Second chambers are remarkable for a number of reasons. Most countries don’t have one, though they are common in federal states and Western nations. Though a minority taste, and often controversial, they can serve useful purposes and a number of developing countries and new democracies have established, or are considering establishing, them. The proposal for a second chamber has had a favourable reception, for example, in the Iraqi Parliament. Next month, I am taking part in a seminar with some members of the Iraqi Constitutional Review Committee to examine the creation of a second chamber.
Indonesia is an emerging democracy that established a second chamber in 2004. Various members of the chamber attended the Workshop of Parliamentary Scholars and Parliamentarians at the weekend: they were keen to learn from experience elsewhere. One interesting feature that they highlighted was that the second chamber was not clearly identified in their constitution, even though it had been brought into existence. I was able to point out that in this respect they were not unique. There are various nations, as well as the European Union, that are unicameral according to their constitutions yet have a body that has all the characteristics of a second chamber. They include Botswana (the House of Chiefs) and Iran (the Guardian Council). Conversely, there are some nations where the constitution provides that the legislature is bicameral but where they have not got round to establishing the second chamber. Reading constitutions will not therefore provide a completely accurate guide to the number of second chambers that exist.
In the UK, the House of Lords may prove an issue of some contention but at least it does constitute a clearly designated second chamber.