Hubbry Logo
Independent politicianIndependent politicianMain
Open search
Independent politician
Community hub
Independent politician
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Independent politician
Independent politician
from Wikipedia

An independent politician or non-affiliated politician is a politician formally not affiliated with any political party. There are numerous reasons why someone may stand for office as an independent.

Some independent politicians disagree with the idea or concept of political parties; viewing them as politically corrupt.[1] Others may have political views that do not align with the platforms of any political party and therefore they choose not to affiliate with them. Some independent politicians may be associated with a party, perhaps as former members of it or else have views that align with it, but choose not to stand in its name, or are unable to do so because the party in question has selected another candidate. Others may belong to or support a political party at the national level but believe they should not formally represent it (and thus be subject to its policies) at another level. In some cases, a politician may be a member of an unregistered party and therefore officially recognised as an independent.

Officeholders may become independents after losing or repudiating affiliation with a political party. Independents sometimes choose to form a party, alliance, or technical group with other independents, and may formally register that organization. Even where the word "independent" is used, such alliances can have much in common with a political party, especially if there is an organization which needs to approve the "independent" candidates.

Africa

[edit]

Algeria

[edit]

The current president of Algeria, Abdelmadjid Tebboune, presented himself as an independent candidate during the 2019 presidential election campaign. However, he remained a member of the central committee of the National Liberation Front (Algeria) of which he has been a member since the 1970s.[2][3] Prime Minister Nadir Larbaoui is also an independent.[4]

Libya

[edit]

During the rule of Muammar Gaddafi, most political parties were banned. After his fall, political parties began to form but still do not have a major role in Libyan society.[5]

Namibia

[edit]

In the 2020 Namibian local and regional elections, independent politicians won four seats.

Tunisia

[edit]

The President of Tunisia Kais Saied was elected in 2019 and re-elected in 2024 by presenting himself as an independent. The heads of government Hichem Mechichi, Najla Bouden, Ahmed Hachani and Kamel Madouri also lack any official political affiliation.

Americas

[edit]

Brazil

[edit]

Independent politicians are not allowed to run for office in Brazil. The Constitution of 1988, in Article 14, §3rd, item V, says that "Are conditions for eligibility: V - party affiliation".[6] However, the Proposal Amendment to the Constitution (PEC) no. 6/2015, authored by independent senator José Reguffe, would allow the independent candidacy of individuals who have the support of at least 1% of the electors able to vote in the region (city, state or country, depending on the election) in which the candidate is running.[7][8] Currently, members of the legislature can leave their respective parties after being elected, as in the case of senator Reguffe, who left the Democratic Labour Party (PDT) in 2016.[9] Jair Bolsonaro was independent between 2019 and 2021.

Canada

[edit]

Federal politics

[edit]

In Canadian federal politics, members of both the House of Commons and the Senate are permitted to hold office without being members of a political party. Candidates in federal elections who are not affiliated with a party have two options: independent or no affiliation. In the former case, they appear on the ballot with "Independent" following their name; in the second case, they appear with their name only. The two options are otherwise equivalent.

House of Commons
[edit]

During the earliest Canadian Parliaments, a lack of coherent political identity among both the Liberal and Conservative parties is known to have led to Members of Parliament (MPs) occasionally demonstrating independence from their party by voting in line with the opposition.[10] Commonly, the issues which caused these MPs to act independently were religious in nature.[10] These tensions began to disperse over the course of the first ten Canadian parliaments as the major political parties began to form consistent identities and MPs began affiliating themselves with the parties they knew more closely shared their core values. This in turn increased cohesion between parties and MPs, and minimized the causes and motivations for MPs to act independently.[10]

Many observers of the Canadian House of Commons in the 21st century have noted its incredibly high party discipline. Few MPs choose to vote against their party's official stance on any given piece of legislation.[11] Between 2011 and 2013—the first two years of the 41st Canadian Parliament, following the 2011 Canadian federal election—the elected members of the governing Conservative Party voted as a unified group on 76% of all votes, while members of the Liberal Party did so on 90% of all votes, and members of the New Democratic Party (NDP) did so on 100% of votes.[11] This unity further increased in subsequent years, as in the 42nd Parliament, following the 2015 election, the governing Liberal MPs voted identically on 99.6% of all votes, Conservative MPs on 99.5% of votes, and NDP MPs on 99.8% of votes.[11] (Conservatives, Liberals, and NDP were the only three parties with enough MPs to qualify for official party status in the 41st and 42nd parliaments.) Thanks to this strong party discipline, it is uncommon to see politicians who are otherwise affiliated with any of the main political parties act independently of their party.

Though it is acceptable and accepted for politicians to serve as independent MPs, those who attempt to run as such often struggle to be elected without access to the resources of the major parties. As a result, there are seldom more than one or two independent MPs within modern Canadian Parliaments, with many who do sit as such being initially elected as a part of a major party before either leaving voluntarily or being removed.[12] In the first year of the 44th Canadian Parliament, the House of Commons featured one sitting independent member: Kevin Vuong, from the Ontario electoral district, or riding, of Spadina—Fort York.[13] Vuong had originally campaigned as a member of the Liberal Party during the 2021 federal election but was ejected from the party two days prior to the end of the vote due to controversy surrounding past allegations of sexual assault.[14] Despite his removal from the Liberal Party, Vuong won the election for his riding and chose to take his seat as an independent, though this decision was met with controversy because many voters had not known that the Liberals had expelled him before casting their votes.[14] In 2022, Alain Rayes, MP for the Quebec riding of Richmond—Arthabaska, resigned from the Conservative caucus to sit as an independent,[15] becoming the second independent MP of the 44th Parliament.

Independent politicians have on occasion held considerable sway in the House of Commons of Canada in recent years, as Canada has been governed by successive minority governments (five of the seven that have been formed since the 2004 federal election) with independent MPs sometimes sharing in the balance of power.

  • In 2004, Chuck Cadman was elected to the House as an independent MP representing the British Columbia riding of Surrey North. Cadman was first elected to represent the riding as a Reform member in the 1997 federal election and re-elected as a member of the Canadian Alliance, Reform's successor party, in the 2000 federal election. He sought the nomination for the Conservative Party (re-created in 2003 when the Alliance and Progressive Conservatives merged) for the 2004 election but was unsuccessful. Having retained his seat with 43% of the vote in 2004, he died in office in 2005.
  • Independent André Arthur was elected in the Quebec riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier in the 2006 federal election with 39% of the vote. He was the only independent to win a seat in that election; he was re-elected in the 2008 federal election with 33% of the vote. Arthur lost his seat in 2011.
  • Bill Casey, the MP for the Nova Scotia riding of Cumberland—Colchester—Musquoduboit Valley, was expelled from the Conservative Party for voting against the 2007 budget. He also served as an independent, then ran as such in 2008 and retained his seat with 69% of the vote. Casey resigned from the Commons in 2009 but made a comeback in the same riding, now named Cumberland—Colchester, when he was elected as a Liberal in 2015. He sat in the House for the 42nd Parliament and did not seek re-election in 2019.
  • In 2019, MP Jody Wilson-Raybould ran as an independent candidate in the riding of Vancouver Granville after being expelled from cabinet and the Liberal Party over the SNC-Lavalin affair. She was returned to Parliament with 32% of the vote. After sitting as an independent for the 43rd Parliament, Wilson-Raybould did not seek re-election in 2021.
Senate
[edit]

While traditionally framed as an "independent body of sober second thought", appointments to the Senate of Canada prior to 2016 were commonly seen as highly partisan, with the majority of Canadian senators identifying themselves as members of either the Liberal or Conservative parties and serving within their party's caucus.[16] As these have been the only two parties to ever form government in Canada, only the Liberal and Conservative parties had been able to appoint new senators. Because Canadian senators are appointed by the Governor General of Canada on the advice of the Prime Minister rather than being elected, senators were often accused of being appointed as a "reward" for service to the party in power,[17] and once appointed, of simply repeating the points and positions of their counterparts in the House of Commons rather than acting as a means of truly independent policy review.[16]

In 2014, as a response to growing public disapproval of the Senate and the perceived problems brought about by senator partisanship, Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau made the decision to expel all Liberal senators from the Liberal Party caucus. Trudeau would go on to call for an overall elimination of partisanship in the Senate and pledged to end the practice of partisan appointments for senators and transition to a new system of merit-based appointments if elected prime minister.[18]

Following the election of a Liberal majority government in 2015, the Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments was established with the goal of filling Senate vacancies through a selection process based on political knowledge, merit, and perceived ability to act independently of partisan affiliation.[18] This push to remove partisan ties from the Senate resulted in the creation of the Independent Senators Group, a coalition of both newly appointed independent senators and formally partisan senators who had relinquished their formal party ties, alongside the also independent Canadian Senators Group and Progressive Senate Group.[17]

By 2018, the majority of Canadian Senators were officially independent,[17] though some Liberal senators continued to remain affiliated with the political party despite no longer being permitted within the party caucus.[16] Additionally, the Conservative Party elected not to remove its senators from the party caucus, and many Conservative Party senators kept their official partisan affiliations in public.[16] During the 2019 federal election campaign, in response to reporters' questions, Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer said that if his party were elected to form government and he became prime minister, he would reinstate the practice of partisan appointments to the Senate.[19]

The efforts to increase senatorial independence have led some to argue the Senate has developed an increase of importance and power in the legislative process. As of 2021, it was found that Canadian senators were facing increasing pressure from lobbying groups on a variety of issues, suggesting the more independent Senate has a greater perceived influence over legislative issues.[17] Additionally, following the appointment of senators through the Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments, there has been a noted increase in the number of amendments the Senate has proposed for legislation from the House of Commons.[16] During the 42nd Parliament (2015–2019), the Senate attempted to amend 13 government bills, whereas during the 41st Parliament (2011–2015), it had attempted to amend only one government bill.[16] The reformed Senate is noted as having proposed amendments on at least 20% of all legislation.[20]

Criticism
[edit]

Several observers and those involved with the Senate itself have criticized the Trudeau government for its attempted reforms, with most accusations centering around the belief that the new appointment process is biased towards those who are ideologically supportive of the Liberal Party's objectives. Remaining Conservative senators have accused the Independent Senators Group in particular as being "too quick to endorse bills from the Liberal government".[16]

Supporting this claim, a 2021 study found that members of the Independent Senators Group voted in favor of legislation proposed by the incumbent Liberal government more consistently than any other group within the Senate, including those still formally aligned to the Liberal Party.[20] This was, however, among an overall trend in which all senators demonstrated lower levels of party loyalty, and as such its full implications are still unknown. The report also concluded that partisanship in Senate appointments was undeniably down when compared to the Senate prior to the reforms.[20] It is generally thought that it will only be possible to judge the success of the attempted reforms accurately when a non-Liberal government is elected to the House of Commons, at which point it can be observed if the noted trend in voting represents simple loyalty to the government, or loyalty to the Liberal Party.[20][18]

Provincial and territorial politics

[edit]

The territorial legislatures of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut are consensus governments with no political parties. All members sit as independents. There are a few independent members of the other provincial and territorial legislatures, which are similar in principle to the federal House of Commons; for example, in the 2009 British Columbia general election, independent candidate Vicki Huntington narrowly defeated incumbent Attorney General Wally Oppal in Delta South. In the 2019 Newfoundland and Labrador general election, two independent candidates were elected.[21]

Costa Rica

[edit]

Current laws in Costa Rica do not permit a citizen to run directly for any elected position as an independent without the representation of a political party.[22][23] Any nomination must be made through a political party, due to the framework of the current legal system, in which the political parties have a monopoly on the nomination of candidates for elected positions according to the Electoral Code.[24]

However, becoming an independent politician after being elected is protected by virtue of Article 25 of the Constitution of Costa Rica, which guarantees freedom of association; therefore, any citizen cannot be forced to remain in a specific political party and can join any other political group. It is common in each legislative period for some deputies (diputados, term used for legislators) of the Legislative Assembly of Costa Rica to become independents; this has also happened with the mayors (alcaldes) of the municipalities of cantons.[25]

Mexico

[edit]

Jaime Heliodoro Rodríguez Calderón (born in 1957), sometimes referred to by his nickname "Bronco", is a Mexican politician and former governor for the northern state of Nuevo León and holds no political party affiliation. As of June 7, 2015, he was elected Governor of Nuevo León, making history as the first independent candidate to win in the country.

