Thread by @shrikanth_krish

Law-making in our times atleast at the Federal level is usually the outcome of deliberation of two separate bodies - an arrangement referred to as Bicameralism

Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha
House of Commons and House of Lords
House of Representatives and Senate

(Contd..)

But we don't necessarily reflect enough on the motivations behind bicameralism

Why do we need two bodies?

I can think of two motivations which make a lot of sense. Unfortunately neither of these apply to Indian bicameralism -

1. The upper house is an aristocratic counter to the excesses of democracy (House of Lords)

2. The upper house counters the tyranny of majority by giving equal representation to each state regardless of population or area (The American Senate)

In both cases, the upper house is conceived as a constraining influence on the otherwise democratic, anti-aristocratic arrangement

Democracy is susceptible to populism, and the tyranny of numbers

It engenders policy making that focuses on the short term, the next election cycle

Traditionally bicameralism was thought of an arrangement that balances democracy and aristocratic rule

In 1909, in UK, the Liberal government proposed a populist People's Budget targeting wealthy landowners

But this measure was defeated by the more conservative House of Lords

This is a classic example of how the "upper house" served as a check on the impulse of the lower house AND the democratically elected government to "please" the masses with populist, short-termist measures

The House of Lords unfortunately has been "reformed" numerous times in the course of 20th century, and its powers greatly reduced

The Act of 1911 abolished the power of House of Lords to reject legislation

In 1958, the House of Lords ceased to be predominantly hereditary

It was also the year that women started being admitted into the House

Since 1999, the House of Lords has only 90 odd hereditary peers out of the 700+ members, with the rest being mostly non-hereditary "Life Peers" appointed by the Queen under the advice of the sitting government

The House also retains a religious element, with 26 bishops from the Anglican Church of England who sit in the House

Often referred to as the "Lords Spiritual" as opposed to the rest of the house comprising of the "Lords Temporal"

Interestingly all 26 bishops are from the Church of England.

None from the Catholic Church. Or the Presyberian Church of Scotland

But this aspect of the House of Lords is not of much consequence given its emaciated status, and its much reduced powers

Which is a bit of a shame

In the United States, the motivation of having the "upper house" is slightly different

Like in the UK, it is v much conceived as a counter to democratic excess.

But not by juxtaposing the aristocratic against the democratic

The American Senate is v much directly elected by the people (though this wasn't the case till 1913)

But it represents each state equally

A tiny state like New Hampshire has 2 senators, and so does a very large state like California

Also unlike the House of Lords, the Senate is extremely powerful. More so than the House of Reps (Congress)

By having just 2 senators from each state, it engenders a polity of very strong popular leaders whose appeal is pan-State, and not restricted to the constituency

It is a system that develops strong leaders

And counters the tyranny of large populous states

In India we seem to be all confused

Our upper house is not hereditary or religious. Never was

It does NOT represent states equally

Nor is it popularly elected

It is a mish-mash that doesn't make sense

If the idea is to counter the Lok Sabha meaningfully, the Rajya Sabha is ill-equipped to do that

It is a body of politicians elected by other politicians

How is that a counter to democratic excess?
How does it serve as a check on populism?
How does it counter localism?
How does it bolster the causes of the weaker, smaller states?

It does none of these things

In my view, the Lok Sabha does need a check

And that check has to come from an upper house that combines the elements of both the UK and US

It can be a popularly elected body with 2 members per state

But the franchise ought to be restricted with property and educational qualifications

Ofcourse the details need to be worked out - but a reduced franchise can result in an upper house whose character is different from the lower house

Meaningfully different

Such an upper house will bolster the union by empowering smaller states

UP will have 2 members. And so will Uttarakhand. So will Manipur

It will also develop stronger state leaders and counter constituency level localisms from dominating national parliamentary discourse

And yes, by having a much reduced franchise, (which should be revised over time, as educational standards and property ownership improve), we ensure that the upper house retains a somewhat aristocratic character

Not explicitly hereditary ofcourse. But elected by men and women whose social profile is different from the country at large

Such a new arrangement will make bicameralism meaningful in this country

A bicameral framework where the two houses complement each other

Instead of one house mirroring the other in terms of both political profile and social profile