Hubbry Logo
Hung parliamentHung parliamentMain
Open search
Hung parliament
Community hub
Hung parliament
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Hung parliament
Hung parliament
from Wikipedia

A hung parliament is a term used mainly in the United Kingdom and Australia to describe a situation in which no single political party or pre-existing coalition has an absolute majority of legislators (commonly known as members or seats) in a parliament or other legislature. The terms is applied to legislatures operating under the Westminster system and typically employing majoritarian electoral systems.

This situation is also known as a balanced parliament,[1][2] or—for local government in the United Kingdom—a parliament under no overall control (NOC).[3][4][5] A hung parliament may result in a coalition government, a minority government, or a snap election if a government cannot be formed.

In multi-party systems, particularly where proportional representation is employed, it is rare for a single party to hold a majority of the seats, and likewise rare for one party to form government on its own (i.e. coalition government is the norm). Consequently, the term is generally unused in these systems, as a legislature without a single-party majority is the norm and thus every parliament is "hung".

In the Westminster system, in the absence of a clear majority, no party or coalition has an automatic constitutional entitlement to form government. This can result in the formation of a coalition government of parties which can together command a majority, or the formation of a minority government, where the ruling party receives confidence and supply from smaller parties or independent legislators. If none of these solutions prove workable, the head of state may dissolve parliament (typically on the advice of the head of government), triggering a snap election.

In Canada, the term is generally not used, as it is typical for the party that wins a plurality (but not a majority) of seats to form a minority government on its own. These situations are typically called a "minority government" or "minority parliament" by the Canadian media. The ruling party then seeks to work with other parties on a case-by-case basis.

Overview

[edit]

A normal objective of parliamentary systems – especially those requiring responsible government such as the Westminster system – is the formation of a stable government (i.e. ideally one that lasts a full parliamentary term, until the next election would normally be due). This requires a government to be able to muster sufficient votes in parliament to pass motions of confidence and supply, especially motions of no-confidence and budget bills. If such motions fail, they normally result in the dissolution of parliament and a fresh election. In some parliamentary systems, however, a new government may be formed without recourse to an election – if, for example, a minor party holds the balance of power, it may publicly express for the opposition, thereby creating a new majority.

The term "hung parliament" is most often used of parliaments dominated by two major parties or coalitions. General elections in such systems usually result in one party having an absolute majority and thus quickly forming a new government. In most parliamentary systems, a hung parliament is considered exceptional and is often seen as undesirable. In other contexts, a hung parliament may be seen as ideal – for example, if opinions among the voting public are polarised regarding one or more issues, a hung parliament may lead to the emergence of a compromise or consensus.

If a legislature is bicameral, the term "hung parliament" is usually used only with respect to the lower house.

In a multi-party system with legislators elected by proportional representation or a similar systems, it is usually exceptionally rare and difficult for any party to have an absolute majority. Thus, under such situations, every parliament is "hung" and coalition governments are normal. However, the term may be used to describe an election in which no established coalition wins an outright majority (such as the German federal election of 2005 or the 2018 Italian general election).

History

[edit]

The term apparently emerged in the United Kingdom, around the time of the 1974 election, by analogy with a hung jury, that is, one unable to reach a verdict. [1] However, whereas a hung jury results in a mistrial, requiring a new trial, there is no general rule under which the absence of a clear majority requires a fresh election. In recent years, most "hung parliaments" have served their full term.

Australia

[edit]
The House of Representatives elected in 2010, with a 72–72 tie between the Labor Party and the Opposition Coalition.

Australian parliaments are modelled on the Westminster system, with a hung parliament typically defined as a lack of a lower house parliamentary majority from either the Australian Labor Party or Liberal/National Coalition.

Hung parliaments are rare at the federal level in Australia, as a de facto two-party system, in which the Australian Labor Party competes against a permanent Liberal-National Coalition of the conservative parties, has existed with only brief interruptions since the early 20th century. Prior to 1910, no party had had a majority in the House of Representatives. As a result, there were frequent changes of government, several of which took place during parliamentary terms. Since 1910, when the two-party system was cemented, there have been three hung parliaments, the first in 1940, the second in 2010 and the third in 2018.

At the 1940 federal election, incumbent Prime Minister Robert Menzies secured the support of the two crossbenchers and continued to govern, but in 1941 the independents switched their support to Labor, bringing John Curtin to power.

Declining support for the major parties in recent times is leading to more non-majoritarian outcomes at elections.[6] At the 2010 federal election, which resulted in an exact 72–72 seat tie between Labor and the Liberal-National Coalition, incumbent Prime Minister Julia Gillard secured the support of four out of six Independent and Green Party crossbenchers and continued to govern until 2013.

In the 2016 federal election the Liberal-National Coalition won 76 seats, the bare minimum required to form a majority government. The Liberal-National Coalition government lost its majority government status after a by-election in 2018, but regained its majority in 2019.

Hung parliaments are rather more common at a state level. The Tasmanian House of Assembly and the unicameral Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly are both elected by Hare-Clark proportional representation, thus, elections commonly return hung parliaments. In other states and territories, candidates contest single-member seats. With far fewer seats than federal parliament, hung parliaments are more likely to be elected. Recent examples include New South Wales in 1991 and 2023, Queensland in 1998 and 2015, Victoria in 1999, South Australia in 1997 and 2002, Western Australia in 2008, the Australian Capital Territory in 2008 and 2012 and Tasmania in 2010.

In the lead up to 2025 election, polling results by the Australia Institute showed that more than twice as many Australians support a power-sharing arrangement in the next term of parliament as oppose one (41.7% vs 19.7%).[7] An analysis of 25 power-sharing parliaments in Australia shows crossbenchers negotiate a wide range of concessions for confidence and supply. Negotiations include parliamentary and policy reforms, extra staff and resources, and presiding officer  positions for crossbenchers.[8]

Canada

[edit]

In Canada, the term is generally not used, as it is typical for the party that wins a plurality (but not a majority) of seats to form a minority government on its own. These situations are typically called a "minority government" or "minority parliament" by the media. The ruling party then seeks to work with other parties on a case-by-case basis.

The 45th Canadian Parliament elected in the 2025 Canadian federal election resulted in Canada's most recent (and current) minority parliament.

Minority parliaments at either the federal and provincial level are an infrequent but not unusual occurrence in Canada.[9] Six of the previous eight recent federal elections have resulted in hung parliaments (the 38th, the 39th, the 40th, the 43rd, the 44th, and the 45th). Following all six elections the largest party ruled as a "minority government". Although Canadian minority governments have tended to be short-lived, the two successive minorities under Prime Minister Stephen Harper managed to hold on to power from February 2006 until a no confidence vote in March 2011. The subsequent election saw a majority parliament elected with Harper's Conservative Party obtaining a 24-seat majority.

While most Canadian minority governments end in dissolution via non-confidence or a snap election call, there have been a few attempts to transition to a new government without returning to the ballot box. Most notably, the 2008 Canadian Federal Election resulted in the 2008–09 Canadian parliamentary dispute. While the Conservative Party had a plurality of seats, the Liberal Party and New Democratic Party (NDP), supported by The Bloc Québécois, agreed to defeat the Conservatives in favour of a Liberal/NDP coalition government. On 4 December 2008, Governor General Michaëlle Jean granted Prime Minister Stephen Harper's request for a prorogation of Parliament on the condition that parliament reconvene early in the new year. The first session of the 40th parliament thus ended, delaying and ultimately avoiding a vote of non-confidence.[10]

At the territorial level, a unique situation happened in the 2021 Yukon general election, in which the electoral district of Vuntut Gwitchin resulted in a tie. A judicial recount was held and the tie remained. A draw was held between the two candidates which ultimately named NDP challenger Annie Blake the winner against incumbent Liberal cabinet minister and MLA Pauline Frost. This victory ultimately resulted in a hung parliament in the Yukon legislature with the NDP holding the balance of power.