United States

[edit]

President

[edit]
George Washington, the first president of the United States, was an independent politician.

George Washington is the only U.S. president elected as an independent to date. Washington opposed the development of political parties, which had begun to solidify as the Federalist faction, centered around John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, and the Democratic-Republican faction, centered around Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Washington feared that partisanship would eventually destroy the country,[26] and famously warned against "the baneful effects of the spirit of party" in his 1796 Farewell Address.[27]

John Tyler was expelled from the Whig Party in September 1841, and effectively remained an independent for the remainder of his presidency. He later returned to the Democratic Party and briefly sought election in 1844 as a Tyler Democrat, but withdrew over fear he would split the Democratic vote and give the election to Whig candidate Henry Clay.

Since 1900, notable candidates running as independents for U.S. president have included congressman John Anderson in 1980, billionaire entrepreneur Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 (in 1996 under the newly founded Reform Party), former Green Party candidate Ralph Nader in the 1996 and 2000 elections, and "Never Trump" conservative candidate Evan McMullin in 2016. Out of all independent candidates since Washington, Perot performed the best, gaining no votes in the Electoral College but receiving 19 percent of the popular vote and, early in the election season, leading in polls against his opponents Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush.[28][29][30] Additionally, McMullin received 21 percent of the popular vote in his home state of Utah but received little support from the remainder of the country.[31] Independent senator Bernie Sanders ran in the 2016 and 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, but ultimately did not appear on the ballot in either the 2016 nor 2020 presidential elections, though he did receive more than 5% of the popular vote as a write-in candidate in his home state of Vermont.[32]

In 2008, Nader formed Independent Parties in New Mexico, Delaware, and elsewhere to gain ballot access in several states. In 2024, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. created "We the People" parties in several states for the same purpose, even though he is Independent.[33][34]

Several other candidates for federal races, including Joe Lieberman (who created Connecticut for Lieberman), have pursued a similar strategy.

Governor

[edit]

Illinois, Maine, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Alaska, and North Dakota have elected formally independent candidates as governor: Illinois's first two governors, Shadrach Bond and Edward Coles; James B. Longley in 1974 as well as Angus King in 1994 and 1998 from Maine; Lincoln Chafee in 2010 from Rhode Island; Julius Meier in 1930 from Oregon; Sam Houston in 1859 from Texas; and Bill Walker in 2014 from Alaska. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. of Connecticut is sometimes mentioned as an independent governor, though this is not technically correct; he ran as an A Connecticut Party candidate (which gave him better ballot placement than an unaffiliated candidate would receive), defeating the Democratic and Republican nominees. Another former governor who is sometimes mentioned as an independent is Jesse Ventura, who actually ran as a member of the Reform Party's Minnesota affiliate, which later disaffiliated from the party and reverted to its original name, the Independence Party of Minnesota. North Dakota elected William Langer Governor in 1933 as a member of the Republican/Nonpartisan League. He was later elected Governor in 1937 as an Independent.

In 1971, State Senator Henry Howell of Virginia, a former Democrat, was elected lieutenant governor as an independent. Two years later, he campaigned for governor as an independent, but lost by 15,000 votes.

There were several unsuccessful independent gubernatorial candidates in 2006 who impacted their electoral races. In Maine, state legislator Barbara Merrill (formerly a Democrat) received 21% of the vote. In Texas, country music singer and mystery novelist Kinky Friedman received 12.43% of the vote, and State Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn received 18.13%. Strayhorn and Friedman's presence in the race resulted in a splitting of the ballot four ways between themselves and the two major parties.

In 2010, Florida governor Charlie Crist left the Republican party and became an independent. (He later became a Democrat.)[35] He left the Republicans because he did not want to run against former state house Speaker Marco Rubio in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate election, preferring to run in the general election instead. Rubio won the election, though Crist came in ahead of Democratic nominee Kendrick Meek.

In 2014, former Honolulu mayor Mufi Hannemann ran as an independent candidate for the governorship of the State of Hawaii after previously campaigning in the state's Democratic primary. As a result, Democratic candidate David Ige was elected as governor with a plurality of 49%.[36] Also in 2014, former mayor of Valdez, Bill Walker won the gubernatorial election. Walker retired before the 2018 election but ran again in the 2022. He didn't win but received 20% of the vote.

Congress

[edit]
House of Representatives
[edit]

The United States House of Representatives has also seen a handful of independent members. Examples include Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Virgil Goode of Virginia, Frazier Reams of Ohio, Victor Berger of Wisconsin, and Justin Amash and Paul Mitchell of Michigan.

Senate
[edit]

There have been several independents elected to the United States Senate throughout history. Notable examples include David Davis of Illinois (a former Republican) in the 19th century, and Harry F. Byrd Jr. of Virginia (who had been elected to his first term as a Democrat) in the 20th century. Some officials have been elected as members of a party but became independent while in office (without being elected as such), such as Wayne Morse of Oregon, who left the Republican party to become an independent, then joined the Democratic Party two years later. Nebraska senator George W. Norris was elected for four terms as a Republican before changing to an independent after the Republicans lost their majority in Congress in 1930. Norris won re-election as an independent in 1936, but later lost his final re-election attempt to Republican Kenneth S. Wherry in 1942.

Since 2000
[edit]

Vermont senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party to become an independent in 2001. Jeffords's change of party status was especially significant because it shifted the Senate composition from 50 to 50 between the Republicans and Democrats (with a Republican Vice President, Dick Cheney, who would presumably break all ties in favor of the Republicans), to 49 Republicans, 50 Democrats, and one Independent. Jeffords agreed to vote for Democratic control of the Senate in exchange for being appointed chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and the Democrats held control of the Senate until the 2002 elections, when the Republicans regained their majority. Jeffords retired at the end of his term in 2007. Dean Barkley of the Independence Party of Minnesota was appointed a day before the 2002 elections to fill the senate seat of Paul Wellstone who, while running for re-election, died weeks prior. Barkley refused to caucus with either party.

In 2006, independent politician Bernie Sanders won the Senate seat vacated by the retiring Jim Jeffords as an independent and was reelected in 2012, 2018 and 2024. He was an independent member of the United States House of Representatives for Vermont-at-large from 1991 to 2007. Sanders is the longest-serving independent member of Congress in American history.[37] Also in 2006, Joe Lieberman was a former Democrat and ran under a third party (Connecticut for Lieberman Party) after he lost the primary. After the election, Lieberman enrolled himself as an Independent Democrat until his retirement in 2013. In 2006, Sanders and Lieberman were the only two victorious independent candidates for Congress, both caucusing with the Democrats. In 2012, Angus King was elected to the U.S. Senate as an Independent from Maine. He was reelected in 2018 and won a third term in 2024.

During the presidency of Joe Biden, former members of Democratic Party Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin joined Sanders and King and became Independent Democrats. They are viewed as moderate Democrats and cited increasing partisanship to explain their decisions.[38][39] After they changed their affiliations, the Senate had the highest number of independents in a single Congress since the ratification of the 17th Amendment.[40]

State and local independent politicians

Independent politicians have also played notable roles at the state and local levels, often finding success in contexts where party affiliation is less dominant or elections are nonpartisan.[41]

Mayors and municipal leaders

There have been many cases where independent candidates have made a large impact on elections and have even won, particularly in large cities. For instance, former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg served as 2002 to 2013 as a Republican but for his third term he won as an independent.[42] Independent politicians have also led cities like Minneapolis, where Charles Stenvig served as an independent mayor throughout the 1970s.[43] These leaders often emphasize pragmatic governance over party ideology, appealing to diverse voter bases.

State legislatures

While less common than in Congress, independents occasionally serve in state legislatures. Maine and Alaska, in particular, have seen a history of independent state legislators. For example, in the Alaska State House, independents have sometimes played pivotal roles in coalition governments, demonstrating their influence in closely divided chambers. These legislators often prioritize regional or policy-specific issues over strict adherence to party platforms.[44]

Judicial and nonpartisan offices

Many state and local offices, particularly in the judiciary, are officially nonpartisan, providing opportunities for independents to succeed.[45] For example, state superintendents of schools or city council members are normally politicians who identify as independent or with no party at all. This system allows voters to focus on the candidate's qualifications rather than party affiliation since this should not be stressed for these positions.[46]

Asia

[edit]

Azerbaijan

[edit]

In Azerbaijan, there are many independent members of the National Assembly, such as Aytən Mustafayeva.[47][48]

China

[edit]

Hong Kong

[edit]

Around half of Hong Kong's Legislative Council is made up of independents, or members whose political groups are represented by one sole member in the legislature. They are common in functional constituencies, and are not rare among geographical constituencies.

India

[edit]

Independent candidates can contest elections on the basis of their personal appeal or to promote an ideology different from any party. In the 2024 general election, seven independent candidates were elected to Lok Sabha, the lower house of Indian Parliament.[49][50][51]

Israel

[edit]

The only independent Israeli politician elected to the Knesset was Shmuel Flatto-Sharon.[52]

Malaysia

[edit]

Independents have rarely been elected to the Dewan Rakyat and state legislative assemblies. In Malaysian elections, many independent candidates lose their election deposit because they had failed to secure at least 12.5% or one-eighth of the total votes cast. Independent senators are quite rare.

