1

Bicameral Governance: Balancing Representation and

Efficiency Introduction

INTRODUCTION

The democratic country works with a unicameral structure, but bicameral structures are often

referred to as the used or the important part of the parliament, and basically in big and diverse

countries. The Bicameral structure can offer efficiency and productivity in the parliament, and its

implementation is more like a challenge. In countries like India, emerging from a history of

fragmented electoral systems under British colonial rule, adopting a bicameral system required

careful thought and consideration. The historical context, 1Particularly, the 1935 Government of India

Act separated the electorates with the seats reserved for the selected group, which deeply

restructured the society.

BICAMERALISM IN FEDERAL COUNTRIES: A COUNTERBALANCE TO POPULATION-BASED

POWER

In federal countries such as the United States, a unicameral system based solely on population would

give larger states disproportionate power, marginalizing smaller or less populous regions. In the

second chamber, the efficiency of the parliament is checked. The upper house corrects the

imbalance and makes sure that all regions and the unequal representatives have equal

representation is given the chance in a democratic country, which is known for its equality.

THE INDIAN CONTEXT: UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE AND EQUAL REPRESENTATION

1
Austin, G. (1966). The Indian Constitution

BICAMERALISM
 2

2
In the Indian constituent assembly, we have to understand the need for unity. by adopting universal

adult suffrage and abolishing electorates, we can contrast the other systems. India, other house Lok

Sabha, is made up of representatives which is directly elected by the people of India, which

according to the equal representation, which is often expressed as (one person, one vote. The

democratic model accepts the citizen who exercises political power through the way of their

representatives and can make them liable for the initiation and making of the legislation.

The upper house, however, works differently as its members are elected in the manner that does not

depend on the population size. For example, each region of the state is assigned the equal number of

representatives regardless of their population or number of people. The structure of this is

influenced by the Montesquieu idea of work, where it states that to prevent or to stop any single

group of people from becoming more powerful, just equate the more equitable balance between the

central and the states.

THE ROLE OF UPPER HOUSE: A COUNTERWEIGHT TO MAJORITARIAN RULE

The second chamber of India plays a very important role in preventing the tyranny of the majority,

the term refers to a situation where a dominant political party in a single legislature can pass the bill

without sufficient opposition as often disregarding the minority interests. Bicameralism provides a

mechanism to stop this by making sure that smaller or unequal groups of people are also

represented or have a voice in the parliament, where they state their problems and also their

interests.

UNICAMERLISM: A CASE OF EFFICIENCY

3
New Zealand is a perfect example of a country that removed the upper house to achieve

unicameralism. In 1951, New Zealand ended its second house due to the legislative council's

transparency and to make it more efficient and productive and redundant. The Legislative Council
2
(Austin, 1966, p. 136)
3
Ganley, M. G. T. (2002). Making unicameral parliaments work: The New Zealand exception? [Master's thesis,
Victoria University of Wellington]. Victoria University of Wellington Research Archive

BICAMERALISM
 3

was often called to duplicate their work of the elected House of Representatives and provide limited

oversight. Since its abolition, New Zealand has maintained a strong unicameral system that relies on

a robust committee structure to ensure detailed scrutiny of legislation.

While 4New Zealand’s unicameral system has fostered efficient governance, it is not without its

challenges. The impact of the power in a single legislative body can lead to the “tyranny of the

majority”, where the dominant political party can anytime pass the laws without any proper laws and

regulation consideration of the people who are in minority group, moreover the second house of the

legislature reduces the territorial representation, which is potentially disadvantaging smaller or the

disadvantaged group or areas.

BICAMEARLISM VS UNICAMERALISM:

The topic between unicameralism and bicameralism always drains the balance between redundancy

and oversight. Bicameralism usually offers a more thorough system of checks and balances for

especially to ensure the regions of the minority group are adequately represented. Moreover, it can

also introduce the defaults such as legislative gridlocks, if the two houses are not able to cooperate

then the streamlined legislative process tends to process it but may have the risk overlook minority

and regional concerns.

REPRESENTATION FOR STATE INSTITUTION:

United States, the senators were initially chosen by the state legislatures to make sure that the state

governments have a say in the national policy. Although the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913

allowed for the direct election of senators, the U.S. Senate remains a key institution in balancing the

interests of individual states. In a country like Germany, the Bundesrat, which represents the states

that plays the critical role in decision making which ensuring that states are interested and

considered at the central level.

BICAMERALISM
 4

The system, which aims to protect decentralisation and to balance the power between the central

and state governments, also presents the central setbacks. The issue is the potential deflection of

democratic accountability. The members of the upper house, which is appointed or selected by the

state legislature, they just become more beholden to their territorial interests than to the broader

electorate, which can lead to breaking the connection between the national and the ordinary state

policymaking.