Parliament Elections Period Single party with majority
Start End
1st Canadian Parliament 1867 Canadian federal election 24 September 1867 8 July 1872 Conservative
2nd Canadian Parliament 1872 Canadian federal election 5 March 1873 2 January 1874 Conservative[a]
3rd Canadian Parliament 1874 Canadian federal election 21 February 1874 16 August 1878 Liberal
4th Canadian Parliament 1878 Canadian federal election 13 February 1879 18 May 1882 Conservative
5th Canadian Parliament 1882 Canadian federal election 8 February 1883 15 January 1887 Conservative
6th Canadian Parliament 1887 Canadian federal election 7 April 1887 3 February 1891 Conservative
7th Canadian Parliament 1891 Canadian federal election 25 April 1891 24 April 1896 Conservative
8th Canadian Parliament 1896 Canadian federal election 19 August 1896 18 July 1900 Liberal
9th Canadian Parliament 1900 Canadian federal election 6 February 1901 29 September 1904 Liberal
10th Canadian Parliament 1904 Canadian federal election 11 January 1905 17 September 1908 Liberal
11th Canadian Parliament 1908 Canadian federal election 20 January 1909 29 July 1911 Liberal
12th Canadian Parliament 1911 Canadian federal election 15 November 1911 20 September 1917 Conservative
13th Canadian Parliament 1917 Canadian federal election 18 March 1918 4 October 1921 Government (Unionist)
Conservative
14th Canadian Parliament 1921 Canadian federal election 8 March 1922 27 June 1925 None[b]
15th Canadian Parliament 1925 Canadian federal election 7 January 1926 2 July 1926 None
16th Canadian Parliament 1926 Canadian federal election 9 December 1926 30 May 1930 None
17th Canadian Parliament 1930 Canadian federal election 8 September 1930 5 July 1935 Conservative
18th Canadian Parliament 1935 Canadian federal election 6 February 1935 25 January 1940 Liberal
19th Canadian Parliament 1940 Canadian federal election 16 May 1940 16 April 1945 Liberal
20th Canadian Parliament 1945 Canadian federal election 6 September 1945 30 April 1949 None[c]
Liberal
21st Canadian Parliament 1949 Canadian federal election 15 September 1949 14 May 1953 Liberal
22nd Canadian Parliament 1953 Canadian federal election 12 November 1953 12 April 1957 Liberal
23rd Canadian Parliament 1957 Canadian federal election 14 October 1957 1 February 1958 None
24th Canadian Parliament 1958 Canadian federal election 12 April 1958 19 April 1962 Progressive Conservative
25th Canadian Parliament 1962 Canadian federal election 27 September 1962 6 February 1963 None
26th Canadian Parliament 1963 Canadian federal election 16 May 1963 8 September 1965 None
27th Canadian Parliament 1965 Canadian federal election 18 January 1965 23 April 1968 None
28th Canadian Parliament 1968 Canadian federal election 12 September 1968 1 September 1972 Liberal
29th Canadian Parliament 1972 Canadian federal election 4 January 1973 9 May 1974 None
30th Canadian Parliament 1974 Canadian federal election 30 September 1974 26 March 1979 Liberal
31st Canadian Parliament 1979 Canadian federal election 9 October 1979 14 December 1979 None
32nd Canadian Parliament 1980 Canadian federal election 14 April 1980 9 July 1984 Liberal
33rd Canadian Parliament 1984 Canadian federal election 5 November 1984 1 October 1988 Progressive Conservative
34th Canadian Parliament 1988 Canadian federal election 12 December 1984 8 September 1993 Progressive Conservative
35th Canadian Parliament 1993 Canadian federal election 17 January 1994 27 April 1997 Liberal
36th Canadian Parliament 1997 Canadian federal election 22 September 1997 22 October 2000 Liberal
37th Canadian Parliament 2000 Canadian federal election 29 January 2001 23 August 2004 Liberal
38th Canadian Parliament 2004 Canadian federal election 4 October 2004 29 November 2005 None
39th Canadian Parliament 2006 Canadian federal election 3 April 2006 7 September 2008 None
40th Canadian Parliament 2008 Canadian federal election 18 November 2008 26 March 2011 None
41st Canadian Parliament 2011 Canadian federal election 2 June 2011 2 August 2015 Conservative
42nd Canadian Parliament 2015 Canadian federal election 3 December 2015 11 September 2019 Liberal
43rd Canadian Parliament 2019 Canadian federal election 5 December 2019 15 August 2021 None
44th Canadian Parliament 2021 Canadian federal election 22 November 2021 23 March 2025 None
45th Canadian Parliament 2025 Canadian federal election 26 May 2025 TBD None

Fiji

[edit]
The 8th Republican Parliament of Fiji, elected in 2022, is the incumbent parliament and the country's most recent hung parliament.

The 2022 Fijian general election resulted in a hung parliament, with no party gaining a majority of seats. Although the FijiFirst party, led by then-Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama, won the most seats, the three other parties that won seats (the People's Alliance, the National Federation Party and the Social Democratic Liberal Party) formed a coalition and Sitiveni Rabuka, leader of the People's Alliance, became the subsequent Prime Minister, ending 16 years of Bainimarama's rule.

France

[edit]

Since the establishment of the two-round system for parliamentary elections in 1958, hung parliaments are unusual under the Fifth Republic. Still, 2 general elections out of 16 resulted in such a parliamentary configuration since 1958:

  • June 1988 parliamentary elections: after being reelected as President of France in May 1988, François Mitterrand dissolved the National Assembly and called for a snap legislative election on 5 and 12 June 1988 to regain the majority he lost to a centre-right to right-wing coalition in 1986. The snap election resulted in France's first hung parliament since the fall of the Fourth Republic in 1958, with Mitterrand's PS as the largest party (275 seats) but 14 short of an overall majority. The Communists and the independent Centrists ended up as potential kingmakers in the newly elected Assembly.
9th National Assembly of France, elected in 1988, was France's first hung parliament since 1958.
  • June 2022 parliamentary elections: less than two months after being reelected as president, Emmanuel Macron and his government, now led by Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne, fought the 2022 legislative election taking place on the 12 and 19 June. In the second round, Macron's centrist coalition unexpectedly lost its majority in the National Assembly and was reduced to being the largest bloc (with 251 seats) in a hung parliament. Going into the election with a 115-seat majority, Macron's government now fell 38 short of an absolute majority in the lower house of Parliament, the widest margin for any French cabinet since 1958. While both the left-wing NUPES and the far-right RN achieved significant gains, the centre-right to right-wing Republicans were left holding the balance of power in this hung parliament, despite suffering seizable losses.
16th National Assembly of France, elected in 2022, is France's second hung parliament since 1958.
The 17th National Assembly of France, the incumbent national assembly, is a hung parliament.

India

[edit]
18th Lok Sabha, elected in 2024, was India's last hung parliament.

India is a federative multi-party parliamentary democracy with lower and upper houses at both national and sub-national levels.[11]

However, despite having a multi-party system in place, it has witnessed a clear majority parliament for 45 years against its transition to democratic republic being 70 years old.[12][13][14]

It has 8 recognized national parties with influence over major parts of India and regional parties with bases in certain states.[15][16]

From 1989 to 2014, India had a continuous period of parliaments producing coalition governments, with clearer majorities for the Indian National Congress and Janata Party before this period and for the Bharatiya Janata Party after it.[17] India returned to the norm of a hung parliament in the 2024 General Elections with both BJP and INC failing to produce majority in it.[18] The confidence of Lok Sabha, lower house of Indian Parliament elected in general elections determines the prime minister and ruling party of India.

Lok Sabha Elections Period Single party with majority
Start End
1st Lok Sabha 1951–52 Indian general election 17 April 1952 4 April 1957 Indian National Congress
2nd Lok Sabha 1957 Indian general election 5 April 1957 31 March 1962 Indian National Congress
3rd Lok Sabha 1962 Indian general election 2 April 1962 3 March 1967 Indian National Congress
4th Lok Sabha 1967 Indian general election 4 March 1967 27 December 1970 Indian National Congress (R)
5th Lok Sabha 1971 Indian general election 15 March 1971 18 January 1977 Indian National Congress (R)
6th Lok Sabha 1977 Indian general election 23 March 1977 22 August 1979 None
7th Lok Sabha 1980 Indian general election 18 January 1980 31 December 1984 Indian National Congress (I)
8th Lok Sabha 1984 Indian general election 31 December 1984 27 November 1989 Indian National Congress (I)
9th Lok Sabha 1989 Indian general election 2 December 1989 13 March 1991 None
10th Lok Sabha 1991 Indian general election 20 June 1991 10 May 1996 None
11th Lok Sabha 1996 Indian general election 15 May 1996 4 December 1997 None
12th Lok Sabha 1998 Indian general election 10 March 1998 26 April 1999 None
13th Lok Sabha 1999 Indian general election 10 October 1999 6 February 2004 None
14th Lok Sabha 2004 Indian general election 17 May 2004 18 May 2009 None
15th Lok Sabha 2009 Indian general election 22 May 2009 18 May 2014 None
16th Lok Sabha 2014 Indian general election 26 May 2014 24 May 2019 Bharatiya Janata Party
17th Lok Sabha 2019 Indian general election 17 June 2019 16 June 2024 Bharatiya Janata Party
18th Lok Sabha 2024 Indian general election None

Hung assemblies within states and alliances between national and regional parties at sub-national level are common.

