Unicameralism is the practice of having a single legislative chamber, which is often seen in smaller, unitary states where there is no perceived need for bicameralism. While it has advantages like efficiency and reduced costs, unicameralism can lead to issues such as lack of checks and balances, potential for authoritarianism, and inadequate representation of diverse societal interests. The document also discusses examples from New Zealand and China, highlighting how practical experiences can challenge the theoretical benefits of a unicameral system.

1. UNICAMERALISM

2. Meaning:
In a government, unicameralism (Latin uni, one + camera, chamber) is
the practice of having one legislative or parliamentary chamber.
Thus, a unicameral parliament or unicameral legislature is
a legislature which consists of one chamber or house.
Unicameral legislatures exist when there is no widely perceived need
for multicameralism. Many multicameral legislatures were created to
give separate voices to different sectors of society. Multiple chambers
allowed for guaranteed representation of different social classes, ethnic
or regional interests, or subunits of a federation. Where these factors
are unimportant, in unitary states with limited regional autonomy,
unicameralism often prevails.

3. A central feature of any constitution is the organization of the legislature. It
may be a unicameral body with one chamber or a bicameral body with two
chambers. Unicameral legislatures are typical in small countries with unitary
systems of government (e.g., Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Israel, and New
Zealand). Federal states, whether large or small, usually have bicameral
legislatures, one house usually representing the main territorial subdivisions.
In Europe, the rise of Democracy was favourable to a unicameral legislature.
The concept of popular sovereignty demanded the establishment of a single
chamber consisting of members expressing the will of the people, and their
hopes and aspirations.
According to Bentham, a second chamber is "needless and useless”. Laski also
expressed himself in favour of unicameralism.

4. Merits of Unicameralism
1. No Duplication of Work-
Law making is done through a process. If there is one house the process is
followed once only. There is no repetition of the same process. So time is
saved, money is saved and energy as well.
2. No Hindrance to Progressive Legislation-
The people's will is reflected in the single chamber and there is no check on
progressive legislation by any reactionary or conservative second chamber.
If the legislature is bicameral in nature there will be differences in the
outlook of the two houses.

5. 3. Singleness of Purpose in Legislation-
When the legislature consists of only one house, singleness of purpose
will be maintained. Hence, there will be no confusion in the law making
process. Benjamin Franklin said: "Legislative body divided into two
branches is like a carriage drawn by one horse in front and one behind
pulling in opposite direction.“
4. More Representative and less Expensive-
The unicameral legislature can be composed of members who are the
true representatives of the people. The composition can be simple.
Because it is unicameral, double expenditure for maintenance of two
houses is not necessary.

6. 5. No Divided Responsibility-
It adds to the quality and dignity of the legislators by avoiding conflict
between two chambers. The single chamber is responsible for all
legislative matters. There is no divided responsibility as is found in a
bicameral legislature. W.F Willoughby observes in The Government of
Modern States (1936) : “Unicameral system is simple. Responsibility is
definitely located. It furnishes the means for a direct authoritative
representation of the electorate . The bicameral system , in contrast,
with this , is complicated and expensive. Responsibility is divided. It
leads to delay in action”.

7. Demerits of Unicameralism
1. Tendency towards Arrogance-
If there is only one house, then the house in course of time may become
arrogant. It may push through any law of its choice. It may act arbitrarily.
Bryce is apprehensive that unicameral legislature may become autocratic.
Tyranny of a single chamber is possible, particularly when it is under the
control of a party having an overwhelming majority in it.
2. No Scope for Second Thought-
Legislation may be radical and in the name of progressive outlook, the
unicameral legislature may thoughtlessly pursue certain measures that can
be harmful . Once such a measure is taken, it is the people who suffer.

8. 3. Lack of Time-
Modern states are complex societies. They require more laws of
complex matters to be made. A single house cannot give adequate time
for thorough discussion as to the making of those complex laws. A
second chamber would reduce the burden of a single chamber
considerably.
4. No Scope for Revision-
Unicameralism does not provide any opportunity for revision of bills.
The single chamber may pass ill considered bills. It may be swayed
away by emotion and passion. There is no scope for exercising the
necessary moderation and giving second thoughts to controversial
legislative measures.

9. 5. Unsuitable for Federal Government-
Usually the people are represented in the legislature. There is no scope
for safeguarding the interests of the federal units if the legislature is
unicameral. So unicameral legislature is unsuitable for federal
government. The reckless ways in which members of a single chamber
may conduct themselves in making laws may pave the way to
instability.
It has been seen that both bicameralism and unicameralism have
certain advantages and disadvantages. If bicameralism and
unicameralism are weighed, the weight is in favour of bicameralism.
Several writers like Sir Henry Maine, Madison, Marriot, Bryce and Lecky
have recommended bicameralism. The second chamber is to be well
constructed with carefully limited power.

10. Modern examples of Unicameralism
Government of New Zealand
The New Zealand Parliament is the legislative branch of New Zealand, consisting of
the Queen of New Zealand (Queen-in-Parliament) and the House of
Representatives. Before 1951, there was an upper chamber, the Legislative Council.
The Parliament does not currently have an upper house. The House of
Representatives was established as a lower house and has been the
Parliament's sole chamber since 1951. It is democratically-elected every three
years, with eighteen select committees to scrutinize legislation. It is where
representatives (called Members of Parliament) assemble to pass laws, scrutinize
the government and approve the money it requires.

11. Government of China
China is a one-party state, with real power lying with the Chinese
Communist party. The country is governed under the constitution of
1982 as amended, the fifth constitution since the accession of the
Communists in 1949. The unicameral legislature is the National
People's Congress (NPC), consisting of deputies are indirectly elected
to terms of five years. The NPC normally follows the directives of the
Communist party's politburo. The NPC is the highest organ of state
power in China, and all four PRC constitutions have vested it with great
lawmaking powers. However, in practice it usually acts as a rubber
stamp for decisions already made by the state's executive organs and
the Communist Party of China.

12. Conclusion
Though theoretically a single chamber appeared better than a bicameral
legislature, actual experience went against unicameralism.
Hence, countries which originally favoured a single chamber ultimately in the
light of experience chose to have two chambers.
The principal advantage of a unicameral system is more efficient in
lawmaking, as the legislative process is much simpler and there is no
possibility of deadlock. Proponents of unicameralism have also argued that it
reduces costs, even if the number of legislators stay the same, since there
are fewer institutions to maintain and support it.
The main weakness of a unicameral system can be seen as the lack of
restraint on the majority, particularly noticeable in parliamentary
systems where the leaders of the parliamentary majority also dominate
the executive. There is also the risk that important sectors of society may not
be adequately represented.