MINORITY REPRESENTATION AND OVER-REPRESENTATION:

In the bicameral systems, smaller or less populous states get disproportionate representation in the

upper house or the Rajya Sabha. the practice is really common in countries like the US, where the

states, regardless of size, always have equal representation in the Senate. This model is originally

designed to protect the interests of the minority group, which ensures that they wouldn’t be

influenced by the more populous one. However, political theorist Robert Dahl has criticized this

approach, arguing that it undermines the democratic principle of "one person, one vote." 5 From

Dahl’s perspective, representation should focus on individuals, not groups or states.

Arend Lijphart, along with other scholars like 6Mancur Olson and John Dewey also argued for an

individual-centred democracy. They released that democratic states should ensure the equal

individual priority, even to protect the equal individual influence, even designed to protect the

minority or the underprivileged groups.

Giri Parameswaran’s Analysis: A Critical Layer of Understanding

5
Dahl, R. A. (2003). How democratic is the American Constitution? Yale University Press.
6
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action

BICAMERALISM
 5

In his 2018 analysis, Bargaining and Bicameralism, 7Giri Parameswaran explores the often-overlooked

role of upper houses in over-representing smaller or minority regions. While such over-

representation is rationalized in federal systems as a way to protect the interests of smaller states,

Parameswaran points out that it can also lead to unintended policy distortions. He states that the

equal representation of states in the upper house does not always function as intended. Instead, it

may amplify the influence of larger states or dominant interests, depending on how the bargaining

dynamics play out within the bicameral system.

INDIVIDUAL EQUALITY VS GROUP REPRESENTATION: The Perspectives of Robert Dahl and

Arend Lijphart

Contrasting Views on Representation

Robert Dahl and 8Arend Lijphart offers contrasting perspectives on the balance between individual

equality and group representation in democratic systems. Dahl championed the idea of individual

equality, emphasizing the principle of "one person, one vote." He stated that systems that are over-

representative of the smaller states or groups, such as the US Senate, undermine democratic ideals

by giving unequal influence based on territory or group membership. His viewpoint, the system

should prioritize individual rights and states that the individual rights and each person’s voice is

equally heard.

In contrast, Arend Lijphart supported proportional representation and argued that in deeply divided

societies, those with multiple ethnic, linguistic, or regional groups, democracy should accommodate

group interests to preserve stability and unity. He confirmed that the minorities or regional groups

should have a voice in the legislature as an essential feature, even if this sometimes requires

7
Ansolabehere, Stephen, James M. Snyder, Jr., and Michael M. Ting. 2003. “Bargaining in Bicameral
Legislatures: When and Why Does Malapportionment Matter?” American Political Science Review 97: 471–81.

8
Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of democracy. Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. Yale
University Press

BICAMERALISM
 6

compromising strict individual equality. The approach, Lijphart contended that helps prevent

marginalization and foster a more cohesive society.

Federalism and Bicameralism : Governance Solutions

In a multi-different society, the diverse federalism is used as an institutional model to manage

internal disputes. Federalism divides the power between the centre and the regional governments,

which allows distinct communities to exercise a degree of autonomy. The system aims to

accommodate the diverse communities while maintaining. However, as seen in countries like India,

federalism is often limited in its capacity to address the complex identities within society, especially

when legislative competencies overlap and are difficult to separate.

When federalism is pushed too far to appease minority interests, it can result in political

fragmentation and the marginalization of smaller groups. In these cases, federalism fails to achieve

meaningful self-rule and may weaken national unity. To address these challenges, Lijphart proposed

the model of consociational democracy, which emphasizes power-sharing, group autonomy, and

negotiated compromises. While consociationalism offers a solution for managing deeply divided

societies, it is not without criticism. Scholars argue that it can entrench identity divisions, limit

individual equality, and undermine long-term national cohesion.

As a potential alternative to both 9federalism and consociationalism, bicameralism can serve as a

balancing mechanism. In situations where federalism has reached its limits and consociationalism

may risk further fragmentation, bicameralism can offer a means to balance group autonomy with

national unity. An upper house that over-represents minority or sub-state communities can provide

these groups with a sense of inclusion and recognition, while ensuring that the principles of

proportional representation are maintained in the lower house.

9
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Federalism. Cornell Law School.

BICAMERALISM
 7

Bicameralism as a Middle Path: Balancing Group Autonomy and National Unity

The challenges with bicameralism are to ensure that the overrepresentation of the minority group or

the region is justified and meaningful. Not all claims are over-representative are legitimate, and some

may stem from political bargaining or power struggles rather than the genuine efforts to protect the

interests of the marginalised groups. Therefore, the key lies in discerning that because of the

arrangements genuinely reflecting identity-based meets and self-rule, the balance is achieved, and

bicameralism can also serve as a justifiable and constructive tool in the democratic system, providing

both a minority group and the broader goal of national unity.