Ireland

[edit]

Because Ireland uses PR-STV, it is rare for any one party to have a majority on its own. The last such occasion was in 1977. However, one or other coalitions are known to be possible before and during the election. Therefore, a "hung Dáil" (Dáil Éireann being the lower and most dominant chamber of the Oireachtas/Parliament) in Ireland refers more to the inability of a coalition of parties who traditionally enter government together or would be expected to govern together, from doing so.

The President has no direct role in the formation of governments in the case of a hung parliament. However, he retains the power to convene a meeting of either or both the Dáil and Senate which could become important if there was a government trying to use parliamentary recess to prevent confidence votes and hold onto power. The President may also refuse to dissolve Dáil Eireann and call an election if the Taoiseach loses a vote of confidence, instead giving the other parties a chance to see if they can put together a government without proceeding to another election.

In 2016, Fine Gael and Labour, who had been in government the previous five years, were unable, due to Labour's collapse, to enter government again. Fianna Fáil had enough seats to put together a rainbow government with the other centre-left, hard left parties and independents but negotiations broke down. Fianna Fáil had also promised not to enter coalition with Sinn Féin.

The press began to speculate about a Germany style "Grand Coalition" similar to the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats there. Many members of FF considered FG too right wing to enter coalition with and threatened to leave the party this came to pass. As talks continued on without a new government (the old government, constitutionally, which had just been voted out, remaining in power including ministers who had lost their seats) FF agreed to allow a government to form by abstention. The parliamentary arithmetic fell in such a way that if FF TD's abstained on confidence and supply matters, a FG minority government could, with the support of a group of independents, form a new government. This was agreed in exchange for a number of policy concessions. Once the deal with FF was signed, Taoiseach Enda Kenny conducted talks with the independents and entered government for a second term.

Israel

[edit]

All parliamentary elections in Israel have resulted in hung parliaments. The Knesset consists of 120 members and the highest number of seats a single faction has ever received was the 56 members Alignment (Ma'arach) got in the October 1969 elections. When the same faction was formed in January 1969 it consisted of 63 members, the only instance to date of a faction with an absolute majority in the Knesset. The lowest number of seats the largest faction has ever received in a Knesset election was 26 members received by One Israel in the 1999 Israeli general election.

Malaysia

[edit]

The 2022 general election of Malaysia resulted in a hung parliament with no party or party coalition winning a simple majority for the first time in Malaysian history.[19] Following five days of deliberation and negotiations within coalitions and parties, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of Malaysia swore in Pakatan Harapan (PH) chairman Anwar Ibrahim, whose coalition won the most seats, as the tenth Prime Minister of Malaysia on 24 November 2022.[20] To achieve a parliamentary majority, Pakatan Harapan formed a grand coalition government with Barisan Nasional (BN), Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS), Gabungan Rakyat Sabah (GRS) and various independent parties.[21]

New Zealand

[edit]

Hung parliaments were relatively uncommon in New Zealand prior to the introduction of proportional representation in 1993. On only four occasions since the beginnings of party politics in 1890 had a hung parliament occurred under the first-past-the-post system: in 1911, 1922, 1928 and 1931. The rarity between 1936 and 1996 was due to the regression into a two-party system, alternating between the long dominating New Zealand Labour Party and New Zealand National Party.[22] From the first MMP election in 1996 until the 2020 election no single party gained an outright majority in parliament. The 2020 election was the first to return a majority – a narrow majority for the Labour Party – since 1993.[23]

United Kingdom

[edit]
The House of Commons following the 2017 general election. No party had a majority.

In the United Kingdom, before World War I, a largely stable two-party system existed for generations; traditionally, only the Tories and Whigs, or from the mid-19th century the Conservative and Liberal parties, managed to deliver Members of Parliament in significant numbers. Hung parliaments were thus rare, especially during the 19th century. The possibility of change arose when, in the aftermath of the Act of Union, 1800, a number of Irish MPs took seats in the House, though initially these followed the traditional alignments. However, two Reform Acts (in 1867 and in 1884) significantly extended the franchise and redrew the constituencies, and coincided with a change in Irish politics. Following the 1885 general election, neither party had an overall majority. The Irish Parliamentary Party held the balance of power and made Irish Home Rule a condition of their support. However, the Liberal Party split on the issue of Irish Home Rule, leading to another general election in 1886, in which the Conservatives won the most seats and governed with the support of the fragment of Liberalism opposed to Home Rule, the Liberal Unionist Party.

Both the election of January 1910, and that of December 1910 produced a hung parliament with an almost identical number of seats won by the governing Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. This was due both to the constitutional crisis and to the rise of the Labour Party. The elections of 1929 resulted in the last hung parliament for many years; in the meantime, Labour had replaced the Liberals as one of the two dominating parties.

Since the elections of 1929, three general elections have resulted in hung parliaments in the UK. The first was the election in February 1974, and the ensuing parliament lasted only until October. The second was the May 2010 election, the result of which was a hung parliament with the Conservative party as the largest single party. The results for the 3 main parties were: Conservatives 306, Labour 258, Liberal Democrats 57.[24] The third one resulted from the snap election held in June 2017 that had been called for by Theresa May in order to strengthen her majority heading into Brexit negotiations later in 2017. However, this election backfired on May and her Conservative Party, resulting in a hung parliament after the snap election.[25]

The formation of the coalition resulting from the 2010 election led to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which instituted fixed five-year Parliaments and transferred the power to call early elections from the Monarch on the advice of Prime Minister to Parliament itself. This was the idea of the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, then the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who said that this would stop the Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron, from calling a snap election to end the hung parliament, as many other Conservatives had requested. This act was revoked in 2022 through the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 to return the powers of dissolution to the Monarch.

Hung parliaments can also arise when slim government majorities are eroded by by-election defeats and defection of Members of Parliament to opposition parties, as well as resignations of MPs from the House of Commons. This happened in December 1996 to the Conservative government of John Major (1990–97) and in mid-1978 to the Labour government of James Callaghan (1976–79); this latter period covers the era known as the Winter of Discontent. The minority government of Jim Callaghan came when Labour ended their 15-month Lib–Lab pact with the Liberals, having lost their majority in early 1977.

According to researchers Andrew Blick and Stuart Wilks-Heeg, the phrase "hung parliament" did not enter into common usage in the UK until the mid-1970s. It was first used in the press by journalist Simon Hoggart in The Guardian in 1974.[26]

Academic treatments of hung parliaments include David Butler's Governing Without a Majority: Dilemmas for Hung Parliaments in Britain (Sheridan House, 1986) and Vernon Bogdanor's 'Multi-Party Politics and the Constitution' (Cambridge University Press, 1983).

Consequences

[edit]

In countries where parliaments under majority control are the norm, a hung parliament is often viewed as an unusual and undesirable election result, leading to relatively weak and unstable government. A period of uncertainty after the election is common, as major party leaders negotiate with independents and minor parties to establish a working majority.

An aspiring head of government may seek to build a coalition government; in Westminster systems, this typically involves agreement on a joint legislative programme and a number of ministerial posts going to the minor coalition partners, in return for a stable majority. Alternatively, a minority government may be formed, establishing confidence and supply agreements in return for policy concessions agreed in advance, or relying on case by case support.

Australia

[edit]

In the Western Australian state election of 2008 the Australian Labor Party won more seats than the Liberal Party at 28 to 24. The National Party along with three independents had the seats needed to give either party a majority. To help the Liberal Party form government, the Nationals supported the party on the condition that the Royalties for Regions policy was implemented.

In the 1999 Victorian state election, the Labor Party won 42 seats, while the incumbent Liberal National Coalition retained 43, with 3 seats falling to independents. The Labor Party formed a minority government with the 3 independents.

The 2010 Tasmanian state election resulted in a hung parliament. After a period of negotiation, the incumbent Labor government led by David Bartlett was recommissioned, but containing the Leader of the Tasmanian Greens, Nick McKim, as a minister, and the Greens' Cassy O'Connor as Cabinet Secretary.

In the 2010 federal election, neither Labor nor the Liberal coalition secured the majority of seats required to form a Government in their own right. In order to counter the potential instability of minority government involved groups may negotiate written agreements defining their terms of support. Such measures were undertaken by the Gillard Government in 2010.[27]

France

[edit]

In the 1988 French legislative elections, a hung parliament occurred with the Socialists as the largest party. Following talks with parliamentary leaders, Prime Minister Michel Rocard formed a new minority government, incorporating centrist ministers in a sort of unofficial coalition with the pivotal independent centrist group in the Assembly, ensuring a somewhat stable government until 1991. His direct successors, Prime Ministers Édith Cresson and Pierre Bérégovoy, both formed minority governments, relying alternately on the Communists' or the Centrists' support in Parliament (depending on the issue).

