Unicameralism versus bicameralism revisited: the case of Romania

Abstract

In the midst of a public debate over the governing majority's project of a Constitution revision, the present paper revisits the unicameralism versus bicameralism debate, a classic one within the disciplinary fields of Constitutional Law and Political Science, and explores its relevance and applicability to Romania's current bicameral legislature. The research starts with an empirical approach, focused on the European area, of some theses more or less shared by field scholars regarding certain correlations between Parliament structure and other state-related variables, while also exploring worldwide trends, in an attempt to later on contextualize the Romanian case in both descriptive and explicative terms. Necessarily preconditioned by the employment of a conceptual framework meant to capture the considerable variety of contemporary bicameral legislatures, the subsequent debate is structured along nine major comparative analysis criteria ideally usable as legislative performance indicators. The final part addresses Romania's Parliament accordingly, from the historical background of its bicameral structure, to a detailed evaluation of its strength and weaknesses.