Modele przedstawicielstwa w izbie drugiej parlamentu
REPRESENTATION MODELS IN SECOND CHAMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Languages of publication
The question of existence or non-existence of a second chamber comes down to the problem of representativeness. The dispute about the sense of keeping the upper chamber is in fact a dispute about whom it has ultimately to represent. If we assume that the second chamber should be, to the extent as the first chamber, a nationwide representation forum, the question arises: what for we have to duplicate the mirror-image of representation, and create the same representation in the first and in the second chamber? However, an assumption of a different model of representation also undermines the sense of the existence of the second chamber, if it is to be different from the first chamber regarded as a model for parliamentary chambers. Nevertheless, it is recognized that the second chamber must provide a different profile of representation, if it is to exist at all. But the question is: What should it be? Here, the doctrine and practice may offer some solutions. The first is the federal representation model in which the second chamber is a platform for the expression of the interests of the non-unitary state entities. The second is a model of regional chambers, i.e. those functioning on a unitary state, where individual territories are given a considerable degree of autonomy. The third model is the chamber or local self-government, designed as a representative of interests of municipalities and local communities. Another model is that of the chamber of corporations, based on the representation of socio-occupational interests. Regardless of which model is adopted, it should be noted that the sense of the existence of the second chamber is determined by a different form of representation. The second chamber must always be the second one, which also means that it must be different in terms of representation as compared to the first chamber.
Publication order reference