In the 2022 French legislative elections, a hung parliament occurred again with President Macron's Ensemble coalition as the largest bloc in the National Assembly. Both the President and the Prime Minister held talks with opposition leaders in order to try forming a coalition government with the centre-right (LR) and the centre-left (PS and the Greens), or at least reaching some sort of confidence-and-supply deal with them. Talks rapidly failed since no opposition party showed interest in propelling Macron's administration. In July 2022, Prime Minister Borne reshuffled her Cabinet and officially formed a minority government. As of June 2023, it is still the current government of France.

India

[edit]

In India, if an election results in a 'hung assembly' in one of the state Legislative Assemblies and no party is capable of gaining confidence, then fresh elections are announced to be held as soon as possible. Until this occurs President's Rule is applied. In India there have been many situations of hung assemblies in the state legislatures. However, invariably, the President of India in the case of Lok Sabha elections and the Governor of the state concerned, in the case of state elections, would attempt to give opportunities to the parties, starting with the one that got the maximum number of seats in the elections, to explore possibilities of forming a coalition government, before bringing in President's Rule.

New Zealand

[edit]

The first such occasion was in 1911 when the Liberal Party won fewer seats than the opposition Reform Party despite tallying the most votes. A vote of no confidence was placed by Reform and the Liberals survived by just one vote. This prompted Prime Minister Sir Joseph Ward to resign, his replacement Thomas Mackenzie was later defeated in July 1912 in a vote with several MPs and Labour crossing the floor to vote with the opposition, the last time in New Zealand history a government has changed on a confidence vote. This broke 23 years of Liberal governance and William Massey formed a new Reform Party government. Massey governed through to his death in 1925, though in 1922 the Reform Party suffered major losses and Massey was forced negotiate with several Independent MPs to retain power.

In 1928, Reform were ousted from governance and Joseph Ward once again won back power. However, the Reform and United (Liberal) parties were tied on seats with Labour holding the balance of power. Labour chose to back Ward rather than let Reform leader Gordon Coates remain in office. In the next election in 1931, there was again a three-way deadlock. On this occasion the Reform and United parties became a coalition government out of mutual fear of Labour's ever-increasing appeal as the Great Depression worsened.

1993 was the last time a hung parliament occurred in New Zealand. Governor-General Dame Catherine Tizard asked Sir David Beattie to form a committee, along with three retired appeal court judges, to decide whom to appoint as Prime Minister.[28] However, National won an extra seat after special votes were counted, giving National 50 seats and Labour 45 seats (4 were won by third-party candidates). Labour's Sir Peter Tapsell agreed to become Speaker of the New Zealand House of Representatives. As a result, National did not lose a vote in the house and maintained a dubious majority for three years.

United Kingdom

[edit]

In the February 1974 general election, no party gained an overall parliamentary majority. Labour won the most seats (301, which was 17 seats short of an overall majority) with the Conservatives on 297 seats, although the Conservatives had a larger share of the popular vote. As the incumbent Prime Minister, Edward Heath remained in office attempting to build a coalition with the Liberals. When these negotiations were unsuccessful Heath resigned and Labour led by Harold Wilson took over in a minority government.

In the 2010 UK general election, another hung parliament occurred with the Conservatives as the largest party, and discussions followed to help create a stable government. This resulted in agreement on a coalition government, which was also a majority government, between the Conservative Party, which won the most votes and seats in the election, and the Liberal Democrats.

In the 2017 UK general election, a hung parliament occurred for the second time in seven years with the Conservatives again being the largest party. The Conservatives led by Theresa May formed a minority government, supported by a confidence-and-supply agreement with the Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party.

Working majority

[edit]

There have been occasions when, although a parliament or assembly is technically hung, the party in power has a working majority. For example, in the United Kingdom, the tradition is that the Speaker and Deputy Speakers do not vote and Sinn Féin MPs never take their seats per their policy of abstentionism, so these members can be discounted from the opposition numbers.

United Kingdom

[edit]

In 2005, this was the case in the 60-seat National Assembly for Wales, where Labour lost their majority when Peter Law was expelled for standing against the official candidate in the 2005 Westminster election in the Blaenau Gwent constituency. When the Assembly was first elected on 1 May 2003, Labour won 30 seats, Plaid Cymru won 12, the Conservatives won 11, Liberal Democrats won 6, and the John Marek Independent Party won a seat.

When Dafydd Elis-Thomas (Plaid Cymru) was reelected as the presiding officer, this reduced the number of opposition AMs who could vote to 29, as the presiding officer votes only in the event of a tie and, even then, not on party political lines but according to Speaker Denison's rule. Thus, Labour had a working majority of one seat until Law ran in Blaenau Gwent.[29]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
A hung parliament arises when no single achieves an absolute of seats in the legislature, usually the , following a , thereby preventing any one party from unilaterally forming a . This condition, also termed "," compels the largest party or parties to pursue coalitions, minority administrations supported by formal or informal agreements on key votes, or potentially new elections if negotiations fail. Such parliaments are characteristic of Westminster-style systems with proportional or first-past-the-post electoral outcomes that fragment representation among multiple parties, as observed in nations like the , , and . In practice, they introduce procedural complexities, including extended government-formation periods, heightened legislative bargaining, and elevated risks of instability, where governments may collapse on motions or face frequent defeats on policy. Historical precedents in the UK encompass the February 1974 election, yielding a minority Labour government, and the outcome that birthed a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition; similarly, the 2017 election produced a Conservative minority reliant on a confidence-and-supply deal with the . While hung parliaments can promote cross-party compromise on , empirical patterns reveal tendencies toward shorter tenures and concessions that dilute original mandates, underscoring the causal primacy of control in enabling decisive executive action within parliamentary frameworks.

Definition and Terminology

Core Concept

A hung parliament arises in parliamentary systems when no single obtains an absolute majority of seats in the , defined as more than half of the total seats available. This situation, also termed "," prevents any one party from unilaterally commanding the of the house to form a stable without external support. Absolute majorities typically require exceeding 50% of seats plus one, as in the United Kingdom's where 326 of 650 seats confer control. In contrast, a allows the leading party to pass and survive votes independently, whereas a hung outcome demands inter-party negotiations. The term predominantly applies to Westminster-style parliaments, such as those in the , , and , where single-member districts under often yield fragmented results despite favoring larger parties. Here, the executive derives legitimacy from parliamentary rather than , making seat arithmetic pivotal: failure to secure a shifts power dynamics toward minority administrations, coalitions, or supply-and-confidence arrangements. Such parliaments are statistically infrequent in these systems due to the disproportionality of , which amplifies the seat share of frontrunners, but they emerge when voter preferences fragment across multiple parties or independents. Causally, hung parliaments reflect underlying electoral volatility or systemic features like low party consolidation, rather than inherent ; resolution hinges on constitutional conventions prioritizing the incumbent's right to test before dissolution. Outcomes vary: governments may endure with ad hoc support or collapse via lost motions, triggering fresh elections, but empirical instances show viability through formal pacts, underscoring that hung results test adaptability rather than paralyze governance.

International Variations

The term "hung parliament" originated in and is most commonly applied in Westminster-style systems, particularly in the and , to describe a where no single party or prior to the election holds an absolute majority of seats. This phrasing evokes a sense of , akin to a "" in legal contexts, highlighting the potential for governmental instability in majoritarian electoral systems where single-party majorities are the norm. In Canada, a comparable situation is typically termed a "minority parliament" or one requiring a "," reflecting a greater historical familiarity with such outcomes due to regional voting patterns and a multi-party dynamic that has produced 12 minority federal governments since in 1867. The emphasis here is on through negotiated support rather than deadlock, as the incumbent party usually attempts to form first if it wins the most seats. European parliamentary systems using , such as those in , the , and , rarely employ "hung parliament" as a distinct term, as fragmented results without a single-party are routine—occurring in the vast of elections since . In , for instance, outcomes are described as lacking an "absolute " (absolute Mehrheit), prompting standard negotiations, with English-language media occasionally borrowing "hung parliament" for dramatic effect but native discourse focusing on processes. Similarly, in the , minority governments or form without special nomenclature for the absence of , as the anticipates multiparty cabinets. In , where elections frequently yield no clear —as in 2018 when the Five Star Movement and League secured pluralities but no combined control—international reporting uses "hung parliament," but domestic analysis centers on presidente del Consiglio consultations. France represents a hybrid case: its two-round majoritarian system traditionally favors clearer majorities, but the 2024 snap legislative election produced a fragmented with the New Popular Front at 182 seats, at 168, and at 143 out of 577, leading to widespread use of "hung parliament" (parlement bloqué or sans majorité) in both French and English sources, underscoring risks of prolonged instability in a semi-presidential framework. This marks a departure from post-1958 norms, where only three elections (1988, 2022, 2024) resulted in no absolute majority.

