1. Should there be a Bicameral or Unicameral Legislature?
The answer to this question depends on the answers to two subsidiary questions:
• Are there interest-groups who need to be represented in a separate chamber?
In Britain there were historical reasons based on class stratification for having two
houses and Zimbabwe “inherited” the system, but these reasons do not apply in
Zimbabwe. But there may be interest groups such as women, the chiefs, disabled
persons, etc, who may not get adequate representation in a directly-elected singlechamber Parliament. If they are to be given separate representation, then
procedures must be laid down carefully in the constitution and the electoral law to
ensure that the electoral or appointment processes are fair and not dominated by the
party in power. Alternatively specific representation could be given to provinces in
the Senate; for example the US Senate has equal representation for all member
states and South Africa’s upper chamber is the National Council of Provinces.
• Would a second chamber, i.e. a Senate, significantly improve the quality of
legislation? The main justification for a Senate which has been advanced in
Zimbabwe is that it would be composed of mature statesmen and women who would
reconsider legislation passed by the lower house and, where necessary, curb the
excesses of the people’s elected representatives. If that was the hope of proponents
of a Senate, they must have been disappointed. When one compares legislation
passed in the years when we had a Senate with the legislation passed by a unicameral
Parliament, one finds no noticeable difference in quality. Most of the amendments
the Senate has made to legislation over the years have arisen from second thoughts
on the part of the Government rather than from initiatives by senators. It has also
been suggested that creating a Senate would prevent the fast-tracking of legislation
which makes Parliament a rubber-stamp of the Executive, but the present Senate
been has not been able to achieve this.
Set against the negligible advantages of having a Senate in Zimbabwe there is a
serious disadvantage: cost. The expense of having a second chamber is considerable
and the country can ill afford it. The only other reason for a Senate –usually
unspoken – is that it has proved a convenient depository for political parties to
reward their members. This reason does not benefit the nation as a whole and is no
justification for a Senate.
On balance, therefore, it would be better for the country if the new constitution
provided for a unicameral legislature.
2. Relationship Between the Chambers of a Bicameral Legislature
If there is to be a bicameral legislature, the new constitution will have to regulate the
relationship between the two chambers. The present constitution does this.
Generally, both chambers have equal law-making power and all Bills must be passed
by both chambers before they can be sent to the President for assent and
promulgation as Acts of Parliament. But:
• The House of Assembly has primary responsibility for initiating and passing
“money Bills”, i.e. Bills relating to taxation and State revenues. The Senate cannot
initiate such Bills and cannot amend them if they have been initiated in the House of
Assembly.
• If there is disagreement between the Senate and the House of Assembly over
49