In 2010, a group of independent MPs who were sacked from the People's Justice Party formed a political block called Konsensus Bebas.[53] The members were Zahrain Mohamed Hashim (Bayan Baru), Wee Choo Keong (Wangsa Maju), Zulkifli Noordin (Kulim-Bandar Bharu), Tan Tee Beng (Nibong Tebal) and Mohsin Fadzli Samsuri (Bagan Serai). It did not last beyond the 12th General Elections.

As of May 2018, three independent MPs were elected in GE14, but later joined Pakatan Harapan (PKR), thus causing no representation for independent MP for that time. However, as of June 2018 and December 2018, the number increased to 13 independent Members of Parliament that sat in the Dewan Rakyat as of December 2018.

At the same time in December 2018, almost all members from Sabah UMNO quit the party and became independent politicians.

Maszlee Malik quit Homeland Fighters' Party and became an independent MP fighting for education activist.

Dewan Negara (Senate)

[edit]
Senators
[edit]
  1. Mohd Na'im Mokhtar – appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong
  2. Low Kian Chuan – appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong
  3. Awang Sariyan – appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong
  4. Amir Hamzah Azizan – appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong
  5. Zulkifli Hasan – appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong
  6. Salehuddin Saidin – appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong

Dewan Rakyat (House of Representatives)

[edit]
Members of Parliament of the 15th Malaysian Parliament
[edit]
State No. Parliament constituency Member
Kelantan P030 Jeli Zahari Kechik
P032 Gua Musang Mohd Azizi Abu Naim
Penang P042 Tasek Gelugor Wan Saiful Wan Jan
Perak P059 Bukit Gantang Syed Abu Hussin Hafiz Syed Abdul Fasal
P067 Kuala Kangsar Iskandar Dzulkarnain Abdul Khalid
Selangor P095 Tanjong Karang Zulkafperi Hanapi
Labuan P166 Labuan Suhaili Abdul Rahman
Sabah P167 Kudat Verdon Bahanda
P181 Tenom Riduan Rubin
Total Kelantan (2), Penang (1), Perak (2), Selangor (1), Labuan (1), Sabah (2)

Malaysian State Assembly Representatives

[edit]

Pahang State Legislative Assembly

1 / 47

Selangor State Legislative Assembly

1 / 56

Sabah State Legislative Assembly

1 / 73

Sarawak State Legislative Assembly

1 / 82
State No. Parliamentary constituency No. State constituency Member
Pahang Nominated member Ahmad Irshadi Abdullah
Selangor P109 Kapar N44 Selat Klang Abdul Rashid Asari
Sabah P175 Papar N27 Limbahau Juil Nuatim
Sarawak P195 Bandar Kuching N11 Batu Lintang See Chee How
Total Pahang (1), Selangor (1), Sabah (1), Sarawak (1)

North Korea

[edit]

Parliamentary independent candidates: The system in place whither the DPRK allows for independent politicians to launch their own campaigns to gain a seat in parliament. The candidates however must be approved by the Fatherland Front, being the primary party of the DPRK. To cast votes to independent candidates the voting population must do so at independent voting stations.

Nearly all electoral systems currently in practice in the DPRK that exist on a local level are made up of mostly independent Candidates, as the Fatherland Front and other major party's primarily operate in the urban heartland of the DPRK. On the local level of North Korean elections, alliances between independent candidates is banned.[citation needed]

Nepal

[edit]

In Nepal, there are some independent politicians, especially in local government. Independent politician and rapper Balen Shah was elected as Mayor of Kathmandu in 2022.[54][55] Similarly, Harka Sampang and Gopal Hamal were also elected as Mayor of some of the major cities like Dharan and Dhangadhi, respectively.[56][57]

Pakistan

[edit]

Pakistan has independent politicians standing in elections. In the 2008 Pakistani general election, 30 independent members of parliament were elected to Pakistan's parliament. In 2011, four candidates won seats in the National Assembly. In the 2013 General Election, nine seats were won by independents. In 2024, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf backed independent candidates won 94 seats as the party was officially banned by the Election Commission of Pakistan.

Philippines

[edit]
Independents in elections since 1946
Year President Vice president Senate House
1946 None None None
5 / 98
1947 None
1949 None None
0 / 8
1 / 100
1951
0 / 8
1953 Lost None
0 / 8
1 / 102
1955
0 / 8
1957 None None
0 / 8
0 / 102
1959
0 / 8
1961 Lost Lost
0 / 8
1 / 104
1963
0 / 8
1965 Lost None
0 / 8
3 / 104
1967
1 / 8
1969 Lost None None
2 / 110
1971 None
1978
1 / 190
1981 Lost
1984
6 / 200
1986 None None
1987
0 / 24
23 / 214
1992 None None
0 / 24
6 / 216
1995
1 / 12
7 / 220
1998 Lost None
1 / 12
7 / 220
2001
5 / 13
8 / 256
2004 None Won
0 / 12
4 / 261
2007
1 / 12
4 / 271
2010 Lost None
1 / 12
7 / 286
2013
2 / 12
6 / 293
2016 None Lost
3 / 12
4 / 297
2019
1 / 12
2 / 304
2022 Lost None
4 / 12
6 / 316
2025
2 / 12
11 / 317

Ever since the first elections during the 1907 Philippine Assembly elections, independents have been allowed to participate and have won seats. On that first election, independents had the most members, behind the Nacionalista Party. When the Senate was first created, its first elections in 1916 also saw independents participating and winning one seat. In the Nacionalista landslide of 1941, the three independents were the only non-members of the Nacionalista Party to win in the House of Representatives; this was also the start of independents being shut out in the Senate.

After independence was granted by the United States in 1946, the two-party system between the Nacionalistas and Liberal Party was established, with certain candidates who failed to get the nomination of either parties appearing on the ballot as "Independent Nacionalista" or "Independent Liberal", as the case may be. Independents not associated with any party were still able to participate and sporadically win elections. In the 1961 Philippine vice-presidential election, independent Sergio Osmeña Jr. narrowly lost to Emmanuel Pelaez. The first breakthrough was in the 1967 Philippine Senate election where Magnolia Antonino, widow of Gaudencio Antonino who died on election eve, won.

Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law in 1972, dissolved Congress, and promulgated a new constitution that led to the 1978 Philippine parliamentary election, where one independent won, independents also won in 1984. Marcos was overthrown after the 1986 People Power Revolution after he allegedly cheated in the 1986 Philippine presidential election. Corazon Aquino succeeded Marcos, and promulgated a new constitution that ushered in a multi-party system. Here, parties are not able to present full 12-person slates in Senate elections, thus necessitating inter-party cooperation, that included independents. The 1995 Philippine Senate election saw two independents winning: Juan Ponce Enrile (who later ran and lost the 1998 Philippine presidential election as an independent) and Gregorio Honasan, who both teamed up to stage coups during the Aquino presidency. The 2001 EDSA Revolution increased the number of major candidates running as independents, with broadcaster Noli de Castro topping the Senate election. He was a guest candidate of the opposition Pwersa ng Masa coalition but he never joined their campaign rallies. In 2004, he ran as vice president as a guest candidate of the administration K-4 coalition and won with just under majority of the vote.

In the local level, former priest Eddie Panlilio was elected as governor of Pampanga in 2007, defeating two administration candidates. When Panlilio eventually transferred to the Liberal Party in time for the 2010 election, it was ruled that he was beaten in the 2007 election; in 2010, he was defeated.

In the 2010 House of Representatives elections, seven independents were elected, although all but two joined a political party after the elections. Independents can only run in district elections, and cannot participate in party-list elections as independents.

In contesting elections, independent candidates can spend as much as those with parties can under the law, but they are not able to tap in spending from a political party that nominated them.

Independent candidates are different from nonpartisan politicians; the former are elected in openly partisan elections, while the latter participate in nonpartisan elections such as barangay elections. Local legislatures may find itself with independent and nonpartisan members.

Qatar

[edit]

In Qatar, political parties are banned by law. All elected officials are independent.[58]

Taiwan

[edit]

After the 2018 Taiwanese local elections, there was only one independent local head: Ko Wen-je, mayor of Taipei.

On 6 August 2019, Ko Wen-je founded the Taiwan People's Party.

After the 2022 Taiwanese local elections, there was one independent local head: Chung Tung-chin, County magistrate of Miaoli County.

Europe

[edit]

Bulgaria

[edit]

The President of Bulgaria Rumen Radev is an independent with support from the Bulgarian Socialist Party. Radev was elected in the 2016 presidential election. An independent politician can enter into parliament only if they gather enough votes to pass the 4% threshold, thus behaving like political parties. However, they can be part of a civic quota of a given party. Civic quotas are lists of independents candidates, who are represented on a given party's electoral list, without directly joining the party. Every party has the capability to invite independent candidates into their lists, without forcing them to join the party itself.

Croatia

[edit]

After an inconclusive election in 2015, Tihomir Orešković was named the first non-partisan Prime Minister of Croatia.

Estonia

[edit]

All Estonian presidents are forced to relinquish membership from any political party they may be in.

Finland

[edit]
Marshal Mannerheim, the 6th president of Finland

Marshal C. G. E. Mannerheim, who served as the president of Finland from 1944 to 1946, did not want to be affiliated with any party.[59] As the state regent/caretaker from December 1918 to July 1919, Mannerheim also stood as an independent in the July 1919 presidential election against the National Progressive's candidate Kaarlo Juho Ståhlberg, who won.

Also, after serving six years on his first term as the 12th president of Finland in the National Coalition Party from 2012 to 2018, Sauli Niinistö was elected for his second term in 2018 after running as an independent candidate. Sauli Niinistö's status as an independent/non-partisan president has been attributed to his historical approval ratings and popularity, which stood at 90% favorable in July 2021 of which 52% said that Niinistö had handled the presidency "Very favorably".[60][61]

France

[edit]

In France, independent politicians are frequently categorised as sans étiquette ("without label") in municipal or district elections.

In the nineteenth century and first half of the twentieth century, most French national politicians were independents. The first modern French political parties date from the early 1900s (foundation of Action Libérale and the Radical Party). The first legislation on political parties dates from 1911, though it was not until 1928 that parliamentarians were required to select a political party for the parliamentary register (either by formally joining a group, or by loosely working with one as an apparenté, or associate), and not until after 1945 that structured political parties came to dominate parliamentary work.

Once elected, independents tended to attach themselves to a parliamentary party. In some cases independent deputies banded together to form a technical group of their own. In 1932, for instance, there were four technical groups created: the left-of-centre Independent Left, with 12 deputies; the centre-right liberal Independents of the Left, with 26 deputies; the right-wing agrarian Independents for Economic, Social and Peasant Action, with six deputies; and the far-right monarchist Independent Group, with 12 deputies—these four technical groups thus accounted for one-tenth of deputies. In addition, the larger parliamentary parties, including the socialist SFIO, centre-left PRRRS, centre-right ARD and conservative FR all included a greater or lesser number of independents who sat with their group for parliamentary work (apparentés).

In 1920, Alexandre Millerand was elected president of the Republic under the banner "without label".