Causes and Preconditions

Electoral System Influences

Majoritarian electoral systems, such as first-past-the-post (FPTP), minimize the occurrence of hung parliaments by employing single-member districts where the candidate with the plurality of votes wins the entire seat, thereby disproportionately rewarding the leading party with a seat bonus that often translates into an absolute majority. This mechanical effect stems from the system's tendency to waste votes for non-winning candidates, concentrating legislative power in the hands of the largest vote-getter and discouraging viable third-party challenges due to the dynamic, which fosters two-party competition. In the , under FPTP since 1885, hung parliaments have occurred in only 6 of 31 general elections between 1900 and 2019, representing about 19% of outcomes, typically arising from closely divided national vote shares or regional vote splitting that prevents the frontrunner from crossing the 326-seat threshold in the 650-member . Similarly, in , FPTP has yielded just two federal hung parliaments since 1867, in 1921 and 2008, underscoring the system's bias toward manufactured majorities even when the leading party's vote share hovers around 40%. In contrast, (PR) systems, including party-list PR and mixed-member proportional variants, heighten the probability of hung parliaments by allocating seats roughly in line with parties' vote proportions across multi-member districts or national lists, which preserves representation for smaller parties and fragments legislatures when voter preferences are diverse. This proportionality ensures that a party's seat share mirrors its vote share, rarely granting any single entity the 50%+ threshold needed for a solo unless it dominates the popular vote outright—a rarity in polarized or multi-issue electorates. In , employing a nationwide closed-list PR system with a low 3.25% threshold since 2015 (raised from 2% in 1992), every Knesset election since independence in 1949 has produced a hung outcome, necessitating coalitions averaging 4-5 parties to form governments controlling the 120-seat chamber. The , using a similar open-list PR with a 0.67% effective threshold, has witnessed no single-party in its 150-seat Tweede Kamer since 1901, with coalitions forming post-election in 100% of cases through protracted negotiations. Electoral thresholds and district magnitudes further modulate these influences within PR frameworks: higher thresholds (e.g., Germany's 5% nationwide or 3 direct seats) can consolidate seats among larger parties and occasionally enable majorities, as seen in the Christian Democratic Union's 41.5% seat share yielding a workable base in 2021, though single-party rule remains exceptional. Lower thresholds or larger districts amplify fragmentation, as in Belgium's linguistic-segmented PR, where no Flemish or Francophone party has secured a standalone since the 1990s, leading to rainbow s spanning 5+ parties. Conversely, hybrid systems like Scotland's (combining FPTP with PR top-ups) have produced hung Holyrood parliaments in 5 of 6 elections since 1999, blending majoritarian stability with proportional fragmentation to yield outcomes intermediate between pure forms. Empirical analyses across 50+ democracies confirm that PR adoption correlates with governments in over 80% of cases, versus under 20% in majoritarian setups, driven by the causal link between seat-vote proportionality and legislative multipolarity. ![UK House of Commons 2017 election results][float-right] The 2017 election, a rare FPTP hung parliament, illustrates how even majoritarian systems can falter amid vote volatility, with Conservatives securing 317 seats on 42.4% of votes but falling 8 short of majority due to losses to Labour and regional nationalists. These systemic differences underscore that hung parliaments arise not merely from voter behavior but from institutional designs that either amplify or dilute leading parties' advantages, with PR prioritizing representational fidelity at the expense of decisiveness and majoritarian rules favoring governability over equity.

Political Fragmentation Factors

Political fragmentation in parliamentary systems arises from societal divisions that prevent voter consolidation behind a single dominant party, often resulting in no party securing a legislative . Empirical analyses indicate that socioeconomic development plays a central role, as and industrialization generate new cleavages—such as urban-rural divides and class conflicts between and working-class groups—that incentivize the formation of specialized parties to represent emergent interests. For instance, cross-national data from elections between 1946 and 2008 show that societies with low occupational diversification (predominantly rural and agricultural) average about 2.95 effective parties, while highly developed ones average 4.90, even after controlling for electoral rules. Economic shocks exacerbate this by eroding support for established parties and boosting insurgent or populist alternatives. The , for example, correlated with a 30% increase in populist party vote shares across , as public anger toward economic elites fragmented traditional alignments. Similarly, globalization-induced job losses, such as the 2-2.4 million U.S. manufacturing positions displaced by China's 2001 WTO entry, shifted working-class voters away from incumbents toward parties emphasizing . These disruptions widen income inequality and labor market polarization, further splintering electorates along economic grievances rather than unifying them under catch-all platforms. Social transformations, including educational polarization and rapid immigration, deepen fragmentation by realigning voter bases. In Western democracies, an educational divide has emerged where highly educated individuals increasingly back left-leaning parties, while less-educated working-class voters defect to right-wing or niche options; by in the U.S., college graduates were 13% more likely to vote Democratic, inverting prior class patterns. Immigration surges—such as the U.K.'s addition of 1.5 million from new states in the early —have similarly driven cultural backlash, with 75% of "leave" voters prioritizing the issue, propelling anti-establishment parties and complicating majority formation. Technological advances in communication amplify these divides by empowering individual actors and niche movements over hierarchical parties. facilitates "pop-up" parties and direct mobilization, as seen in Germany's proliferation from 4 to 28 parties between 1970 and 2010, alongside a drop in vote shares from 90% in the 1970s to 53% by 2017. This dispersal of power among more players and independents fosters public distrust in , perpetuating a cycle where fragmented parliaments struggle to deliver decisive policy, further eroding voter loyalty to dominant coalitions.

Government Formation Mechanisms

Minority Governments

A forms when a or bloc secures the right to govern without holding an absolute of legislative seats, typically by obtaining the necessary votes for and ongoing through external support rather than a formal . This arrangement is prevalent in hung parliaments, where elections yield no outright , prompting the largest —often the —to negotiate passage of key on a case-by-case basis or via short-term pacts with opposition groups. The formation process usually begins with the , such as a or president, tasking the leader of the strongest with assembling a cabinet and proving parliamentary viability. Success hinges on winning an initial vote, which may involve abstentions, explicit endorsements, or agreements from smaller parties or independents, avoiding the power-sharing inherent in coalitions. Unlike governments, these administrations must continually court support, often conceding on select policies, appointments to parliamentary committees, or procedural advantages to sustain operations. In practice, minority governments distinguish themselves by retaining full control over executive appointments while relying on "negative parliamentarism"—where opposition inaction or selective backing prevents defeat—common in systems like or . Formalized mechanisms, such as confidence-and-supply deals, can structure this support by committing backers to uphold the on budgetary and no-confidence matters in exchange for legislative priorities, as seen in arrangements limiting full coalition complexities. Such governments emerge more frequently under systems, where fragmented results incentivize pragmatic alliances over ideological purity, though first-past-the-post contexts like the or also yield them amid close races. Empirical analyses confirm their viability through adaptive , though they demand heightened legislative skill to navigate threats.

Coalition Agreements

Coalition agreements represent formal compacts negotiated between multiple in parliamentary systems following a hung , enabling the formation of a by pooling seats to surpass the threshold required for legislative control. These agreements typically delineate shared policy commitments, the allocation of cabinet positions, and mechanisms for resolving internal disputes, thereby providing a structured framework for that mitigates the instability inherent in fragmented legislatures. Unlike informal arrangements, such pacts bind participating parties to a joint programme, often requiring by party executives or memberships to ensure durability. The negotiation process commences immediately after results confirm no single-party , with exploratory talks led by leaders or designated negotiators assessing compatibility on core issues such as , , and social reforms. In systems like the , these discussions can conclude within days, as evidenced by the 2010 Conservative-Liberal Democrat talks that finalized an agreement by May 12, producing a 35-page "programme for government" outlining compromises on tuition fees, , and deficit reduction. German coalitions, by contrast, involve more protracted deliberations, culminating in a Koalitionsvertrag—a comprehensive treaty specifying legislative priorities and budgetary allocations, as seen in the 2013 grand coalition between CDU/CSU and SPD that addressed stability measures. Dutch formations similarly emphasize detailed policy mapping, often facilitated by an independent informateur to broker deals amid multi-party fragmentation. Key components of coalition agreements include enumerated pledges, which prioritize centrist or positions to accommodate ideological variances; proportional distribution of ministries based on size and expertise; and procedural safeguards like junior ministers for smaller partners or rights on red-line issues. Empirical analyses indicate these agreements can enhance policy-making productivity by clarifying agendas and reducing ad-hoc bargaining, though they frequently necessitate concessions that dilute commitments, potentially eroding voter trust if perceived as elite-driven pacts. For instance, studies of Western European cabinets show that detailed agreements correlate with higher legislative output in the initial term, but longevity depends on economic conditions and external shocks. In the , agreements have sustained governments averaging 1,400 days since 1945, underscoring their role in fostering stability over minority alternatives.

