The term was used in South Africa to describe the Parliament established under the apartheid regime's new South African Constitution of 1983. Other instances of tricameral legislatures in history include Simón Bolívar's model state. The word could also describe the French Estates-General, which had three 'estates', as well as the three chambers which comprised the Consular and Napoleonic (1799-1815) legislatures.
In 1983, South Africa's apartheid government put forward a constitution providing for a tricameral legislature. On 2 November, around seventy percent of the country's white population voted in favor of the changes – black South Africans were not consulted, and under the proposal they continued to be denied representation since in theory they were citizens of independent or autonomous Bantustans.
The South African tricameral parliament consisted of three race-based chambers:
The creation of the tricameral parliament was controversial on two fronts. On the one hand, many white conservatives disliked the idea of non-whites participating in Parliament at all. The dispute was a factor in the creation of the Conservative Party, a breakaway from the dominant National Party. On the other hand, many coloreds and Asians rejected the system as a sham, saying that the chambers reserved for them were powerless.
The tricameral parliament was not particularly strong. The 1983 constitution significantly weakened the powers of parliament and abolished the position of Prime Minister. Most authorities were transferred to the State President, including the power to appoint the Cabinet. This was seen by many as an attempt to limit the power of coloreds and Indians – not only were the 'non-white' Houses of Parliament less powerful than the 'white' one, but parliament itself was subordinate to a white President.
Bolívar intended his model government to function as a parliamentary system, and so the tricameral parliament was expected to govern through the active administration of the cabinet ministers who would be accountable to it. Bolívar was explicit in many of his writings, particularly in his Message to the Congress of Angostura on how his proposed system was meant to reflect the way the British parliamentary system works. His proposal for Censors was not for them to act as legislators but rather to act as an office similar to an Ombudsman. As such, some opinions differ on whether his system could truly be classified as a tricameral parliament, considering that the Censors weren't true legislators, but seemed to represent a separate branch of government altogether.
Despite Bolívar's huge influence in South America, no country in the region employs his tricameral parliament. Early attempts to implement the model, such as in Bolivia, were not successful, although the chaos of the period was likely a factor in this outcome. As a result of not adopting Bolívar's British-inspired parliamentary system, numerous celebrated political scientists like the late Juan Linz and many others have observed that the decision of many Latin American countries to model their systems of government on the presidential system of the United States has led to numerous examples of political instability and subsequent descent into dictatorship or anarchy.
Some historians view the French States-General as an example of a tricameral legislature. The States-General evolved gradually over time and provided advice on various matters (including legislative issues) to the King. The three Estates were the simply labeled First (consisting of clergy), Second (consisting of nobility), and Third (consisting of commoners). (The term "fourth estate", referring to the press, derives from this system, but was coined long after the revolution that abolished it.)
There are two distinct problems with regarding the States-General as a tricameral legislature, however. First, the States-General never had any formal powers to legislate, although, at times, it played a major role in the King's legislative activity. Second, the division between the three estates was not always maintained – the estates sometimes deliberated separately, but at other times, they deliberated as a single body, undermining the idea of tricameralism.
Whether the Sénat was part of legislature, however, is open to doubt, because Sieyès (the main instigator of the Consulate's Constitution and later president of this Senate) described it as belonging to an altogether different power beyond the executive, legislative and judiciary: the conservative power. In effect, Napoléon made the Sénat into a political élite to back his power as Consul and later as Emperor, whereas the other two chambers were subdued into submission. In 1807, the Tribunat was definitely abolished.
The 1947 Constitution of the Republic of China has three chambers of parliament that are elected. Governmental organs of the constitution follow the outline proposed by Sun Yat-sen and supported by the Kuomintang (Nationalist Party), while also incorporating the opinions of the federalism supported Communist Party in the 1940s. The separation of powers was designed by Carsun Chang, a founding member of the China Democratic League.
As the mechanism is significantly different from the Western trias politica, the grand justices has an interpretation which ruled that these three organs all bear characteristics equivalent to a "parliament".
However, the government of the Republic of China lost the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and retreated to Taiwan. A set of temporary provisions were passed by the National Assembly to gather more powers to the President and limit the functions of the tricameral parliament. Members of the tricameral parliament elected in China in 1947 and 1948 kept serving on Taiwan without reelection until 1991.
The Socialist Republic of Croatia, as well as all other federal units of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (according to the provisions of the 1974 Constitution) had three houses of parliament (Sabor Socijalisti?ke republike Hrvatske, now Hrvatski sabor): Socio-Political Council (Dru?tveno-politi?ko vije?e), Council of Municipalities (Vije?e op?ina) and Council of Associated Labor (Vije?e udru?enog rada). This was abolished by the new constitution as Croatia gained independence in 1990.
The parliament of the Isle of Man, Tynwald, is sometimes called tricameral, but this description is not universally accepted. The two branches of Tynwald are the House of Keys and the Legislative Council. The Tynwald Court consists of the members of both houses meeting together regularly. Some argue that this counts as a third house. Others disagree, saying that as there are no members of the Court who are not also members of the other houses, the Court should not be considered separately (by comparison, in Australia, Switzerland and India deadlocks between the two Houses can sometimes be resolved by a joint sitting. It is a matter of semantics whether or not such arrangements are described as "tricameral". (Taking the expression literally, Tynwald is tricameral in that there are three separate chambers (rooms) in use for the sessions.)
The General Synod of the Church of England is sometimes described as tricameral. It is divided into a House of Bishops, the House of Clergy and the House of Laity. As the Church of England is the state church of England, the Parliament of the United Kingdom has given the General Synod the power (subject to veto) to make law relating to the Church.
However, a Diocesan Synod is not a tricameral institution. It is a bicameral institution, as it consists of the House of Laity, who are directly elected by the parishes, and the House of Clergy. The Bishop is not a member of either House, even though he is constitutionally a member of Synod.
In the fifteenth century, secular clergy of each diocese sent two proctors to the Parliament of Ireland, who met separately from the House of Commons and the House of Lords. In 1537, their right to membership was revoked after they opposed the Reformation in Ireland.
Tricameral meeting arrangements are a growing trend in labor unions where some members will always be working on one of three shifts. Under such arrangements, each shift will have its own meeting, but the action of one meeting will have to be adopted by the other two.