However, it is nowadays rare to have independent politicians at national level, if only because independents usually affiliate themselves to an existing political grouping. Noteworthy independents include José Bové in the 2007 presidential election. Emmanuel Macron was an independent politician as Minister, but formed his own party to stand in the 2017 presidential election.

From 2001 to 2008, "without label" was no longer used in the nomenclature of the Ministry of the Interior. Candidates and lists presenting themselves as "without label" are classified in DVG (various left), DVD (various right), DVC (various center) or AUT (other) according to their political sensitivity. Therefore, from 2008 onwards, the DIV (miscellaneous) or the LDIV code for the "miscellaneous" list has been created to group unclassifiable or categorical interests and, by default, mayors without a declared label claiming no political sensitivity, be it left, center or right. The AUT (other) grade replaces the DIV grade without changing its definition.[62]

Georgia

[edit]

Salome Zourabichvili won the 2018 Georgian presidential election as an independent candidate, becoming the first-ever female President of Georgia.

Germany

[edit]

Joachim Gauck, President of Germany from March 2012 to March 2017 and the first Federal President without party affiliation, was to date the most prominent independent politician. In the German presidential election of 2010 he was the candidate of the Social Democrats and Greens, in 2012 the candidate of all major parties except The Left. His presidency—though his powers are limited—constitutes an exception, as Independent politicians have rarely held high office in German history, at least not since World War II. It has nevertheless happened that a presidential candidate without any chances of election by the Federal Convention was not a party member: for example, in 1984 the Greens came up with the writer Luise Rinser.

In the Bundestag parliament nearly all deputies belong to a political party. The voting system of personalized proportional representation (since 1949) allows any individual holding the passive right to vote to stand for a direct mandate in the electoral districts—299 of the seats in parliament are distributed by districts according to a plurality voting system. Such a candidate has to present 200 signatures in favor of their candidacy, the same as a candidate of a party that had no parliamentary presentation previously. The first Bundestag election in 1949 saw three independents elected; since then, no party-independent candidate has won a seat.[63] At state level, the situation is more or less the same: only party members have a real chance to be elected to a Landtag legislature, and state ministers without party membership are just as rare as at the federal level.

In local elections however it is common for independent politicians to be elected into district, city and municipal councils; sometimes independent politicians are even elected as mayor or Landrat, especially in Northern Germany. In Germany it is common to form free voters' associations to contest in local elections, often to greater success. An alliance of multiple of these voters' associations formed the Free Voters which later became a political party. The Free Voters have succeeded at entering two state parliaments directly: the Landtag of Bavaria (Free Voters of Bavaria) in 2008 and the Landtag of Rhineland-Palatinate in 2021. Another party associated with the Free Voters that made it into a state parliament was the Brandenburg United Civic Movements/Free Voters, which first entered the Landtag of Brandenburg with three seats in 2014 but lost all of its seats in 2024.

An independent member of parliament, who also is not a member of a voters' association, holds the status of fraktionsloser Abgeordneter, i.e., not affiliated to any parliamentary group. A representative who either leaves their party (and their parliamentary group) or is expelled from it and does not join another becomes fraktionslos. In 1989 the Bundestag MP Thomas Wüppesahl, who had left the Green Party in 1987 and was excluded from the Green parliamentary group the next year, obtained more rights as a fraktionsloser Abgeordneter, for example more talking time and representation in a subcommittee, when the Federal Constitutional Court decided partially in their favor.

After the German unification of 1871, the first Reich Chancellors (heads of government) de jure served as executive officers of the German Imperial states as non-partisans, usually recruited from the traditional bureaucratic, aristocratic or military elites. In the fierce political conflicts during the Weimar period after World War I, several chancellors and Reich Ministers also had no party affiliation: these chancellors were Wilhelm Cuno (1922–1923), Hans Luther (1925–1926), the former Centre politician Franz von Papen (1932), and Kurt von Schleicher (1932–1933). The last two cabinets appointed by Reich President Paul von Hindenburg, a non-partisan (though strongly Conservative) himself, were regarded as apolitical cabinets of experts with regard to the rise of the Nazi Party; many of the ministers were not party members.

Since World War II, only two ministers of (West) German cabinets have not been party members, though "on the ticket" of the major party in the coalition, the Social Democrats: Education Minister Hans Leussink (1969–1972), and Minister of Economy Werner Müller (1998–2002). Minister of Justice Klaus Kinkel only shortly after his appointment joined the Free Democrats in 1991. A special case is the former Federal Minister and Chancellor Ludwig Erhard, whose affiliation with the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) has not been conclusively established: although he served as Minister of Economics from 1949 to 1963 and as Federal Chancellor from 1963 to 1966, and was even elected CDU party chairman in 1966, it seems that he never signed a membership form or paid contributions. Researches by Der Stern magazine have revealed a record at the CDU party archives created only in 1968, with the faked date of entry of early March 1949.[64]

Iceland

[edit]

The President of Iceland (currently Halla Tómasdóttir) is independent. By convention, presidents of Iceland usually relinquish any party membership prior to or upon taking office.

Ireland

[edit]

In Ireland, constituency-based proportional representation, the comparative looseness of formal parties, and strong local sentiment have meant that independents have formed a significant part of the parliamentary landscape since the foundation of the state: in the early elections to Dáil Éireann (parliament), independents accounted for 7% of seats in 1922, 8.5% in 1923, 10.5% in 1927, and 9% in 1932, though with the development of relatively more structured parties their numbers declined thereafter. These were similar proportions to the number of independents elected to other interwar European democracies such as France (see above).

It was not until the 2010s that independents would see a similar electoral success, with record scores for independents surpassing the previous interwar highs.

After the Irish general election in 2020, there were 23 independent TDs (parliamentary deputies) in the Dáil (the lower house of the Irish parliament), representing 14% of the total.

There are ten independent senators in the 26th Seanad (the upper house of the Irish parliament), representing 16% of the total. Two of these are elected by the graduates of the National University of Ireland and three from Dublin University. There is also one independent senator who was nominated by the Taoiseach and four elected by the technical panels.

Isle of Man

[edit]

The majority of the elected representatives in the Isle of Man are independents.

Italy

[edit]

The Prime Ministers Carlo Azeglio Ciampi (1993–1994), Lamberto Dini (1995–1996), Giuliano Amato (2000–2001), Mario Monti (2011–2013), Giuseppe Conte (2018–2021) and Mario Draghi (2021–2022) were independent when they were in office. Ciampi was also the President of Italy between 1999 and 2006. President Sergio Mattarella, despite being a former member of the Christian Democracy and of the Democratic Party, was elected president in 2015 as an independent (he was member of the Constitutional Court at the moment of his election).

Jersey

[edit]

The majority of the elected representatives in Jersey are independents.

Kosovo

[edit]

Atifete Jahjaga was elected the first female and Independent President of Kosovo since the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. She was also the first female and independent elected leader in the whole of the Balkans.

Liechtenstein

[edit]

According to the 1862 Constitution of Liechtenstein, the appointed Governor of Liechtenstein was required to be politically non-aligned with any party in both Austria and Liechtenstein.[65] Regardless, however, no political parties existed in Liechtenstein until 1918 and all members of the Landtag of Liechtenstein were elected as independents.[66] Under the currently used 1921 Constitution of Liechtenstein, independent candidates are allowed to run for both the Landtag and prime minister, though an independent candidate has not been elected to either position since 1921.[66][67][68]

The Netherlands

[edit]

Dick Schoof has been the independent Prime Minister of the Netherlands since 2024.

Poland

[edit]

The Polish Sejm is elected by party-list ordination, which does not allow lone candidates to run, although since 2001 there has been a possibility to create a non-partisan Voters' Electoral Committee (pol. KWW, komitet wyborczy wyborców); they are by almost any means party lists, but no officially registered party is behind them. They can be unregistered parties, e.g. Kukiz'15, or non-partisan movements, although the latter never reached the 5% threshold. National minorities candidates also form Voters' Electoral Committees (like German Minority Electoral Committee, represented in Sejm between 1991 and 2023), but they do not have to reach the nationwide threshold. However, during a Sejm term many members switch parties or become independents.

Tickets such as Civic Platform during the 2001 election were formally non-partisan, Civic Platform was widely viewed as a de facto political party, as it is now.

The situation in the Senate is different, as the voting system allows independents to run as single candidates and some are elected in their own right. In the last parliamentary election (2023) four independents won seats in the Senate.

All presidents of Poland have formally been independents. Lech Wałęsa was not an endorsed candidate of any party, but the chairman of the Solidarity and he was elected without full support of the union (with some in Solidarity preferring Prime Minister Tadeusz Mazowiecki). Aleksander Kwaśniewski was a leader of the Social Democracy of the Republic of Poland, but formally resigned from the party after he was elected, as did Lech Kaczyński, who was the first leader of Law and Justice (PiS), Bronisław Komorowski (PO) and Andrzej Duda (PiS). The resignation is required because the Constitution says that the president shall hold no other offices nor discharge any public functions.[69] The aforementioned presidents often participated in their party's campaigns (e.g. Andrzej Duda in the Law and Justice campaign three months after his resignation from the party). Karol Nawrocki, despite being endorsed by the Law and Justice party, was never a member of the party and stood as an independent candidate.

Portugal

[edit]

Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, the current president of Portugal since 6 March 2016, was elected on 24 January 2016 while being a leading member of the Social Democratic Party, but suspended his political affiliation on the day of his swearing-in.[70]

Russia

[edit]

All of Russia's presidents have been independents. Former president Dmitry Medvedev declined an offer to join United Russia, saying that he believes the President should be an independent so that he serves the interests of the country rather than his political party.

Vladimir Putin, the current president of Russia, was the head of the United Russia party until 26 May 2012, but even then was not its member, thus formally was and still is independent.

Sweden

[edit]

The Swedish election system is based on parties nominating candidate MPs for their party ballots, and each party has to receive 4% or more of the national vote (or 12% in one region, which has never happened independently of also reaching the different 4% threshold). This makes running as an independent MP impossible. Once elected, the seat is personal; MPs may resign their party membership, or be stripped of it, while retaining their Riksdag seats to become independent to become what is commonly referred to as a politisk vilde (political savage) symbol: (-).

In the Government (executive cabinet), there is no requirement for ministers to be MPs, or even have a political affiliation (though this has overwhelmingly been the case in modern times). This means that even the Prime Minister could technically be an independent if chosen by the Riksdag.

The United Kingdom

[edit]

The Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 laid down the first specific rules in the United Kingdom relating to the use of the term 'independent' by election candidates. That Act was repealed with most of its contents covered by Part II of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Candidates standing for United Kingdom local elections and United Kingdom parliamentary elections, including the devolved parliaments and assemblies, can use the name of a registered political party, or the term 'Independent' (or its Welsh language equivalent annibynol) or no ballot paper description at all.[71][72]

Some groups in the United Kingdom who are not affiliated to any national or regional party have registered locality-based political parties. Some English examples are the Independent Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern, the Epsom and Ewell Residents Association, the Devizes Guardians, the Derwentside Independents, and the East Yorkshire Independents.[73]

House of Commons

[edit]

Before the twentieth century, it was fairly common for independents to be elected to the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, but there have been very few since 1945. S. O. Davies, a veteran Labour MP, held his Merthyr Tydfil seat in the 1970 general election, standing as an independent, after the Labour Party had deselected him.