Confidence and Supply Deals

A agreement enables a in a hung parliament to secure legislative stability by obtaining assurances from external parties or independents to vote in favor of motions of and appropriation bills, without those supporters assuming cabinet positions. This arrangement typically involves negotiated policy concessions or financial commitments, providing a middle path between case-by-case support and full governance. In practice, such deals limit cooperation to core survival votes, allowing the supporting parties to maintain opposition status on other issues and differentiate their platforms. This contrasts with coalitions, which entail shared executive power and a joint legislative program, and pure minority governments, which risk defeat on every key vote without formal pacts. Governments pursuing often formalize terms in written agreements to clarify obligations and avoid ambiguity. The United Kingdom's 2017 general election produced a hung parliament, with the Conservative Party securing 317 seats, four short of a in the 650-seat . On June 26, 2017, announced a deal with the (DUP), which held 10 seats, committing the DUP to support the government on motions, the Queen's Speech, and budgets in exchange for £1 billion in additional funding for over 2017–2020, alongside policy alignments on issues like and security. The agreement endured until July 2019, aiding legislative passage despite occasional rebellions, though it drew criticism for perceived favoritism toward . Canada provides another instance, where following the 2021 federal election, the Liberal Party under formed a minority government with 159 seats in the 338-seat . On March 22, 2022, the Liberals signed a agreement with the (NDP), holding 25 seats, pledging NDP support on confidence and supply votes until June 2025 or a confidence loss, in return for commitments on pharmacare, dental care, and housing affordability. This deal extended the government's term amid policy negotiations, though the NDP retained freedom to oppose on non-core matters. In , confidence and supply arrangements are routine in fragmented parliaments under . After the 2017 election, the Labour Party-led government received from the , which supported budgets and confidence votes while securing environmental policy gains, separate from the Labour-New Zealand First coalition. Similarly, the National Party in 2008 formed a with from ACT, , and the Māori Party, enabling passage of supply bills without full coalition entry. These pacts have historically enhanced short-term stability in New Zealand's system, where no single party often dominates.

Historical Instances

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, a hung parliament occurs when no political party achieves an absolute majority of 326 seats in the 650-member House of Commons. Such outcomes were frequent in the early 20th century, with five instances between 1900 and 1935 due to multi-party dynamics and the first-past-the-post system yielding fragmented results. Post-1945, hung parliaments became rarer until recent decades, with three elections—February 1974, May 2010, and June 2017—failing to produce a majority. These situations typically prompt negotiations for minority governments, coalitions, or confidence-and-supply arrangements to ensure legislative passage of key measures like the Queen's Speech. The February 1974 general election, called amid economic turmoil and miners' strikes, resulted in Labour securing 301 seats, Conservatives 297, and Liberals 14 on 28 February. Despite receiving fewer votes than the Conservatives, Labour formed a under , relying on abstentions or ad hoc support from smaller parties. This administration lasted eight months, passing a in the prior Conservative government but facing instability that prompted an October 1974 election, where Labour gained a slim . The 6 May 2010 election produced the first hung parliament since 1974, with Conservatives winning 306 seats, Labour 258, and Liberal Democrats 57. Intense five-day negotiations followed, as outgoing Labour initially explored a before Conservatives and Liberal Democrats reached a formal coalition agreement on 11 May. became , with as and Liberal Democrat ministers in cabinet; the coalition enacted austerity measures and fixed-term parliaments until its 2015 dissolution. In the 8 June 2017 , intended to strengthen Theresa May's mandate for , Conservatives fell to 317 seats—12 short of a —while Labour surged to 262. Smaller parties included the with 35 and (DUP) with 10. May remained by securing a confidence-and-supply deal with the DUP on 26 June, providing £1 billion extra funding for in exchange for support on budgetary and legislative matters, excluding policy deviations. This minority arrangement endured until the 2019 amid internal Conservative divisions and delays.

Australia and New Zealand

Hung parliaments are rare in Australian federal elections due to the instant-runoff voting system in single-member districts, which typically delivers clear majorities to one of the two major party blocs. The seventh federal hung parliament occurred after the 21 August 2010 election, in which the Australian Labor Party (ALP) won 72 seats and the Liberal-National Coalition secured 73 in the 150-seat House of Representatives, leaving four independents and one Green holding the balance. With a majority requiring 76 seats, ALP leader Julia Gillard negotiated support from the Greens and three independents—Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott, and Andrew Wilkie—to form a minority government, which was sworn in on 7 September 2010 and lasted until the 2013 election. New Zealand's shift to the mixed-member proportional (MMP) system for general elections starting in 1996 has produced parliaments without absolute majorities for any single , as the proportional allocation of list seats ensures representation reflective of vote shares, typically requiring coalitions or confidence-and-supply arrangements to reach the 61 seats needed for control in the usual 120-seat unicameral . The inaugural MMP election on 12 October 1996 resulted in the National gaining 44 seats from 33.8% of the party vote but forming a with New Zealand First after initial uncertainty. This pattern persisted across subsequent elections, with governments routinely relying on smaller parties. In the 14 October 2023 election, the centre-right National led the vote but finalized a three-party with and on 23 November 2023 to command a majority.

Canada and India

In Canada, a hung parliament occurs when no party wins a of seats in the , typically requiring the formation of a supported by other parties through confidence-and-supply agreements rather than formal coalitions, which are rare in the federal system. The first post-World War II followed the June 10, 1957, election, where John Diefenbaker's Progressive Conservatives secured 105 seats out of 265, falling short of the 133 needed for a , leading to a government that lasted until 1958. Subsequent instances include the 1962 election (Conservatives 116/265 seats), 1963 (Liberals 129/265), 1965 (Liberals 131/265), 1972 (Liberals 109/264), and 1979 (Conservatives 136/282 seats). More recently, Harper's Conservatives formed minorities after the 2006 (124/308 seats) and 2008 (143/308) elections, while Justin Trudeau's Liberals did so following the 2019 (157/338 seats) and 2021 (160/338) elections. These governments often prove short-lived, averaging about 18 months, as opposition parties can withdraw support, triggering elections, though some, like Harper's 2006-2011 tenure, endured longer via negotiated deals. In India, hung s—where no single party attains 272 of the 543 seats—have frequently resulted in governments since the decline of dominance in the late , reflecting political fragmentation and the rise of regional parties. The 1989 election produced the first such parliament post-independence, with winning 197 seats and 143, enabling V.P. Singh's National Front , backed externally by BJP and Left parties, to govern until 1990. This pattern recurred in 1991 ( 244 seats, forming a ), 1996 (BJP 161 seats initially, followed by United Front coalitions under and I.K. Gujral), 1998 (BJP 182 seats, leading NDA), and 1999 (BJP 182 seats, NDA majority via allies). The 2004 election saw with 145 seats forming the UPA under , securing a full term after re-election in 2009 ( 206 seats). Most recently, the 2024 election yielded BJP 240 seats, necessitating reliance on NDA allies to form Narendra Modi's third government, underscoring ongoing dependence despite BJP's plurality. These arrangements have stabilized governance through pre-poll alliances but often involve compromises on policy and leadership selection.

Israel and Other Proportional Systems

's unicameral parliament, the , employs a nationwide system to allocate 120 seats based on vote shares exceeding a 3.25% , ensuring no single party has ever secured the 61 seats required for a since the state's founding in 1948. This structural feature has produced hung parliaments in every election, necessitating governments formed through negotiations among fragmented parties, often prolonging government formation and contributing to political instability. For instance, the April 2019 election yielded 35 seats each for and Blue and White, prompting repeated votes in September 2019 and March 2020 as neither bloc could muster a stable , with the latter resolving only after secured a narrow totaling 58 seats supplemented by external support. The 2021 election further exemplified this dynamic, as an eight-party coalition excluding formed a razor-thin 61-seat under and , but collapsed within a year due to internal fractures, leading to snap elections in 2022 where Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing alliance finally achieved 64 seats to govern. Such repeated deadlocks highlight how Israel's low threshold and pure PR amplify fragmentation, with effective parties multiplying from around five in early decades to over ten in recent cycles, often delaying governance amid ideological divides on security, religion, and economics. Similar patterns prevail in other proportional systems, such as the , where a single nationwide constituency and 0.67% threshold routinely fragment the 150-seat Tweede Kamer into 10-15 viable parties, mandating multi-party coalitions that can take months to negotiate. The 2021 Dutch , for example, saw no party exceed 16% of votes, resulting in talks lasting 299 days before a four-party cabinet emerged, underscoring PR's tendency toward prolonged bargaining in consensus-oriented polities. In , shifts between pure PR and mixed systems have not averted chronic hung parliaments, with the 2018 election producing a divided where no bloc held a , culminating in an unprecedented Movement-League populist coalition that lasted only 14 months before fracturing. Italy's post-war records over 60 governments since 1946, averaging less than two years each, attributable to PR's facilitation of small, ideologically rigid parties that prioritize veto power over compromise, exacerbating gridlock on fiscal and migration policies. These cases illustrate how pure or high-proportionality systems, absent strong moderating institutions, sustain hung outcomes as the default, fostering representativeness at the expense of decisive majorities.

