Self-perceptions of Members of an Upper Chamber vs. Perception of General Public: Factors Influencing Bicameralism

When assessing the nature and strength of bicameralism, political scientists have traditionally focused on the powers of upper chambers, potential in/congruence with a lower chamber, and more recently on the legitimacy of upper chambers, including the self-perceived legitimacy of their members. A factor that has remained neglected in the literature is senators' perceptions of the role of their own institution. This is a very important question since, unlike many other political institutions, upper chambers can take on a variety of alternative roles in political systems. Studying the case of Czech bicameralism, we aim to show what effect senators' understandings of their institution has on the functioning of the upper chamber and the nature of bicameralism. To this end, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 14 Czech senators (out of 81). The group of interviewed senators is diverse, including senators from different parties, different types of constituencies, holding different positions in the Senate etc. Interviews proceeded till the point of saturation and were subsequently subjected to qualitative content analysis. Our analysis showed that senators' perceptions of the Senate's role differ. Specifically, there were different perspectives on the Senate's involvement in the legislative process and the potential for senators to advocate for the interests of their own constituencies. The extent to which the Senate is a party-controlled institution or, instead, an independent control chamber may also change. Our study suggests that senators can in fact choose how to pursue their work and define the role they want the Senate to perform. The first key take-away point is that the role of an entire constitutional institution as well as the nature of bicameralism, despite its constitutional and legal stability, is variable and depends in part on the perceptions of those who occupy the institution. The second key take-away point is that what representatives think of their role differs from what the general perception is. We are able to make this comparison on the basis of our previous research when we examined how citizens understand the role of the Senate. This research was also based on semi-structured interviews with the general public (the group of interviewed citizens was diverse in all basic socio-economical characteristics). The general public dominantly sees the Senate as an elitist, apolitical institution that is/should be composed of wise, experienced, and moral people (compared to the lower chamber). However, senators strongly rejected the notion that the Senate is an apolitical institution. Unlike senators, ordinary citizens are much less likely to perceive the Senate as an institution that significantly helps preserve the constitutional democratic order. Therefore, the perceived legitimacy of the institution also fundamentally differs between senators and citizens. Perceptions of the need to represent local interests then also differ.