The op-ed also warned that “Chile’s proposed constitution would eliminate the Senate—a more than 200-year-old institution that has historically played a crucial role in balancing political power.” In “the new system, a single chamber would reign,” Kaiser wrote, suggesting that this “does not comply with the minimum standards required by Chile’s democracy.” But as unicameral legislatures are common in many democracies–including 16 members of NATO–this fear seems overblown.
G‐d, I can already hear the echoes of ‘whataboutism’ just reading this.
The details are slightly different from country to country, but the model for upper chambers is the british House of Lords, which was explicitly created to cement the aristocratic landowners power (and nothing much changed since). In nonaristocratic countries senates are usually also full of lanowners, business retirees, hedge funds people etc and the election methods usually favour old people and established parties.
And even if we ignore that, the upper chamber by its own existence will always counteract any potential radicalism of the lower chamber, thus always favour status quo against even the shreds of democracy which sometimes pass through the sieve of rigged electoralism in the countries of the dictatorships of the bourgeoisie.
That’s why socialist countries always liquidate that on the transition, and even the non socialist progressives (democrats in the leninist meaning of the word) also wiev the institution unfavourably.
I see, thanks!