France and Continental Europe

In the 2024 French legislative elections held on June 30 and July 7, no political bloc secured the 289 seats required for an absolute majority in the 577-seat , resulting in a hung parliament. The (NFP), a left-wing alliance, won approximately 182 seats, followed by President Emmanuel Macron's centrist coalition with 168 seats and the (RN) with 143 seats. This fragmentation, triggered by Macron's call after his party's poor performance in the 2024 elections, led to prolonged uncertainty in . The hung parliament exacerbated France's semi-presidential system's challenges, where the president appoints the but requires parliamentary confidence. was appointed on September 5, 2024, heading a fragile center-right reliant on tacit support from RN. However, it faced a no-confidence vote on December 4, 2024, leading to Barnier's ousting. Subsequent appointments, including , also failed amid repeated no-confidence motions, resulting in five prime ministers since July 2024 by October 2025 and ongoing legislative gridlock. Prior to 2024, hung parliaments were rare in the Fifth Republic due to the two-round majoritarian system favoring larger parties; a notable exception occurred in 1988 when the Socialist Party secured 275 seats, forming a under President . Across , systems in countries like , the , , and frequently produce hung parliaments, necessitating or minority governments. In , the 2010 federal election resulted in a 541-day period—the longest in a modern democracy—due to linguistic and ideological divides between Flemish and Walloon parties. The experienced similar delays, such as after the March 2017 election when negotiations lasted 225 days before a center-right formed. Germany's 2017 federal election yielded no majority, with Chancellor Angela Merkel's short of seats; initial attempts at a "" coalition (CDU/CSU, Greens, FDP) failed, leading to a with the SPD after 171 days. Italy has seen chronic fragmentation, as in the 2018 election where the Five Star Movement and League initially allied, but subsequent parliaments required cross-party deals amid shifting majorities. These cases highlight how multi-party systems, while enhancing representativeness, often prolong negotiations and foster instability compared to majoritarian setups.

Outcomes and Empirical Effects

Short-Term Political Dynamics

In the aftermath of elections producing a hung parliament, processes typically extend beyond standard durations due to the necessity of multipartisan negotiations, often resulting in caretaker administrations managing routine state functions amid policy stasis. Empirical data from European parliamentary systems demonstrate that minority configurations—common in hung parliaments—prolong bargaining phases, with average formation times exceeding those under outcomes by factors of 1.5 to 2 in fragmented party environments. For example, Belgium's 2010 federal election deadlock persisted for 541 days without a new government, the longest recorded in a modern democracy, exacerbating fiscal and administrative delays until a was cobbled together. This interim uncertainty fosters short-term political maneuvering, including exploratory talks, informal alliances, and potential early confidence votes that test emerging majorities. In majoritarian systems like the , rapid resolutions are possible; the 2010 election's hung result yielded a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition within five days of results, averting prolonged limbo through preemptive leader consultations. However, such speed is atypical; cross-national analyses reveal that systems, prone to hung outcomes, witness heightened defection risks and renegotiations in the first parliamentary sessions, as parties leverage veto power for concessions. Minority governments emerging from these dynamics exhibit elevated short-term instability, with reliance on fluctuating legislative support leading to frequent procedural hurdles and diluted executive authority. Quantitative reviews of post-1945 Western European cases indicate minority cabinets collapse at rates 20-30% higher in their initial year than ones, often triggering snap elections or supply-and-confidence pacts to stave off no-confidence motions. outputs in this phase prioritize survival-oriented compromises, such as budgetary restraint or centrist reforms, over ambitious mandates, though formalized support deals can stabilize passage of urgent measures like emergency appropriations. Despite perceptions of inherent weakness, substantive evidence counters blanket inefficiency claims, showing that ad-hoc inclusivity in minority setups can accelerate niche when opposition incentives align, albeit at the cost of consistent agenda control.

Long-Term Stability Analysis

Empirical analyses of parliamentary systems reveal that hung parliaments, which necessitate minority governments or coalitions lacking an outright , typically yield shorter governmental durations than single-party administrations. In , minority governments average 1.4 years in office, compared to full terms under majorities, due to heightened vulnerability to defeats by unified opposition. Similarly, cross-national data indicate minority cabinets survive on average just over , underscoring a causal link between absent majorities and accelerated from bargaining failures or external shocks. Parliamentary fragmentation exacerbates this effect, as greater numbers of parties complicate consensus and elevate collapse risks. Regression discontinuity designs in Spanish municipal data (1983–2011) show each additional represented party increases the probability of government unseating via no-confidence by 4 percentage points, shortening durations through intensified bargaining frictions. In broader European contexts, coalition formation models confirm that ideological dispersion in hung assemblies prolongs negotiations and undermines post-formation cohesion, though formal agreements—specifying policy and ministerial roles—can extend survival by clarifying commitments. Long-term stability under repeated hung parliaments hinges on institutional adaptations, yet evidence points to volatility and incomplete reforms as recurrent outcomes. While the UK's 2010–2015 Conservative-Liberal Democrat endured a full term via explicit accords, minority setups like 1974–1979 Labour governments dissolved amid fiscal crises and lost , illustrating how ad hoc reliance on opposition support fosters discontinuity. Economically, such correlates with aversion to , as seen in market reactions to hung outcomes, though causal attribution remains debated given factors like global events. In proportional systems prone to hung results, entrenched norms mitigate some risks, but overall, empirical patterns affirm that thresholds promote sustained over fragmented alternatives.

Policy Implementation Evidence

Empirical studies on policy implementation in hung parliaments demonstrate that governments formed under such conditions—typically minority administrations or s—often achieve pledge fulfillment rates comparable to single-party governments, with averages around 67-70% across European democracies from 1945 to 2013. This equivalence holds despite theoretical expectations of compromise-induced dilution, as parties in coalitions prioritize shared commitments, leading to moderated but enacted policies; for instance, junior coalition partners fulfill 62% of pledges versus 72% for senior partners, yet overall cabinet output remains robust. In Westminster systems, where hung parliaments are rarer, the 2010 Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition enacted 82% of its joint programme pledges by 2015, including raising the to £10,000 and reducing the structural deficit from 4.3% of GDP in 2010-11 to a surplus in 2018-19 projections, though at the cost of slower rollout for contested items like reforms. Minority governments without formal coalitions exhibit similar effectiveness when securing ad-hoc legislative support, particularly in systems. Scandinavian cases, where minority cabinets have governed over 70% of post-war periods, show high legislative reliability, with Swedish governments passing 85-95% of introduced bills through negotiated , enabling sustained policy domains like welfare expansion despite fragmentation. This contrasts with predictions of , as empirical data indicate no significant reduction in policy output volume—averaging 1.2 bills per seat annually in minority versus 1.4 in majority setups—but with greater durability for centrist policies due to cross-party buy-in. Delays arise primarily in polarized contexts without confidence-and-supply pacts, where defeat rates climb to 20%, yet overall stability persists via procedural adaptability rather than inherent inefficiency. Cross-national comparisons underscore that implementation success correlates more with pre-legislative bargaining institutions than parliamentary arithmetic alone; in and the , frequent hung outcomes yield coalitions enacting 75% of core promises, often accelerating niche reforms through specialized committees, though broad fiscal shifts require extended negotiation. These findings challenge narratives of systemic underperformance, attributing observed variances to exogenous factors like economic shocks over form, with data from 20+ democracies showing no causal link between hung parliaments and reduced efficacy when measured by enactment metrics.