INDIAN BICAMERALISM: Purpose and Practice of the Upper House

India consists of two houses in the Parliament: the Lok Sabha (House of the People) and the Rajya

Sabha (Council of States). The Lok Sabha is directly elected based on population, ensuring

proportional representation across the country. On the other hand, the Rajya Sabha is composed of

members indirectly elected by state legislatures, with the number of representatives from each state

roughly proportional to its population, though not perfectly. Additionally, the President of India

appoints members with knowledge in areas like literature, science, and social science, and the

number is 12.

While the Lok Sabha holds more power, especially in areas such as introducing money bills and

controlling government spending, the Rajya Sabha was originally conceived as a reviewing chamber,

designed to bring experience and moderation to legislation. The Rajya Sabha was intended to act as a

security against the central overreach, ensuring that the interest of the individual state is also

reflected in the national legislature.

THE FAILURE OF THE RAJYA SABHA: TO FULFIL ITS INTENDED ROLE:

Despite the intended role, the Rajya Sabha has always faced significant problems in fulfilling its

purpose as the “House of States.” In practice, many members of the Rajya Sabha are not directly

BICAMERALISM
 8

connected to the states they represent. Political parties often nominate individuals from outside the

state or celebrities who may not address the state's real issues. Additionally, since members are

elected by state legislatures rather than directly by the people, they tend to follow party lines instead

of representing state interests effectively.

10
Manav Godbole criticizes the Rajya Sabha for failing to act as a true “House of States.” He argues

that instead of serving as a platform to protect the federal balance, it has become a “shadow Lok

Sabha,” where national party politics dominate, overshadowing regional concerns.

Several core issues have contributed to this drift:

1. Detachment from State Representation: Many Rajya Sabha members are not native to the

states they represent. Political parties often nominate individuals based on loyalty or fame

rather than regional knowledge or connection. This undermines the chamber’s foundational

role as a voice for state governments.

2. Party-Controlled Elections: Because Rajya Sabha members are elected by state legislatures

and not directly by the public, they are more accountable to party leadership than to the

people or state-level concerns. As a result, they often vote along national party lines rather

than advocating for regional interests.

3. Erosion of Federal Character: As political scientist Manav Godbole notes, the Rajya Sabha

has increasingly functioned as a “shadow Lok Sabha,” dominated by majoritarian party

politics. Instead of moderating legislation or defending state autonomy, it frequently acts as a

rubber stamp for decisions already made in the lower house.

10
Godbole, M. (2002). Report of Constitution Review Commission: Some Reflections. Economic and Political
Weekly, 31, 4007.

BICAMERALISM
 9

A Renewed Bicameralism: Issues of Self-Rule in India

Rather than deflection of the Rajya Sabha—a move towards a world that centralize power and

weakens India’s federal structure—there is a strong case that performs the fulfil the original

mandate, its original mandate. A renewed bicameralism can always restore the Rajya Sabha as a vital

institution for representing state interests and improve the democratic self-rule in India.

Proposed Solutions:

1. Equal Representation for States: Moving toward equal or more balanced representation

among states, regardless of population, would strengthen the chamber’s federal role,

ensuring that smaller or less populous states have a meaningful voice in national affairs,

much like the U.S. Senate.

2. Revisiting the Nomination Process: Introducing the right stringent eligibility criteria will

ensure that the nominated members have proper, genuine ties to the states they represent

and possess the expertise or experience needed to contribute constructively to national

debate.

3. Limiting Party Domination: Institutional changes, such as strengthening anti-defection laws

or allowing more independent voting on state-specific legislation, could reduce central party

control and encourage members to prioritize regional interests.

4. Redefining Legislative Powers: Expanding the powers of the Rajya Sabha in specific federal

matters—such as inter-state relations, distribution of resources, and center-state disputes,

could elevate its role beyond symbolic participation.

5. Creating Platforms for State Voices: Formal mechanisms like “state sessions” or committees

within the Rajya Sabha could be established to allow direct input from state governments,

ensuring that regional concerns are institutionally embedded in the legislative process.

BICAMERALISM
 10

CONCLUSION: Bicameralism as a Complex, but Necessary Governance Tool

Bicameralism provides a multifaceted solution to balance the individual equality and group

representation in a diverse and bid society. While Robert Dahl’s emphasis on individual equality

challenges over-representation in systems like the U.S. Senate, Arend Lijphart’s focus on group

accommodation provides a useful framework for addressing the needs of deeply divided societies. In

countries like India, bicameralism can serve as a key tool for accommodating regional and minority

interests, through its implementation should be carefully considered to avoid the pitfalls of over-

representation and political fragmentation. At last, a well-designed bicameral system, will carefully

balances regional and national interests, can help maintain both unity and stability in complex

democratic systems.

BICAMERALISM