Journalist Martin Bell was elected at Tatton in the general election of 1997, having stood on an anti-corruption platform, defeating incumbent Neil Hamilton. He was the first independent to be newly elected to the Commons since 1951.[74] He stood unsuccessfully in a different constituency in 2001.

At the 2001 general election, Richard Taylor of the Independent Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern party was elected for the constituency of Wyre Forest. Taylor was re-elected for Wyre Forest at the 2005 general election, becoming the only independent in recent times to have been elected for a second term.

Two independent (or local party) members of parliament were elected in the 2005 election, although both were defeated five years later. In the same election, Peter Law was elected as an independent at Blaenau Gwent. Law died on 25 April 2006: the resulting by-election elected Dai Davies of the local party Blaenau Gwent People's Voice. The by-election was unusual as it was the first time in over eighty years that an independent had held a seat previously occupied by another independent.

Only one independent was elected to the Commons in the 2010, 2015 and 2017 elections: Sylvia Hermon, the member for North Down, a Unionist who left the Ulster Unionist Party because of its links with the Conservatives.

There have also been several instances of politicians being elected to the Commons as representatives of a political party, then resigning the party's whip, or having it withdrawn. Examples in this in the 2010–2015 parliament included Mike Hancock (formerly a Liberal Democrat), Eric Joyce (formerly Labour) and Nadine Dorries, a Conservative who had the whip withdrawn for part of the parliament and thus sat as an independent during that time.

Independent candidates often stand in British parliamentary elections, often with platforms about specific local issues, but usually without success. An example from the 2001 general election was Aston Villa supporter Ian Robinson, who stood as an independent in the Sutton Coldfield constituency in protest at the way chairman Doug Ellis ran the football club. Another example an independent candidate, in the Salisbury constituency, is Arthur Uther Pendragon, a local activist and self-declared reincarnation of King Arthur.

Other independent candidates are associated with a political party and may be former members of it, but cannot stand under its label. For instance, for several months after being expelled from the Labour Party but before the Respect Coalition was founded, George Galloway MP described himself as "Independent Labour".

On 23 March 2005, the Independent Network was set up to support independent candidates in the forthcoming general election.[75] The Independent Network still supports Independent candidates in local, regional, national and European elections. It has an organic[clarification needed] set of principles which are known as the Bell Principles and are very closely related to Lord Nolan's Standards of Public Life. The Independent Network does not impose any ideology or political influence on their candidates.

In March 2009, the multi-millionaire Paul Judge established the Jury Team, an umbrella organisation dedicated to increasing the number of independent candidates standing in Britain, in both national and European elections.[76]

In 2024, a record of six independent candidates was elected to the 59th parliament.[77]

Independent and undescribed candidates
[edit]

Part II of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 allows individuals who wish to stand as a candidate to all parliaments and assemblies in the UK, including the House of Commons, the right to use one of three ballot paper descriptions. Those descriptions are the name of a registered political party; the word "independent"; or no description at all.[78]

Unless a candidate stands as "independent" or as a "No Description" candidate leaving the ballot paper description box blank, their candidature must be confirmed by a signed certificate from the relevant officer from a registered political party, as set out in Section 52 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006.[79]

House of Lords

[edit]

The House of Lords includes many peers independent from political parties. Some are simply not affiliated with any grouping, whilst another, larger, grouping is given the official designation of crossbenchers. Additionally the Lords Spiritual (bishops of the Church of England) do not have party affiliations.

Scottish Parliament, Senedd (Welsh Parliament) and Northern Irish Assembly

[edit]

In the 2003 Scottish Parliamentary elections, three MSPs were elected as Independents: Dennis Canavan (Falkirk West), Jean Turner (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) and Margo MacDonald (Lothians). In 2004 Campbell Martin (West of Scotland region) left the Scottish National Party to become an independent and in 2005 Brian Monteith (Mid Scotland and Fife) left the Conservative Party to become an independent. At the 2007 Scottish Parliamentary elections Margo MacDonald was again returned as an independent MSP and was elected as an independent for the third time four years later. She died in 2014 while still serving as member of the Parliament. As she was elected as an independent regional MSP, there could be no by-election and her seat remained vacant until the 2016 election.[80]

Peter Law was expelled from the Labour Party after standing against an official Labour candidate in Blaenau Gwent at the 2005 UK general election and became an independent in the National Assembly and UK Parliament. In 2006 Peter Law died from a brain tumour and his wife, Trish Law, campaigned and took the seat as an independent candidate at the subsequent by-election and held onto the seat again in the 2007 Welsh Assembly elections.

In 2016, Nathan Gill as the then leader of UKIP Wales defected from the group to sit as an independent after a falling out with Neil Hamilton, who was elected UKIP Assembly group leader. Dafydd Elis-Thomas left the Plaid Cymru group later in 2016 after multiple fallings out with Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood. Elis-Thomas said his reason for leaving Plaid Cymru was that it not serious about working with the Welsh Labour Government. Neil McEvoy was expelled from Plaid Cymru on 16 January 2018 and sat as an independent AM until 2021.[81] Nathan Gill stood down on 27 December 2017[82] and was replaced by Mandy Jones. Mandy Jones left the UKIP group on 9 January 2018 over a fallout over her staff.[83]

Local elections

[edit]

The introduction of directly elected mayors in several parts of England has witnessed the election of independents to run councils in Stoke-on-Trent, Middlesbrough, Bedford, Hartlepool and Mansfield. The first Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, was first elected as an independent, having run against the official Labour candidate Frank Dobson. He was subsequently re-admitted to the Labour Party in December 2003 before his first re-election campaign.

Independent candidates frequently stand and are elected to local councils. There is a special Independent group of the Local Government Association to cater for them. A number of local authorities have been entirely or almost entirely composed of independent members, such as the City of London Corporation, the Isles of Scilly Council, Orkney Islands Council, Shetland Islands Council and Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Western Isles Council) in the Outer Hebrides.

In 2023, Central Bedfordshire became the first unitary authority in England to have an independent administration.[84]

Roughly a quarter of the police and crime commissioners elected in England and Wales in the 2012 election were independents.[85]

Oceania

[edit]

Australia

[edit]

Independents are a recurrent feature of the federal Parliament of Australia, and they are more commonly elected to state parliaments. There have been up to five independents in every federal parliament since 1990, and independents have won twenty-eight times during national elections in that time. A large proportion of independents are former members of one of Australia's four main parties, the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party of Australia, the Australian Greens, or the National Party of Australia. In 2013 a political party named the Australian Independents was registered with the Australian Electoral Commission.[86]

At the dissolution of parliament before the 2019 federal election, four independents sat in the Australian House of Representatives: Andrew Wilkie (Member for Denison), Cathy McGowan (Member for Indi), Kerryn Phelps (Member for Wentworth), and Julia Banks (Member for Chisholm). Of these, Wilkie had previously been a Greens candidate, McGowan had been a Liberal staffer, and Banks was elected as a Liberal MP before resigning from the party in November 2018. At the 2019 election, Wilkie was re-elected as the Member for Clark, while McGowan retired, and both Phelps and Banks lost their seats. However, two new independents entered parliament: Zali Steggall (Member for Warringah) and Helen Haines (Member for Indi).

After the 2022 federal election, a record ten independents were elected to the House of Representatives, including re-elected members Andrew Wilkie (Clark), Zali Steggall (Warringah), and Helen Haines (Indi). Seven new independents were elected to the House of Representatives: Dai Le (Fowler), Zoe Daniel (Goldstein), Monique Ryan (Kooyong), Allegra Spender (Wentworth), Kate Chaney (Curtin), Kylea Tink (North Sydney), and Sophie Scamps (Mackellar). Several of the newly elected independents have been branded Teal independents, due to their use of the colour teal in campaigning material, similar policy platforms and support from Climate 200.[87]

Independent senators are quite rare. In modern politics, Independent Brian Harradine served from 1975 to 2005 with considerable influence at times. Nick Xenophon was the only elected independent senator after his election to the Senate at the 2007 federal election and was re-elected for another six-year term at the 2013 federal election.[88] He resigned from the Australian Senate in 2017 to contest a seat in the House of Assembly of South Australia. DLP Senator John Madigan became an independent senator in September 2014,[89] but lost his seat in the 2016 election. PUP Senators Jacqui Lambie and Glenn Lazarus became Independent senators in November 2014 and March 2015 respectively.[90][91] Lambie was re-elected in 2019 with the support of the Jacqui Lambie Network.[92] At the 2022 Australian federal election, independent senator for the ACT David Pocock was elected, becoming the first independent senator from a territory.[93][94]

New Zealand

[edit]

Originally, there were no recognised parties in the New Zealand parliament, although loose groupings did exist informally (initially between supporters of central government versus provincial governments, and later between liberals and conservatives). The foundation of formal political parties, starting at the end of the 19th century, considerably diminished the number of unaffiliated politicians, although a smaller number of independent candidates continued to be elected up until the 1940s. Since then, however, there have been relatively few independent politicians in Parliament. No independent candidate has won or held a seat in a general election since 1943, although two independent candidates have been successful in by-elections (in all cases after having held the seats in question as partisan candidates up until that point). Other politicians have become independents in the course of a parliamentary term, but not been voted into office as such.

The last person to be directly elected to Parliament as an independent in New Zealand was Winston Peters, who won the 1993 by-election in Tauranga electorate as an independent after having previously held it a member of the National Party. By the time of the next general election, he had formed his own party (New Zealand First), and thus was no longer standing as an independent. Since that time, the only independents in Parliament have been people who quit or were expelled from their original party but retained their seats without going through a by-election. Some have gone on to found or co-found their own parties, with varying levels of success—examples include Peter Dunne, Taito Phillip Field, Gordon Copeland, Tau Henare, and Alamein Kopu. Others have joined parties which were then outside Parliament, such as Frank Grover and Tuariki Delamere.

There were two independent MPs in the 49th New Zealand Parliament: Chris Carter and Hone Harawira. Carter became an independent after his criticisms of the Labour Party's leadership resulted in his being expelled from the Labour caucus, while Harawira resigned from the Māori Party and, after a short period as an independent, also resigned as an MP in order to force the 2011 by-election when he was re-elected as representative of his new political party, Mana and retained the seat in the 2011 General Election. There were also two other parties which had only a single MP: United Future with Peter Dunne and ACT with David Seymour. Neither Dunne nor Seymour was classed as an independent—Dunne's presence in Parliament was due to personal votes in his home electorate, and Seymour's presence was as the sole elected MP of ACT because of a collapse in their support in the 2011 election. In the 50th New Zealand Parliament there was one independent MP: Brendan Horan, a former New Zealand First MP who was expelled from his party because of allegations of misappropriation of family assets.