Controversies and Normative Debates

Efficiency vs. Representativeness

In parliamentary systems prone to hung parliaments, such as those employing (PR), a core normative tension arises between governmental efficiency—defined as the capacity for decisive policy-making and stable executive authority—and representativeness, which emphasizes the accurate reflection of diverse voter preferences in legislative composition. Efficiency proponents argue that fragmented parliaments necessitate protracted coalition bargaining, often delaying cabinet formation by an average of 30-60 days in multiparty systems, compared to near-immediate majorities in plurality systems. This delay can exacerbate uncertainty in and crisis response, as evidenced by Italy's post-1948 of 68 governments averaging 1.1 years in duration, where coalition compromises frequently watered down reforms. Conversely, advocates for representativeness highlight how hung parliaments compel broader consensus, reducing the dominance of large parties and mitigating policies that ignore minority views, as vote-seat proportionality in PR systems aligns legislative seats more closely with electoral support—typically within 5-10% deviation versus 20-30% in majoritarian setups. Empirical analyses indicate that PR-inclined consensus democracies exhibit higher inclusiveness scores, with better outcomes for women's representation (averaging 30% seats versus 20% in majoritarian systems) and policy stability over electoral cycles, though at the expense of veto-player proliferation that slows legislative throughput. Arend Lijphart's comparative study of 36 democracies from 1945-2010 found consensus models superior in representing interests and achieving kinder policies toward vulnerable groups, yet conceded majoritarian systems' edge in "decisiveness" due to fewer institutional vetoes. Critics of prioritizing representativeness over efficiency point to empirical risks of in highly fragmented assemblies, where minority governments pass 20-30% fewer bills annually than ones, potentially stalling or defense initiatives amid threats. This dynamic underscores a causal : while hung parliaments enhance descriptive representation by amplifying smaller parties' voices, they often yield cabinets lacking clear mandates, fostering short-termism or drift, as observed in Belgium's 541-day government formation deadlock in 2010-2011. Balanced assessments, however, note that efficiency gains in majoritarian systems can mask unrepresentative outcomes, such as "manufactured majorities" where parties win over 50% of seats on under 40% of votes, prioritizing governability over electoral fidelity.

Risks of Instability and Gridlock

Hung parliaments elevate the risk of governmental instability through protracted formation processes and accelerated cabinet turnover, as no single party can unilaterally govern without alliances prone to fracture. In , the 2010 federal election resulted in a 541-day period to establish a , the longest peacetime absence of in a at the time. A subsequent 2018 hung outcome extended this to 652 days under caretaker rule, during which major policy decisions remained deferred amid economic pressures including the onset. Empirical research links parliamentary fragmentation—common in hung scenarios—to diminished stability, with each additional parliamentary raising dissolution probability by complicating consensus on core issues. exemplifies this, registering 68 governments in 76 postwar years under proportional systems yielding frequent deadlocks, averaging roughly 13 months per cabinet and fostering serial policy restarts. Gridlock manifests as legislative stasis, where coalition vetoes or dependencies stall , reforms, and emergencies. Israel's proportional setup has triggered repeated collapses, including five elections from April 2019 to November 2022 due to intra-coalition disputes, delaying responses to geopolitical threats. The July 2024 French produced a tripartite split , heightening deadlock risks: inability to pass the 2025 without cross-aisle pacts, recurrent no-confidence threats, and stalled or labor overhauls amid 110% GDP . Such paralysis correlates with economic volatility, as investors penalize from interim administrations lacking full legislative mandate, though federal structures like Belgium's enable subnational continuity during voids. Overall, hung parliaments amplify costs, diluting decisive compared to majority alternatives.

Empirical Critiques of

Proportional representation (PR) systems empirically foster greater fragmentation, with the effective number of parliamentary parties (ENPP) averaging 4.5 compared to 2.5 in first-past-the-post (FPTP) systems. This fragmentation arises from lower electoral thresholds that enable smaller and single-issue parties to secure seats, diluting the dominance of major parties; for instance, in , the combined vote share of the two largest parties fell from around 90% in the 1970s to 53% by 2017. Consequently, PR elections result in coalitions in 87% of cases from 2000 to 2017, versus 23% in majoritarian systems, often involving an average of 3.3 parties per government. Such multiparty coalitions contribute to governmental instability, characterized by prolonged formation periods and frequent collapses. Coalition negotiations in PR systems average 50 days, exceeding those in mixed systems at 32 days, with extremes like Belgium's 541-day deadlock in 2010 and Germany's 161 days in 2017. This dynamic has led to repeated elections in fragmented PR contexts, including five in from to 2022 and four in from 2015 to , as parties fail to sustain agreements amid ideological diversity. Empirical patterns indicate shorter government durations overall, undermining policy continuity and voter accountability, as responsibility diffuses across coalition partners. PR's fragmentation also amplifies the influence of extremist or niche parties, which can extract concessions in coalition bargaining. In , the far-right (AfD) has gained leverage as traditional parties fragment, challenging post-war norms against cooperation with such groups. Similarly, in the , coalition instability over issues like contributed to government collapse in 2023 after 225 days of formation in 2017. This empowers veto players, fostering policy gridlock; European PR democracies exhibit delayed decision-making and ideological incoherence, as seen in Austria's unlikely People's Party-Greens alliance and Spain's concessions on regional autonomy. Critics argue that while PR enhances representativeness, the trade-off in effectiveness is evident in reduced legislative output and immobilism, contrasting with majoritarian systems' clearer majorities and swifter policy enactment. Studies of Western European shifts toward greater fragmentation underscore how PR exacerbates these issues amid rising voter volatility, leading to fragile governance rather than stable majorities.

Recent and Prospective Cases

2024 Global Elections

In 2024, several parliamentary elections worldwide produced hung parliaments, where no single party or pre-existing coalition secured an absolute majority, necessitating negotiations for minority governments or novel coalitions. Notable cases included legislative elections, 's , Japan's vote, and to a lesser extent India's contest, where the leading party fell short of a solo majority but its alliance prevailed. These outcomes highlighted varying degrees of post-election instability, from prolonged deadlock in to relatively swift coalition-building in . France's legislative elections on June 30 and July 7 resulted in a fragmented of 577 seats, with no bloc reaching the 289 needed for a . The (NFP), a left-wing alliance, secured approximately 182 seats, President Emmanuel Macron's coalition around 168, and Marine Le Pen's (RN) about 143, alongside smaller groups. This distribution, driven by tactical voting and the , led to immediate governance challenges, as Macron refused to appoint an NFP and initial attempts at centrist coalitions failed. By , conservative Michel formed a reliant on RN abstentions, but it collapsed in December via a no-confidence vote uniting left and far-right opposition, underscoring the risks of in a polarized assembly. South Africa's May 29 general election marked the first time since 1994 that the African National Congress (ANC) failed to win a majority in the 400-seat National Assembly, obtaining 159 seats (40.18% of the vote) amid voter dissatisfaction with economic stagnation and corruption. The Democratic Alliance (DA) followed with 87 seats (21.81%), and the uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MK) 58 (14.58%). President Cyril Ramaphosa responded by forging a Government of National Unity (GNU) with the DA and smaller parties, excluding MK and the Economic Freedom Fighters, to secure a working majority for his re-election on June 14. This coalition, encompassing ideological rivals, aimed to stabilize policy on growth and land reform but faced internal tensions over cabinet posts and fiscal priorities. Japan's October 27 House of Representatives election saw Shigeru Ishiba's Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and coalition lose its majority in the 465-seat chamber, with LDP winning 191 seats and 24, falling short of the 233 required. The opposition gained to 148 seats, capitalizing on scandals involving LDP slush funds and inflation concerns. LDP's seat loss from 247 in 2021 reflected voter punishment, forcing Ishiba to seek ad-hoc support from independents or minor parties for legislation, including security and economic bills, amid fears of prolonged minority rule and potential early dissolution. In India, the April 19 to June 1 elections yielded 543 seats without a single-party for Narendra Modi's (BJP), which secured 240 amid setbacks in and due to rural distress and opposition consolidation under the alliance. The BJP-led (NDA), however, amassed 293 seats, enabling Modi’s third term via reliance on allies like Janata Dal (United) and . While some analyses labeled it a hung outcome for exposing BJP vulnerabilities, the pre-existing coalition's avoided deeper , though it constrained unilateral reforms on issues like farm laws.

Anticipated Scenarios

In , a Taxpayers' Union-Curia released on August 11, 2025, forecasted a hung parliament in the 2026 general election, projecting 61 seats for the centre-left bloc (Labour, Greens, and ) and 61 seats for the centre-right bloc (National, ACT, and ) in the 123-seat . This outcome would require either bloc to secure external support from independents or minor parties, potentially prolonging amid policy disagreements on economic recovery and . dismissed the poll's accuracy, citing volatility in voter preferences. The faces a snap on October 29, 2025, triggered by the collapse of the PVV-led over budget disputes in July 2025. Current polls show ' (PVV) ahead with approximately 30-35% support, but the system and 15+ competing parties render a standalone (76 of 150 seats) improbable, likely necessitating multi-party negotiations that could extend for months as in 2023. Key issues like migration controls and shortages may complicate alliances, with centrist parties wary of far-right dominance. In , the April 2026 parliamentary election occurs amid declining support for Viktor Orbán's party, with opinion polls indicating potential fragmentation that could prevent a or even an absolute majority, forcing reliance on junior partner JD or ad-hoc deals. Economic pressures from and EU fund disputes heighten risks of post-election instability if no clear emerges swiftly.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.