Email this article Formation of the upper chambers of parliaments in Federal States: comparative research
- Authors: Farukshin M.K.1
-
Affiliations:
- Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University
- Issue: No 8 (2024)
- Pages: 84-93
- Section: Comparative law
- URL: https://journals.rcsi.science/1026-9452/article/view/267595
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.31857/S1026945224080088
- ID: 267595
Cite item
Open Access
Access granted
Abstract
The article presents the results of a comparative analysis of the formation of the upper chambers of parliaments in twenty federal states. The dependence of the representation of the subjects of a federation in the upper chamber on the method of formation of the latter is noted. There are four main ways. The influence of the method of forming the second payment on the degree of communication between senators and the subjects of the federation is shown. The article substantiates the position that this connection is the strongest in cases when the subjects of the federation themselves delegate their representatives to the upper chamber. It is argued that there is no linear relationship between the method of formation of the upper chamber and the scope of its powers. The latter depends on the institutionalization, which is based on the political interests of the ruling groups.
Full Text
About the authors
Midhat Kh. Farukshin
Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University
Author for correspondence.
Email: Midkhat.Farukshin@kpfu.ru
Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, Consulting Professor
Russian Federation, KazanReferences
- Avakyan S. A. Federation Council: a quarter of a century of problems in the formation of the Chamber // Herald of Moscow University. Series 11. 2020. No. 1. P. 12 (in Russ.).
- Vinogradova E. V., Danilevskaya I. L. Federation Council – from deputies to senators. On the issue of the formation of the upper house of Parliament in the constitutional model of modern Russia // State and Law. 2020. No. 9. P. 11 (in Russ.).
- Galuzo V. N., Kanafin N. A. On parliamentarism in Bashkortostan // Law and State: Theory and Practice. 2019. No. 4. Pp. 39–44 (in Russ.).
- Fedosov P. A. Bicameral parliaments: European and paternal experience (II) // Polis. Political studies. 2001. No. 2. P. 176 (in Russ.).
- Filippova N. A. Representation of subnational interests in the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation: functional and delegative models // Politex. 2007. Vol. 3. No. 2. P. 68 (in Russ.).
- Chervinskaya A. P. Bicameralism as a principle of the structure of parliament: historical experience and problems of modern Russia // State and Law. 2019. No. 10. P. 170 (in Russ.).
- Bicameralism and Policy Responsiveness to Public Opinion // American Journal of Political Science. January 2023. Р. 15.
- Bulmer E. Bicameralism. Stockholm, 2017. P. 4.
- Ezrow L., Fenzl M., Hellwig T. Bicameralism and Policy Responsiveness to Public Opinion // American Journal of Political Science. February 2023. P. 4.
- Noël T. Second chambers in federal systems. Stockholm, 2022. Pp. 8, 10, 11.
- Rogers J. R. The Impact of Bicameralism on Legislative Production // Legislative Studies Quarterly. 2003. Vol. XXVIII. No. 4. P. 510.
- Weieler P. Confederation Discontents and Constitutional Reform: The Case of the Second Chamber // The University of Toronto Law Journal. 1979. Vol. 29. No. 3. P. 262.
- Wieciech T. and Koschalka B. Formulas of Representation of Constituent Units in the Parliaments of Federal States // Politeja. 2008. No. 10/1. P. 392.
Supplementary files
