Discussing the parliamentary structure of Ukraine in the midst of a full-scale war may seem oddly detached from reality. Yet, the war has caused the consolidation of a national sense of purpose and identity whose character and spirit could be reflected in an upper house of parliament after the war – a Ukrainian Senate.
Ukraine’s existing unicameral parliament (a parliament with one chamber), the Verkhovna Rada, emerged from the unicameral structure of the Supreme Soviet. It is not an unusual arrangement. About half of the world’s parliaments are unicameral systems.
Unicameral or bicameral parliament?
Unicameral systems do have their advantages.
In countries with small, homogeneous populations, the traditional role of a second, or upper, house in parliament – to represent different classes, regions or states – often has little purpose.
A unicameral system costs less, can move quicker on legislation, and does not need to represent diverse groups of people or geographical regions. This underpins the unicameral structure of many parliaments around the world, from Portugal to Bangladesh.
Nevertheless, there are some notable advantages of bicameral systems. They tend to put a check on the passions and misdirected policies of a single chamber. Swiss statesman and financier, Jacques Necker, observed in the 18th century about single chambers:
“It is different with the legislative body composed, as in France, of a single house…Everyone being aware that a majority of opinions is all that is necessary to decide the most important interests of an empire, exterior combinations are formed; individual societies and political clubs put things in train to affect that majority… All these manoeuvres would be defeated, if the suffrage of two houses was necessary to the formation of laws; the spirit of faction would then cease to be encouraged, and the sources of an infinite number of disorders would no longer exist.”
There are other advantages. An upper house is often used as a check on appointments in the executive branch, and it can be used as a mechanism to create mutually helpful oversight of business between the legislative and executive branches of government.
Purposes of the Ukrainian Senate
So, what would be the purpose of a Ukrainian Senate?
I’d like to suggest that one important purpose might be to reflect the character of Ukraine.
It is the unity that has emerged in Ukraine because of this war that enlivens the potential benefits of a second chamber. The Ukrainian Senate’s purpose would be to embody the spirit of freedom, democracy, and commercial affluence of a Ukrainian Republic.
It would be a personification of the newly consolidated sense of Ukrainian statehood. It would bring additional grandeur, nationally and internationally, to the Ukrainian government. This is not a wholly political purpose; it is also a social purpose, but a no less important one for it.
In addition to symbolizing the Ukrainian state and diminishing factions associated with unicameral bodies, a second chamber can mollify some other afflictions of any state, especially corruption.
In the political realm, the Ukrainian Senate would act as a check on legislation.
Highly wealthy people are more likely to turn into rampant and destructive oligarchs if they have no real stake in the political process. Outside politics, or at least relatively unchecked within the political arena, they tend to regard the political scene as something to be manipulated and altered to their own commercial interests.
Place a few of the enormously rich within a political chamber, responsible for the life of their nation and under the more intense gaze, scrutiny, and judgment of the public, they do not necessarily become angels, but their sense of historical responsibility toward the state can become intensified. Their expression of national duty can rub off on their wealthy colleagues and friends, introducing a culture of general rectitude within the wider commercial environment.
In geographically large nations, a second house often represents the regions separately from the party-political landscape, as the Senate does in the US, or the Bundesrat in Germany.
However, as elections to the Verkhovna Rada involve regional representatives, there seems to be little additional value in having a second chamber that represents the oblasts. This purpose of a second house would be redundant, unless a more radical program was adopted in which the Verkhovna Rada was changed to represent only the parties and the Ukrainian Senate, the oblasts.
Process of the Ukrainian Senate
In the political realm, the Ukrainian Senate would act as a check on legislation and programs adopted by the Verkhovna Rada.
Like many bicameral systems, laws or bills could be sent by the Verkhovna Rada to the Senate for review and amendment. This process iterates until an agreement is reached. Strict limits or cooling-off periods can be placed on the process.
In Australia, for instance, a three-month waiting period is introduced on the reintroduction of a bill which is rejected by the Senate (or passed with amendments that the House of Representatives will not accept).
One disadvantage of bicameralism is that it tends to slow the political process, and in war, could potentially become dangerously cumbersome.
If this happens twice, then parliament can be dissolved, thus preventing deadlock. A similar check could be adopted by a Ukrainian Senate. This process, although apparently tedious, sharpens laws, makes them more thoughtful, and assuages the problems of majority rule noticed by Necker.
In this role, the Verkhovna Rada still holds primacy as the dominant legislative body, with the Ukrainian Senate acting as a type of secondary filter.
Constituting the Ukrainian Senate
How would a Ukrainian Senate be constituted?
One could imagine a direct electoral process whereby candidates, irrespective of party affiliation or region, can stand for Senate with some age distinction (similar to the 40-plus age requirement of Italian senators).
Some proportion of the Senate, for example 10%, might be chosen by the president, including from publicly suggested nominees, based on great contributions to the Ukrainian state in science, art, law, journalism, commerce, and other areas of social activity. Diverse religious and social viewpoints can be represented there. This latter mechanism reflects similar procedures in the British and Canadian upper houses.
The size of the Senate might be on the order of about 250 individuals to give it sufficient plurality to dilute control by small dominating factions.
Senators could have terms of six years, thus minimizing potential cronyism inherent in lifetime elections. Elections could be staggered every three years to create a degree of institutional continuity, yet with regular turnover.
In their turn, the Senators, and the Senate, could become a rich part of national life, with past Senators still on hand to offer advice and insight.
A nominal small salary should be set to reasonably cover time and travel, but it should not be so high as to make membership of the Senate motivated by financial gain. In fact, the salary should be such that it may require from many people some degree of sacrifice, ensuring that they are impelled to attempt to join the Senate out of love of country.
One disadvantage of bicameralism is that it tends to slow the political process, and in war, could potentially become dangerously cumbersome.
However, as with Britain in 1940, and Ukraine right now, suspension of elections and a pragmatic streamlining of parliament to meet the exigencies of war can still be achieved in bicameral systems without threatening the survival of the state. A post-war Ukrainian Senate could be formed without risking delays in responding to future emergencies.
There is a great deal to commend the bicameral system in culturally and historically rich states, as is the case with Ukraine. In a nation with a newfound sense of common purpose and identity, a Ukrainian Senate could embody the values of the Ukrainian Republic.
Charles Cockell is Professor of Astrobiology at the University of Edinburgh.
The views expressed are the author’s and not necessarily of Kyiv Post.