanu criticizes the so-called “perfect” bicameralism,
saying that is perfect because of the two Chambers, but practically is “imperfect”12, because only one
Chamber has the last word. Specialists appreciate the Romanian bicameralism as hybrid and distorted due
to several reasons. Firstly, in order to talk about a classic bicameralism, the election of the chambers should
be done by different criteria, but this principle is not respected in Romania. The elitist nature of the

5
Bogdan Sima, “ Parlament bicameral versus parlament unicameral”, Sfera Politicii, nr. 140, Octombrie 2009, accesat
07.03.2011
6
Arendt Lijphart, “ Patterns of Democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries”, New Haven,
Yale University Press, 1999,p.201
7
John UHR in R.A.W. Rhodes, Sarah A. Binder, Bert A. Rockman, The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions,
New York, Oxford University Press Inc., 2006, p.476, 485
8
Adrian Vatter in R.A.W. Rhodes, Sarah A. Binder, Bert A. Rockman, The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions,
New York, Oxford University Press Inc., 2006, p.209
9
Giovani Sartori in Bogdan Sima’s, “ Parlament bicameral versus parlament unicameral”, Sfera Politicii, nr. 140,
Octombrie 2009, accesat 07.03.2011
10
Ioan Muraru and Mihai Constantinescu, “ Drept parlamentar romanesc”, Bucuresti, All Beck, 2005, p. 72
11
Constitution of Romania 2003, Title III, Public Authorities, Chapter I – Parliament, Section 1 – Elections of the
chambers, article 62
12
Ion Deleanu, “Institutii si proceduri constitutionale in dreptul roman si in dreptul comparat”,Bucuresti,
C.H.Beck,2006,p.188
2
superior Chamber is absent, and the dissonant notes between the Chambers are almost indistinguishable,
fact that demonstrates the functioning of an unicameral system. Senators and deputies are elected through
the same electoral system for 4 years, the alternation between the decision and reflection chambers is kind
of a rotation system. The sole visible difference is related to the age limit in occupying an electoral seat(33
years for senators and 23 for deputies).So, unicameralism was recently invoked on the Romanian political
scene, stressing on his simplicity and total justification of its application in an unitary state as Romania.
Although its principal advantages would be the minimization of costs, a more rapid legislative process, the
unicameral system is seen with reticence because is considered the starting point of a
dictatorship13.Although many insist on the advantages of bicameralism, like the avoidance of concentration
of power in the hands of a sole political group, the better quality of the legislative process, Ovidiu Trasnea
says that the actual prerogatives of the Senate have nothing new,acting as a backup 14. Cristian Ionescu
criticizes the return to the bicameral system, arguing that this meant, from a psychological point of view,
the natural denial of the soviet model organized on one legislative chamber, and from a political point of
view, the return to power of old political parties historically connected to the bicameral system 15. Also,
Deleanu affirms that the return to bicameralism constituted a tradition in the constitutional organization of
Romania16.

The collapse of the communist regime opened the way to democracy for the Romanian nation, but the
transition presents a primitive aspect mainly because the basic principles of democracy were not adapted to
the Romanian model of government. Therefore, it was formulated the conclusion that if a certain model of
political organization worked in a certain country with similar characteristics as Romania, it will also
function in our country. So, seeing the uselessness of the current bicameral system, I think that Romania
should adapt the characteristics of the classic bicameralism, well defined, in which the Chambers are
elected in different ways, have distinct attributes and different criteria of electing the members, or adopting
an unicameral system, perfectly functional. But the most important thing,regardless what system of
legislative organization is chosen, it should adapt to the Romanian particularities of government.

13
Raport al Comisiei Prezidenţiale de Analiză a Regimului Politic şi Constituţional din România – Pentru consolidarea statului
de drept –,Bucuresti, C.H.Beck, 2009, p.22
14
Ovidiu Trasnea, “Principiul separatiei echilibrului si conlucrarii”, Sfera Politicii, nr 13, Ianuarie 1994,p.9
15
Cristian Ionescu, “Institutii politice si Drept constitutional”, Bucuresti,Editura Juridica,2004,p.331
16
Ion Deleanu, “Drept constitutional si institutii publice”, vol.2, Iasi, Editura Fundatia “Chemarea”, 1992, p.153
3
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Razvan Andresanu, Sonia Vigdowvits, Balazs Vincz, “ Bicameralism vs. unicameralism”, Revista
Juridica, 13.09.2008, accesat 07.03.2011, http://www.cluj-napoca.elsa.ro/category/revista-juridica/;
Constitution of Romania, revised edition from 2003;

Ion Deleanu, “Drept constitutional si institutii publice”, vol.2, Iasi, Editura Fundatia “Chemarea”,
1992;

Ion Deleanu, “Institutii si proceduri constitutionale in dreptul roman si in dreptul

comparat”,Bucuresti, C.H.Beck,2006;

Mihaela Enache, “ Unicameralism vs. Bicameralism”, Cadran politic, 02.10.2005, accesat

07.03.2011, http://www.cadranpolitic.ro/?s=bicameralism;

Alexandru Ignat, “ Bicameralism vs.unicameralism- un referendum inutil”, Revista 22, Noiembrie

2009, http://www.revista22.ro/bicameralism-vs-unicameralism-un-referendum-inutil-7034.html;

Cristian Ionescu, “Institutii politice si Drept constitutional”, Bucuresti,Editura Juridica,2004;

Arendt Lijphart, “ Patterns of Democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six

countries”, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1999;

Ioan Muraru and Mihai Constantinescu, “ Drept parlamentar romanesc”, Bucuresti, All Beck, 2005;

 Raport al Comisiei Prezidenţiale de Analiză a Regimului Politic şi Constituţional din România –

Pentru consolidarea statului de drept, Bucuresti, Editura C.H.Beck, 2009;

R.A.W. Rhodes, Sarah A. Binder, Bert A. Rockman, The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions,
New York, Oxford University Press Inc., 2006;

Bogdan Sima, “ Parlament bicameral versus parlament unicameral”, Sfera Politicii, nr. 140,
Octombrie 2009, accesat 07.03.2011, www.sferapoliticii.ro/sfera/140/art02-dimab.html;

Ovidiu Trasnea, “Principiul separatiei echilibrului si conlucrarii”, Sfera Politicii, nr 13, Ianuarie
1994

www.fundatiahoriarusu.ro/bicameralism-sau-unicameralism-pentru-parlamentul-romaniei.html