Peter Dunne effectively became an Independent MP for a short period after his United Future political party was deregistered on 25 June 2013 by the Electoral Commission, as the party no longer had the required minimum of 500 members.[95] The party was subsequently re-registered two months later.[96][97]

Niue

[edit]

In Niue, there have been no political parties since 2003, when the Niue People's Party disbanded, and all politicians are de facto independents. The government depends on an informal coalition.[98]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
An independent politician is an elected official who serves without formal affiliation to any political party, typically campaigning and governing based on individual platforms rather than party agendas. These figures emphasize flexibility in decision-making, unbound by party whips or ideological constraints, allowing them to prioritize constituent interests or principled stances over collective . Historically, independents have occasionally wielded significant influence, as seen in the United States with 's presidencies (1789–1797), where he operated without party backing amid emerging factionalism, and more recently with senators like of , who caucuses with Democrats while maintaining formal independence. Notable achievements include Jesse Ventura's 1998 election as governor, demonstrating that independents can win executive roles through targeted appeals on fiscal restraint and anti-corruption themes, though such victories remain outliers in systems favoring party infrastructure. Challenges persist, including resource scarcity without party funding networks and vulnerability to being sidelined in legislative bargaining, yet independents often catalyze policy shifts by holding balance-of-power positions in hung parliaments or divided assemblies. Controversies frequently involve accusations of vote-splitting that inadvertently aid major parties or instances where independents align tacitly with one side, raising questions about the authenticity of their detachment in polarized environments.

Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Scope

An independent politician is an individual who seeks or holds public office without formal membership in or affiliation to any , thereby operating outside the structures of organization, funding, and discipline. This status allows such politicians to campaign and legislate based on personal convictions rather than party platforms, though they may still align with parties on specific votes or form temporary crossbench groups in parliamentary settings. Unlike party nominees, independents typically must meet independent requirements, such as collecting voter signatures, which can impose higher hurdles in party-dominated systems. The scope of independent politicians extends to candidates and incumbents across electoral levels, from councils to national legislatures, but excludes those who run under a party's even if personally unaffiliated. In practice, this includes figures who resign from parties mid-term to sit as independents, as well as lifelong non-partisans who prioritize issue-based appeals over ideological labels. The term overlaps with "non-partisan" in contexts like appointed or apolitical roles but specifically denotes elective politics without party endorsement, distinguishing it from voters who self-identify as independents without holding office. While rare in highly partisan environments, independents have secured seats in systems with or weak party loyalties, often representing 1-5% of legislatures in countries like or the as of the early 2020s. This does not encompass politicians who maintain informal ties, such as caucusing with a party for committee assignments, as formal requires abstention from party nomination processes and endorsements. in documenting independents warrants caution, as academic and media analyses frequently underemphasize their role due to institutional preferences for party-centric models, potentially skewing perceptions of viability toward affiliated actors.

Distinctions from Affiliated Politicians

Independent politicians lack formal membership or endorsement from , enabling them to campaign and govern without adhering to party platforms or hierarchies, in contrast to affiliated politicians who must navigate party primaries, endorsements, and internal vetting processes to secure nominations. This independence often requires independents to collect thousands of petition signatures for in jurisdictions with stringent rules, such as the 5,000 to 14,000 signatures needed in many U.S. states for presidential or congressional races, while party nominees typically receive automatic ballot placement through established party structures. During campaigns, independents face resource disparities, relying on personal networks or small donors without access to party fundraising apparatuses, volunteer mobilization, or shared advertising budgets that affiliated candidates leverage for broader reach and voter recognition. For instance, major party nominees benefit from established donor lists and coordinated ground operations, contributing to independents' historically low success rates, with no independent winning a U.S. presidential election since in 1789 and rare congressional victories often involving incumbents switching from parties. Affiliated politicians, by contrast, gain from party branding that signals ideological consistency to voters, though this can constrain adaptability to local issues. In legislative roles, independent politicians operate free from party whips or disciplinary measures like denial of committee assignments or campaign aid, permitting votes aligned with individual judgment or district priorities rather than bloc voting demanded of partisans. This autonomy can enable bipartisan deal-making, as seen in cases like U.S. Senators and , who caucus with Democrats but retain voting flexibility on non-core issues; however, it limits bargaining power in party-controlled bodies where affiliated members secure influence through loyalty. Affiliated politicians, subject to internal party pressures, exhibit higher cohesion on key votes—evident in U.S. Congress data showing party-line adherence rates exceeding 90% on partisan bills—prioritizing collective party goals over unilateral action.

Historical Development

Ancient and Pre-Modern Examples

In ancient , the absence of formalized allowed statesmen to operate independently, relying on personal reputation, oratory, and alliances rather than structured affiliations. Leaders were often selected through or for roles like or , with decision-making in the ecclesia emphasizing individual merit over group loyalty. This system persisted from the reforms of in 508 BCE until the Macedonian conquest in 322 BCE, enabling figures to advocate policies based on perceived without partisan constraints. A prominent example is , appointed sole in 594 BCE to mediate a severe socioeconomic crisis involving and aristocratic dominance. Acting without factional backing, Solon enacted the Seisachtheia (shaking off of burdens), which canceled debts, prohibited loans secured by personal freedom, and restructured citizenship into four property-based classes to broaden political participation. These measures, implemented during his one-year tenure, averted and laid groundwork for later democratic expansions, demonstrating how independent authority could drive systemic reform in a faction-riven polity. In the (509–27 BCE), formal parties did not exist, but loose factions such as the optimates (senatorial traditionalists) and populares (populist reformers) influenced politics; independents navigated these by emphasizing personal and opposition to elite cabals. Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis (95–46 BCE), known as , exemplified this by consistently blocking the First Triumvirate's (Caesar, , Crassus) power grabs from 60 BCE onward, filibustering bills and upholding (ancestral custom) as a Stoic-influenced lone defender of republican norms. His quashing of the in 63 BCE as and subsequent tribunate advocacy for anti-corruption measures highlighted independent efficacy, though it often isolated him amid clientelist networks. Cato's suicide at Utica in 46 BCE after Pharsalus underscored the risks of such autonomy against consolidating autocrats. Pre-modern examples beyond antiquity are scarcer due to the dominance of monarchies, feudal hierarchies, and guild-based governance, where elective offices like in Italian communes (e.g., 12th–14th centuries) were sometimes filled by outsiders selected independently to arbitrate factional disputes impartially. In the , electoral princes voted for emperors without party structures from the , prioritizing dynastic autonomy over collective platforms. These instances reflect causal constraints: decentralized power incentivized personal independence, but limited franchise and curbed broader independent viability compared to classical assemblies.

19th and 20th Century Emergence

In the United States, the 19th century marked a period of party consolidation after the Second Party System's collapse, yet independent candidacies occasionally succeeded amid factional disputes and corruption perceptions. David Davis, a former Republican U.S. Senator and Associate Justice from 1862 to 1877, was elected to the from in January 1877 as an independent by the state legislature, serving until March 1883. His victory stemmed from bipartisan support leveraging his judicial impartiality and avoidance of partisan entanglements during Reconstruction-era divisions. Davis's case exemplified how independents could exploit legislative deadlocks, as Republicans and Democrats deadlocked before coalescing around him on the 64th ballot. Such instances remained infrequent, as and machine politics reinforced party loyalty, but they demonstrated independents' potential viability in non-popular vote systems. The 20th century witnessed independents emerging more prominently during national party shifts, particularly in the South where Democratic dominance masked conservative divergences from federal policies. , initially elected to the U.S. from as a Democrat in 1965 following his father's death, announced in March 1970 that he would seek re-election as an independent, citing disaffection with party labels. He won the 1972 election with 53.5% of the vote against Democratic and Republican opponents, marking the first independent victory in a Virginia statewide contest and a U.S. Senate seat by majority. 's success relied on the enduring Byrd Organization's grassroots machinery, which prioritized and over national Democratic platforms on civil rights and spending. Independent presidential bids also gained empirical traction, reflecting causal voter alienation from duopoly inefficiencies. In 1980, , a former Republican congressman, ran as an independent after failing to secure the GOP nomination, capturing 6.6% of the popular vote (5.7 million votes) and qualifying for debates. Ross Perot's 1992 independent campaign, self-funded and focused on deficit reduction, achieved 18.9% of the vote (19.7 million), the strongest third-option performance since , amid economic recession and incumbency fatigue. These outcomes underscored independents' role in signaling systemic pressures, though structural barriers like laws—enacted post-1890s to curb —limited sustained breakthroughs. Overall, 19th- and 20th-century independents thrived transiently where party failures created openings, prioritizing personal networks over ideological rigidity. In the , elected independent politicians have remained rare in major democracies, comprising less than 5% of national legislatures in most two-party dominant systems, despite a parallel rise in self-identified independent voters reaching 43% by 2023. This discrepancy stems from structural advantages enjoyed by parties, including funding, organization, and rules under , which disadvantage non-affiliated candidates lacking party infrastructure. Empirical data from electoral outcomes indicate that independents achieve viability primarily through localized voter backlash against party scandals, failures, or niche issues, rather than broad ideological appeal, with success rates below 2% for congressional races in the U.S. since 2000. Notable surges have occurred in Westminster-style systems. In Australia's 2022 federal election, a group of "" independents—community-backed candidates emphasizing , , and gender equity—won six seats previously held by the Liberal Party, including high-profile urban constituencies like Wentworth and Kooyong, capitalizing on voter frustration with the Coalition's environmental record. Similarly, the United Kingdom's 2024 general election saw a record six independents elected to the , up from fewer than three in 2019, driven by protest votes against Labour's foreign policy on Gaza in Muslim-majority areas, with candidates like Shockat Adam securing 52% in Leicester South. These wins highlight causal links between single-issue mobilization and party vulnerabilities, though retention remains uncertain, as evidenced by partial teal losses in Australia's 2025 election. In contrast, systems sustain steadier independent representation. Ireland's 2020 general election resulted in 19 non-party independents among 160 Dáil seats, maintaining a share of around 12% consistent since the early , often reflecting regional grievances or personal incumbency advantages over party labels. In the U.S., federal successes are limited to figures like , who won Maine's seat as an independent in and was reelected in 2018 with 51% and 56% of the vote, respectively, by positioning as a moderate alternative in a polarized environment. Overall, these patterns underscore that while anti-party sentiment has enabled episodic breakthroughs, systemic barriers continue to confine independents to marginal influence, with no independent holding a pivotal national executive role in major democracies this century.

