+7 (777) 001 44 99
Қазақша
Русский
English
Tengrinews.kz – President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev has proposed considering a shift to a unicameral Parliament in Kazakhstan, to be elected solely by party lists. The decision is expected to be put to a referendum in 2027.
For Kazakhstan, the idea evokes both the early years of independence and global trends, where many nations operate with a single legislative chamber. But what does abandoning the second chamber mean in practice, and why do some countries thrive under this model while others face challenges?
Why countries simplify their parliaments
Globally, more than half of national legislatures are unicameral – 107 out of 188, according to IPU Parline. Most are unitary states with smaller populations. The arguments are clear: faster lawmaking, reduced administrative costs, and greater transparency.
With only one chamber, legislation moves more quickly. In bicameral systems, bills can get stuck for months between the lower and upper houses. By contrast, unicameral parliaments debate, vote and immediately enact laws – a speed especially valuable during crises. Analysts at Investopedia identify efficiency as a key advantage.
Financially, two chambers mean more deputies, duplicate committees and larger staff – an expensive structure for smaller states. A single chamber provides real savings for taxpayers. Unicameral systems also sharpen accountability: voters can more easily see who voted for or against a law. Nebraska, the only U.S. state with a unicameral legislature since 1934, highlights transparency as the reform’s greatest achievement.
Different approaches around the world
In Europe, unicameralism often works thanks to high trust in institutions. Sweden, Denmark and Finland rely on strong courts, ombudsmen and independent media to offset the absence of an upper chamber, as Britannica notes.
The Nebraska example is unique in America. Senator George Norris spent years convincing citizens that two houses were redundant and costly. In 1934, Nebraskans voted to abolish the upper house, and the model became part of the state’s political culture.
In Asia, approaches vary. Israel operates a single-chamber Knesset elected by party lists. Though politics are turbulent and elections frequent, the model continues to function. Mongolia and Uzbekistan use mixed systems, combining party lists with single-mandate seats to balance party representation and regional interests.
Some cases are distinct: Uganda’s unicameral parliament reserves a seat for women in each district, blending compactness with guaranteed group representation.
The risks of a single chamber
Unicameralism is not always a clear win. Without an upper chamber acting as a “brake”, parliaments may pass hasty or populist decisions. Comparative studies, including Investopedia and constitutional law materials, highlight this vulnerability.
There is also the issue of regional representation. In federations, upper chambers protect territorial interests, such as the U.S. Senate or Germany’s Bundesrat. For Kazakhstan, with its diverse regions, abolishing the Senate raises the question of how those voices will be heard.
Kazakhstan between past and future
Kazakhstan already has experience with a unicameral legislature: the Supreme Council under the 1993 Constitution. It was dissolved after the 1994 elections were invalidated, and in 1995 the country shifted to a bicameral Parliament. Since then, the Senate has served as a stabilizing and arbitration body.
Today, returning to a unicameral system would simplify lawmaking but require strengthening other checks and balances. If the Senate is abolished, its functions must be redistributed: enhancing the Constitutional Court, empowering parliamentary committees, ensuring transparent public hearings, and reinforcing competitive party politics.
What it means for citizens
For ordinary voters, a unicameral Parliament could mean faster decisions and a clearer link between public demands and legislative outcomes. At the same time, parties would carry full responsibility for shaping laws, making electoral fairness and transparency crucial.
Conclusion
A unicameral Parliament is not a one-size-fits-all solution. In Europe and Nebraska, it became a symbol of efficiency; in Israel and Uganda, it functions with unique features; in Mongolia and Uzbekistan, it blends with mixed models. For Kazakhstan, the step could accelerate decision-making but would require robust safeguards to replace the Senate’s stabilizing role.
The referendum in 2027 will not just be about the number of chambers. It will be about what balance between speed and stability the nation chooses for its future.
