Home Chapter 11. Parliaments and Congresses: Concentration Versus Division of Legislative Power
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Chapter 11. Parliaments and Congresses: Concentration Versus Division of Legislative Power

View more publications by Yale University Press
Patterns of Democracy
This chapter is in the book Patterns of Democracy
Chapter 11Parliaments and Congresses: Concentration Versus Division of Legislative PowerThe second component of the federal-unitary dimension is the distribution—concentration versus division—of power in the legislature. The pure majoritarian model calls for the concentration of legislative power in a single chamber; the pure consensus model is characterized by a bicameral legislature in which power is divided equally between two differently con-stituted chambers. In practice, we fi nd a variety of intermediate arrangements. In Chapters 2 and 3 we saw that the New Zealand parliament (after 1950) and the Swiss parliament are, in this re-spect, perfect prototypes of majoritarian and consensus democ-racy, respectively, but that the other three main examples deviate from the pure models to some extent. The British parliament is bicameral, but because the House of Lords has little power, it can be described as asymmetrically bicameral. The same description fi ts the Barbadian legislature because its appointed Senate has delaying but no veto power. The prefederal bicameral Belgian parliament was characterized by a balance of power between the two chambers, but these chambers hardly differed in composi-tion; in the new federal legislature, elected for the fi rst time in 1995, the Senate is still not very differently composed from the 187
© Yale University Press, New Haven

Chapter 11Parliaments and Congresses: Concentration Versus Division of Legislative PowerThe second component of the federal-unitary dimension is the distribution—concentration versus division—of power in the legislature. The pure majoritarian model calls for the concentration of legislative power in a single chamber; the pure consensus model is characterized by a bicameral legislature in which power is divided equally between two differently con-stituted chambers. In practice, we fi nd a variety of intermediate arrangements. In Chapters 2 and 3 we saw that the New Zealand parliament (after 1950) and the Swiss parliament are, in this re-spect, perfect prototypes of majoritarian and consensus democ-racy, respectively, but that the other three main examples deviate from the pure models to some extent. The British parliament is bicameral, but because the House of Lords has little power, it can be described as asymmetrically bicameral. The same description fi ts the Barbadian legislature because its appointed Senate has delaying but no veto power. The prefederal bicameral Belgian parliament was characterized by a balance of power between the two chambers, but these chambers hardly differed in composi-tion; in the new federal legislature, elected for the fi rst time in 1995, the Senate is still not very differently composed from the 187
© Yale University Press, New Haven
Downloaded on 8.10.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.12987/9780300189124-013/html?srsltid=AfmBOopIegOPNm46k8wciDE9Lv840EjsLVLJXexDscsQfryLghBb9yYL
Scroll to top button