Tricameralism is the practice of having three legislative or parliamentary chambers. It is contrasted with unicameralism and bicameralism, each of which is far more common.
A disputed type of tricameralism is one where there are two legislative bodies, elected or appointed separately, and a third consisting of all members of the two, meeting together. In cases where this is considered tricameralism, such as the Manx Tynwald and the Icelandic Althing (from 1874 to 1991), there is generally an explicit, routine role for the unified house, which distinguishes it from bicameral systems where a joint sitting of the two bodies is used to resolve deadlocks or for special sessions, which is true in several parliaments including Australia, Switzerland and India. Arguments over whether tricameralism should be construed to include this or not are primarily semantic.
Less ambiguous examples in which three bodies each are chosen separately and meet and debate separately have also existed. The word could describe the Ancien Régime era French Estates-General, though similar semantic argument are applied since it sometimes met in joint session. The South African Parliament established under the apartheid regime's 1983 constitution was tricameral, as was the Chinese 1947 Constitution and Simón Bolívar's model state. A common feature in these bodies, which also casts some doubt on the appropriateness of the name, is that in several cases one of the three legislatures is not principally concerned with legislating.
No national government is currently organized along tricameral lines.
Once the Icelandic Parliament was restored by royal decree in 1844, it originally operated unicamerally from 1845 to 1874 when it became principally bicameral with an additional third chamber, known as Unified Parliament. The third chamber consisted of the union of the other two and deliberated as a single body, which makes some scholars classify it as only a bicameral system.