THE ECONOMIC FUNCTIONS OF PARLIAMENT AND THE POLITICO-ECONOMIC DIMENSION OF BICAMERALISM IN POST-WAR UKRAINE

Résumé fourni par la source

The economic dimension has become one of the key factors during the Russo-Ukrainian war. In the context of the country’s future post-war transformation, the issue of Ukraine’s economic resilience and financial security in the current phase of the war must be considered. The war has exposed the strengths and weaknesses of Ukraine's post-Soviet economic and political model, characterised by a clash of authoritarian and democratic political trends (with electoral democracy and autocracy prevailing in public policy) and the oligarchisation of the economy. To achieve economic stability, the institutional interaction between Ukraine's executive and legislative branches must be significantly strengthened. Most importantly, parliament's role in economic growth and post-war reconstruction, as well as its institutional interaction with the government and president, need to be reconsidered. The search for effective parliamentary models is associated with the need to strengthen the representation of territorial communities, districts and territories, improve the quality of the legislative process, and establish a balanced system of checks and balances. One possible approach to modernising Ukraine's parliamentary system is to introduce a bicameral model of parliament (bicameralism). This article aims to determine the economic functions of parliament and the political and economic dimensions of bicameralism in Ukraine during and after war, based on an analysis of expert assessments of the institutional purpose and functions of the upper house of parliament. The study focuses on the political and economic aspects of the bicameral parliament's activities. The study focuses on the economic functions of parliament and the political and economic dimension of bicameralism in (post-)war Ukraine. The methodological basis of the research is a combination of theoretical analysis of scientific approaches to bicameralism and the empirical method of expert polling. The research was conducted in January-February 2026 and comprised over fifty experts, including representatives of political science, constitutional law, local council deputies, public activists, volunteers and veterans of the Russo-Ukrainian war. The research was conducted in the format of an individual questionnaire and included both closed and open questions with the aim of clarifying the experts' attitude to the prospects for introducing a bicameral parliament and the possible functions of the upper house. The results of the research indicate that the expert community has a moderately positive, yet cautious, attitude towards the idea of bicameralism. At the same time, experts emphasise the importance of parliament’s economic functions and its role in representing the interests of local communities, in order to safeguard their economic interests. While more than half of the respondents support the introduction of a bicameral parliamentary system, a significant proportion of experts consider this feasible only under certain political and institutional conditions. The most important function of the upper house is to represent territories and territorial communities, and to rationalise the legislative process by examining draft laws more thoroughly and preventing populist decisions. Experts pay special attention to the potential role of the upper house in post-war reintegration processes, the economic recovery of territories, and the control of budgetary resource efficiency. The practical significance of the results obtained lies in the possibility of using expert assessments to further conceptualise the bicameral parliamentary system in Ukraine, determine the upper house's functional purpose, and develop strategic approaches to modernising Ukrainian parliamentarism in the context of post-war state development.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.