Electoral and Institutional Frameworks

Legal requirements for candidacy as an independent politician generally mirror those for party-affiliated candidates in terms of basic eligibility—such as minimum age, citizenship, residency, and absence of criminal disqualifications—but impose additional barriers to , including petition signatures, filing fees, or deposits, to ensure demonstrated voter support without party infrastructure. These provisions aim to balance access with preventing frivolous candidacies, though they disproportionately challenge independents lacking organizational backing. In the United States, constitutional qualifications for the require candidates to be at least 25 years old, U.S. citizens for seven years, and residents of the state they seek to represent; independents must additionally navigate state-specific laws, often collecting thousands of voter signatures via petitions to qualify, with filing deadlines typically 60-90 days pre-election. For races, states set analogous petition thresholds, such as 2% of the gubernatorial vote or a fixed number like signatures in larger states. In the , prospective parliamentary candidates must be at least 18 years old and a British, Irish, or qualifying ; independents submit papers signed by 10 registered electors in the constituency, accompanied by a £500 deposit refunded if securing 5% of votes, with submissions due by 6 p.m. on the 19th working day before polling. requirements are similar but scaled down, requiring two proposer signatures and no deposit in some cases. Canadian mandates that independent candidates be Canadian citizens aged 18 or older on ; they file nomination papers with , including a $1,000 deposit (refundable upon 10% vote share or reimbursement eligibility) and endorsements from 100 electors in the riding, with no party affiliation permitted on the . Provincial variations exist, such as Alberta's requirement for 100 signatures and a $500 deposit for independents. In , independent candidates for the must be at least 18, Australian citizens, and enrolled electors; they lodge nomination forms with the Australian Electoral Commission, pay a $2,500 deposit (refunded if achieving 4% of first-preference votes), and secure 50 nomination signatures or party endorsement (forgone for independents), with deadlines 23 days before . independents face a $2,500 deposit but no signature minimum if ungrouped. Cross-nationally, deposits serve as financial hurdles—ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars—refunded based on vote thresholds to deter non-serious entries, while requirements, often 1-5% of electorate size, test viability; failure to meet these excludes independents from ballots, reinforcing party dominance in systems without .

Systemic Factors Affecting Viability

In majoritarian electoral systems, such as first-past-the-post (FPTP), independent candidates face structural disadvantages that reinforce two-party dominance, as voters strategically avoid "wasting" votes on non-viable options due to the winner-take-all rule, a phenomenon formalized in which predicts convergence toward a small number of parties in single-member districts. This dynamic is evident , where FPTP at the congressional level has resulted in only 11 independent or third-party candidates securing at least 35% of the vote in races against both major-party opponents across more than a century of elections from onward. (PR) systems, by contrast, allocate seats based on vote shares and can enhance viability for independents in multi-member districts, though party-list variants often prioritize organized groups over unaffiliated individuals by requiring affiliation with electoral alliances. Ballot access regulations constitute a further systemic hurdle, imposing stringent requirements like collecting thousands of voter signatures or paying substantial filing fees, which major parties can leverage through legal challenges to disqualify independents while benefiting from automatic or reduced-threshold access as established entities. In the U.S., for example, state laws vary but commonly demand 1-2% of the prior election's gubernatorial vote in signatures for independents, a threshold parties bypass via party petitions, effectively raising entry costs that correlate with lower independent candidacy rates in high-barrier jurisdictions. Such rules, intended to ensure seriousness of intent, disproportionately burden candidates lacking party infrastructure for mobilization. Debate and media inclusion criteria, often tied to national polling thresholds or prior , systematically exclude independents from , as major parties dominate early coverage and funding that sustains poll standings. This creates a feedback loop where low initial perpetuates low support, with data from U.S. presidential races showing third-party and independent candidates consistently underperforming early polls by wide margins due to suppressed dissemination of alternatives. In presidential contexts, the amplifies this by requiring broad state-level wins, rendering independent paths mathematically improbable without majority coalitions that parties are better positioned to form.

Theoretical Advantages

Policy Flexibility and Voter-Centric Representation

Independent politicians, lacking affiliation with organized parties, operate without the binding constraints of party platforms, whips, or ideological litmus tests, which affords them greater latitude to endorse or oppose policies based on empirical merits, local exigencies, or shifting voter priorities rather than enforced partisan unity. This structural freedom contrasts with party-affiliated legislators, who often face internal sanctions—such as denial of committee assignments, campaign funding, or renomination—for deviating from leadership directives, as evidenced by analyses of parliamentary voting patterns in systems like Germany's Bundestag from 2009 to 2013. Consequently, independents can pivot positions in response to new data or constituent feedback, unencumbered by the need to maintain coalition cohesion or appease national party hierarchies. Such theoretically enhances voter-centric representation by prioritizing district-specific concerns over broader partisan agendas, enabling independents to function as direct conduits for localized interests in legislative deliberations. Elected on personal platforms without collective party structures, they cultivate through individualized voter relationships, often focusing on pragmatic, non-ideological solutions tailored to community needs. Empirical observations support this dynamic: constituents in various systems reward legislative dissent from party norms, suggesting that independents' inherent capacity to exercise such aligns with demands for authentic responsiveness over rote ship. In practice, this can manifest as independents leveraging swing-vote status to negotiate concessions on targeted issues, amplifying underrepresented voter that might otherwise be subsumed within party majorities.

Disruption of Party Monopolies

Independent politicians disrupt entrenched party monopolies by contesting elections without ideological or organizational allegiance to dominant parties, thereby injecting exogenous into legislative processes that parties often treat as closed cartels. In systems where parties coordinate to minimize intra-elite —such as through selection that prioritizes over voter preferences—independents compel by directly appealing to constituencies alienated by party platforms, forcing adaptations in or to recapture support. This mechanism echoes economic antitrust principles, where new entrants erode oligopolistic pricing or complacency; empirically, independents' viability rises when parties exhibit cartel-like behaviors, such as neglecting salient issues like fiscal restraint or . A prominent case occurred in Australia's 2022 federal election, where "" independents—community-focused candidates emphasizing , , and gender equity—captured at least six seats traditionally held by the Liberal Party, including high-profile victories in Sydney's Wentworth and Kooyong electorates. These wins fragmented the conservative coalition's suburban stronghold, contributing to a where independents influenced the minority Labor government's agenda, such as advancing integrity commissions and emissions targets that major parties had stalled. The teal surge, funded partly by grassroots climate advocates, exposed Liberal vulnerabilities to progressive voters within safe seats, prompting internal party reforms and preference strategy shifts in subsequent cycles. In the , independent MPs elected in the July 2024 general election, often on platforms addressing or welfare caps, unseated Labour candidates in diverse constituencies, compelling the to confront internal divisions it had suppressed through discipline. Figures like Shockat Adam in Leicester South and Ayoub Khan in Birmingham Perry Barr leveraged local grievances—such as Gaza policy—to mobilize turnout, disrupting Labour's projected and amplifying debates on issues parties had marginalized to maintain electoral pacts. These independents' parliamentary interventions, unburdened by party lines, have pressured votes on amendments, such as opposing the two-child benefit limit, thereby diluting the majority's legislative monopoly. More broadly, in parliamentary democracies, independents frequently secure the balance of power in fragmented assemblies, vetoing or amending bills to extract concessions that parties alone might overlook. For instance, in scenarios without a single-party , independents' pivotal votes—evident in Australian state parliaments or Canada's federal house—prevent rubber-stamp majorities, fostering cross-ideological deals that dilute party dominance and promote issue-based over bloc voting. This dynamic counters the tendency of monopolistic parties to entrench power via or donor capture, as independents' localized incentivizes parties to decentralize and innovate. However, such disruption remains contingent on electoral thresholds and media amplification, with low success in strict winner-take-all systems like the U.S. Congress.

Criticisms and Practical Limitations

Resource and Organizational Challenges

Independent politicians encounter substantial financial hurdles, as they operate without the established apparatuses of , including donor networks, national committees, and affiliated PACs that channel millions into party campaigns. In the United States, for example, federal data indicate that party committees raised over $2 billion in the 2020 cycle, enabling coordinated support for affiliated candidates, whereas independents typically rely on personal contributions or small-scale efforts, often self-funding to bridge gaps but facing contribution limits and scalability issues. This disparity constrains advertising, polling, and outreach, with many independents unable to match the $10-20 million average spending in competitive congressional races dominated by party-backed contenders. Organizationally, independents must assemble campaign infrastructure—encompassing volunteer , voter databases, field operations, and legal compliance—entirely independently, lacking parties' pre-existing hierarchies, trained staff, and logistical templates honed over decades. This from-scratch construction demands extensive personal time and recruitment, often resulting in understaffed operations; for instance, presidential independents navigate 50 states' varying requirements without party petitioning machines, amplifying burnout and errors. exemplifies this burden: U.S. independents frequently need 1,000 to 10,000 valid signatures per state plus filing fees totaling $100,000 or more nationally, a reliant on unpaid labor that parties bypass via automatic qualification. Media and visibility further compound these constraints, as independents receive minimal coverage from outlets oriented toward party narratives, forcing reliance on self-generated content or niche platforms with limited reach. Historical cases, such as Ross Perot's presidential bid, highlight partial mitigation through personal wealth—spending $63.9 million of his own funds to secure 19% of the vote—but underscore the rarity of such resources among typical independents, who cannot replicate party-scale or debate inclusion without proportional infrastructure. In multiparty parliamentary systems, similar deficits persist, with independents sidelined by party-list dominance and lacking centralized coordination for coalition-building or post-election staffing.

Accountability and Influence Deficits

Independent politicians, unbound by platforms or whips, encounter deficits stemming from the absence of institutionalized oversight that partisan structures provide. Political typically impose discipline through mechanisms such as expulsion for policy deviations or ethical lapses, as evidenced by the Labour Party's suspension of four MPs in July 2025 for voting against welfare reforms, thereby enforcing alignment with collective positions. Without such internal checks, independents rely solely on electoral , where voters must assess individual records without the shorthand of or commitments, potentially leading to opportunistic shifts in stance that erode predictability and trust. This lack of horizontal accountability exacerbates risks in systems with high , such as Canada's , where few MPs vote against their , underscoring how independents forgo the reputational incentives that bind partisans to consistent ideologies. Voters face higher costs in evaluating independents' to promises, as isolated actions lack the contextual framework of debates or primaries, which serve as pre-electoral filters for competence and alignment. Empirical observations indicate that this isolation can foster perceptions of "wishy-washy" behavior, where independents adapt positions to immediate pressures without enduring ideological anchors. Influence deficits further compound these issues, as independents typically command insufficient numbers to drive legislative agendas independently. In parliamentary settings like the UK House of Commons, groups of independents, such as the 2019 Independent Group, are denied formal party privileges including Short Money funding, allocated opposition debate days, and guaranteed select committee seats, which are distributed based on election-time party status. Procedural rules limit their speaking time in debates and to the Speaker's discretion, often favoring larger blocs, while coalitions must be negotiated bill-by-bill without whipped support, hindering sustained policy impact. Consequently, independents rarely initiate or pass major without affiliating with parties, as seen in analyses of minority parliaments where their role remains confined to rather than governance formation.

