1. Second chamber stifles the voice of the Popular Chamber :

Second chambers are useless because they stifle the voice of the Lower Houses. Lower chambers are elected by popular vote. They represent the real will of the people. It is, therefore, undesirable that a second chamber should choke the voice of the Lower House.

Democracy, it is argued cannot speak in two voices. “The law is the will of the people, the people cannot at the same time have two different wills on the same subject; therefore the legislative body which represents the people ought to be essentially one.

” A view is also held that “Bicameralism is an outworn creed. The institution of Bicameralism is due to a hesitant faith in democracy and a desire to conciliate minorities and there is no valid reason why the popular will should seek two channels of expression, why democracy should speak in two voices.”

2. Second Chambers are mostly conservative:

Second chambers are generally said to be the citadels of reactions and conservatism and act as a brake to the wheel of democracy. Prof. Laski rejects the view that a second chamber is a necessary check against hasty, rash and ill-considered legislation.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

In actual theory, Bills are thoroughly discussed and examined by a committee of experts. The revisory function of the second chamber is, therefore, an unsound argument.

The Bills can be revised in the Lower House by second vote if need be. Moreover, no legislature passes law unless their provisions have been thoroughly discussed in the press and on the platform. In fact, the political parties control legislative chambers.

If the same party controls both the houses, bills passed by the lower house shall be passed in the same form by the upper chamber. If two parties control the two houses it will lead to deadlocks and delays. The government elected by the people shall be obstructed by the upper chamber and thus the will of the electorate stands thwarted.

3. Misuse of Delaying Power:

A second chamber in some countries enjoys the delaying power. This power is generally misused. It checks the enactment of useful and progressive legislation.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

As Laski says, “The power to postpone is power to defeat the changes regarded as necessary by the party chosen for office by the electorate”.

As Gettle says, ‘Experience has shown that second chambers seldom provide an effec­tive check on hasty and ill-considered legislation, but that they frequently result in deadlocks, in log-rolling practices between the two houses, and in lack of real responsibility on the part of cither house.”

4. Subordinate Role:

The second chamber in all the countries of the world, except America, has a subordinate and junior role in legisla­tion. It is generally the lower chamber which enjoys a dominating Position.

This led Abbe to remark that “it is superfluous if the second chamber agrees with the lower chamber and it is mischievous if it dissents”.

5. Possibility of Deadlocks:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

A bicameral legislature in the words of Benjamin Franklin, is like a cart with a horse hitched to each end, the two horses pulling in opposite directions. A bicameral legislature is an assembly divided against itself and is held by some to be incompatible with popular sovereignty.

There is no consensus of opinion as to how powers should be divided between the two chambers. If the two chambers enjoy equal powers like that of the American Congress, there is a possibility of frequent deadlocks.

If the lower chamber enjoys a domi­neering position, the necessity of having an upper chamber does not arise.

6. No importance in a Federation:

The importance of the second chamber in a federation is not recognized now because political parties now dominate the entire political life in a federation. The second chamber, in no way, can give representation to the local interests of the states because each and everything is discussed on the party basis.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The experience of the working of the second chambers in federation is that they have willingly helped in centralization of powers. They have seldom voted on state basis but on party basis or on the basis of groups and economic interests.

Liberals in the upper chamber vote as they vote in the lower chamber and so on and so forth. To take an instance, voting and division in the Upper House are on the same lines as in the lower house.

Thus in view of the growth of political parties the value of a second chamber as defender of the rights of federal units is absolutely lost.

7. No recognized method of constituting a Second Chamber:

There is no universal method of constituting the second chamber. In England, Members of the House of Lords are nominated on hereditary basis. Members of the Canadian Senate are nominated by the Governor- General.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The members of the Rajya Sabha in India arc partly elected by the Stale Legislatures and partly nominated by the President. Lack of a uniform method for constituting the second chamber is also an argument against it.

Nomination and indirect election are undemocratic. Direct election will make it a competitor with the lower chamber. Nor is functional representation practical.