Empirical Evidence of Low Success Rates

In major democracies employing first-past-the-post systems, independent candidates consistently exhibit low electoral success rates, often securing fewer than 1-2% of legislative seats. This pattern is evident , where no independent has been elected to the since 1935, and victories remain exceptional, with only two independents serving as of 2024—both caucusing with a major party. In contests featuring both major-party opponents, independent and third-party candidates have exceeded 35% of the vote in just 11 instances across 14 elections since the early , underscoring their marginal viability. The shows a similar trend, with independent candidates historically comprising less than 1% of the . In the 2024 general election, five independents were elected out of 650 seats, following near-zero representation in prior cycles like 2019. This rarity persists despite occasional high-profile wins, as party machinery and voter coordination favor organized groups. In , data from elections further illustrate diminished prospects: independents captured fewer than 10 seats in each of the last eight cycles (2004-2024), out of 543 constituencies, for a success rate under 2%. Since 1991, over 99% of independent candidates have forfeited deposits by failing to meet the 1/6th vote threshold, reflecting broad voter preference for party-backed options amid disparities. Cross-national analyses attribute these outcomes to institutional mechanics, including , which empirical tests confirm reduces effective competitors in plurality systems through strategic voter behavior and entry barriers, limiting independents' share in legislatures worldwide. Even in systems, pure independents rarely exceed low single-digit percentages without affiliating to lists or thresholds.

Controversies and Debates

Questions of True Independence

Critics of independent politicians question whether formal non-affiliation equates to genuine from partisan influence, arguing that behavioral alignments—such as voting records, caucusing, and funding sources—often reveal underlying party loyalties. Political scientists describe many self-identified independents as "undercover partisans," holding covert partisan beliefs that guide their actions despite rejecting party labels, leading to predictable ideological consistency rather than cross-aisle flexibility. This perspective posits that true requires not just electoral status but consistent deviation from major-party positions, a rarity driven by the structural incentives of legislative systems where isolated actors lack . In practice, elected independents in parliamentary systems frequently join party caucuses or blocs to secure procedural advantages, such as committee seats and speaking time, which compromises their autonomy. Congress, for example, independents like Senator of have caucused with Democrats since 2007, enabling the party to claim a functional majority while Sanders retains his label; his voting record aligns with Democrats over 95% of the time on party-line votes, per analyses of roll-call data. Similarly, Senator of caucuses with Democrats, participating in their leadership conferences and supporting key legislation, illustrating how independence serves more as a branding tool than a barrier to partisan integration. These arrangements provide independents with resources unavailable to true outsiders but tether them to party priorities, undermining claims of uncompromised representation. Funding dynamics further erode perceptions of independence, as non-party candidates often rely on donors or PACs aligned with major parties, creating implicit obligations. While direct covert funding from parties is regulated and rare, independents attract support from ideological networks mirroring party ecosystems, such as progressive donors backing Sanders despite his label. In non-partisan local elections, candidates without party ballots still draw partisan endorsements and resources, with ideology dictating alliances rather than erasing them. Empirical studies of voter behavior reinforce this, showing that 81% of independents "lean" toward one major party, influencing candidate viability and post-election conduct. Proponents of independents counter that such alignments reflect pragmatic adaptation to adversarial systems rather than , yet skeptics demand verifiable metrics like cross-party voting rates exceeding 50% for "true" —a threshold few sustain long-term due to electoral pressures. Historical precedents, including independents tacitly supporting governing coalitions, highlight how isolation leads to marginalization, prompting partisanship. Ultimately, the debate centers on causal realism: without party machinery, independents face viability hurdles that incentivize convergence with established powers, rendering pure structurally improbable in winner-take-all frameworks.

Associations with Populism and Instability

Independent politicians are sometimes associated with due to their tendency to campaign against established structures, positioning themselves as unfiltered voices of the electorate against perceived or incompetence. This direct appeal to voters, bypassing intermediaries, aligns with core populist tactics of framing as a battle between "the pure people" and "the corrupt ," as noted in analyses of anti- sentiments driving support for non-partisan candidates. For instance, empirical studies from European contexts show that voters harboring toward traditional increasingly back independents, who often echo populist critiques without formal ideological affiliation. However, this link is not universal; many independents prioritize issue-specific expertise over , distinguishing them from dedicated populist movements that emphasize charismatic and systemic overhaul. Critics further link independents to political instability, arguing that their lack of disciplined party loyalty fragments legislative majorities, complicating formation and executive durability in parliamentary systems. In , where independents frequently comprise 40-50% of parliament post-elections due to MPs defecting from parties, governments have faced chronic upheaval; since independence in 1975, only two administrations have completed full terms, with votes of no confidence routinely toppling cabinets amid fluid alliances. This pattern underscores a causal dynamic where independent MPs' —switching sides for personal or constituency gain—erodes continuity, as evidenced by repeated parliamentary disruptions and delayed policy implementation. Similar fragmentation appears in Lebanon's , where the 2022 elections elevated 13 independent reformists, yet exacerbated deadlocks in a system already prone to paralysis, preventing presidential elections and sustaining . While these associations highlight risks, empirical evidence suggests they stem more from systemic weaknesses—like fluid party systems or weak institutions—than inherent flaws in independence itself. In stable democracies with strong parties, such as the or , occasional independents have joined coalitions without derailing governments, as seen in Australia's 2022 " supporting a minority Labor administration. Nonetheless, in fragile states, the proliferation of independents correlates with heightened volatility, prompting reforms like PNG's 2001 Organic Law on Political Parties to curb defections, though enforcement remains inconsistent. This reflects a : greater representation of local voices versus reduced predictability in power-sharing.

Notable Examples

Successful Long-Term Independents

served as the first from 1789 to 1797 without formal affiliation to any , a period when parties were nascent and he actively cautioned against partisan divisions in his Farewell Address of 1796. Elected unanimously in both 1788 and 1792, his administration emphasized national unity over factionalism, establishing precedents for executive independence from party machinery. John Quincy Adams, after his presidency, returned to as an independent representative from , serving in the from March 4, 1831, until his death on February 23, 1848, a tenure of over 17 years without joining a party. During this time, Adams advocated for anti-slavery measures and opposed the gag rule on petitions, exerting influence through principled individualism rather than party loyalty. In modern U.S. politics, holds the record as the longest-serving independent in , first elected to the in 1990 and serving until 2007, then to the since 2007, totaling over 34 years as of 2025 without affiliating with the Democratic or Republican parties. Though he caucuses with Democrats for committee assignments, Sanders campaigns and appears on ballots as an independent, winning re-elections in by emphasizing policy issues like over party branding. Outside the U.S., Australia's has represented the electorate of as an independent since 2010, securing re-election in 2013, 2016, 2019, and 2022 through focus on local issues and whistleblower advocacy, maintaining a crossbench role without party ties. Such cases demonstrate that sustained independent success often occurs in districts with strong personal voter loyalty or weak party dominance, enabling repeated victories absent organizational support from major parties.

High-Profile Failed or Short-Term Cases

Ross Perot, an American businessman, ran as an independent in the 1992 U.S. presidential election, capturing 18.91% of the popular vote—over 19 million ballots—but zero electoral votes, finishing third behind Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush. His campaign emphasized fiscal conservatism, opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement, and outsider reformism, drawing significant media attention and funding from his own wealth, yet it fragmented the vote without translating to victory due to the U.S. electoral system's structural barriers favoring major parties. Perot re-entered in 1996 under the Reform Party label, securing 8.40% of the vote, again failing amid perceptions of reduced novelty and internal party disputes. John B. Anderson, a moderate Republican U.S. Representative from , bolted from his party to run as an independent in the 1980 presidential race, emphasizing nuclear non-proliferation, balanced budgets, and campaign finance reform; he received 6.56% of the popular vote—about 5.7 million votes—but no electoral support, placing third behind and . Anderson's effort, backed by endorsements from some liberal Republicans and crossover Democrats, highlighted voter dissatisfaction but ultimately diluted opposition to the Republican nominee without overcoming hurdles or the winner-take-all electoral mechanics. In the , , a veteran war correspondent, won the Tatton constituency as an independent in the 1997 general election, defeating Conservative Neil Hamilton amid a cash-for-questions that eroded party trust; Bell's anti-sleaze "clean pair of hands" platform garnered cross-party support, including Labour's decision to stand aside. He pledged to serve only one term to avoid careerist entrenchment, fulfilling this by retiring in 2001, thus limiting his parliamentary influence despite initial high visibility as the first independent MP since 1951. These instances underscore recurrent patterns: independents often capitalize on sentiment or scandals for breakthrough gains but struggle with re-election or longevity owing to resource deficits, lack of organizational , and electoral systems penalizing non-partisan bids, as evidenced by broader showing independents and third parties winning fewer than 1% of U.S. races since 2000 when major parties compete.

Regional Variations

Africa

In Africa, independent politicians encounter formidable obstacles stemming from entrenched patronage networks, ethnic-based voter loyalties, and the resource-intensive nature of electoral campaigns dominated by parties. Multi-party systems, while widespread since the 1990s democratization wave, prioritize party machinery for mobilization, funding, and , rendering independents marginal actors in most national contests. Legal provisions for independents exist in over 40 African countries, often requiring thresholds or fees, but these rarely translate into significant representation due to voters' preference for parties as proxies for communal interests. Notable exceptions occur in countries employing first-past-the-post systems for legislative seats, where personal charisma and local grievances can propel independents. In , independents have secured parliamentary seats periodically; for example, ahead of the 2026 general elections, over 200 (NRM) primary losers received party clearance to contest as independents, reflecting a to retain influence without direct party endorsement. This tactic underscores a pragmatic rather than ideological , as many such candidates align informally with ruling coalitions post-election. Empirical data from Uganda's 2021 elections indicate independents captured around 10% of seats, benefiting from district-level fragmentation but struggling against NRM dominance. Conversely, in systems, independents fare worse. South Africa's Electoral Amendment Act of 2023 permitted independents in the 2024 national elections for the first time, with ten candidates qualifying via 15,000-signature petitions each. Despite high-profile entrants like former activist Zwelakhe Sompeta, independents garnered negligible votes—none exceeding 0.1% nationally—and failed to win seats, as party lists absorbed the proportional allocation. This outcome illustrates causal factors like limited media access and voter inertia toward established parties, which control 99% of seats. Broader trends reveal independents' influence confined to local or by-elections in nations like and , where they occasionally win on anti-corruption platforms but seldom sustain long-term careers without eventual party absorption. Success metrics remain low: across , independents hold under 5% of parliamentary seats on average, per electoral data, constrained by financial barriers—campaign costs often exceed $100,000 per constituency—and the absence of institutional support. This scarcity aligns with causal realism, as parties' control over state resources fosters , deterring defection and voter risk-taking on unbacked candidates.

Americas

In the United States, independent politicians have historically been marginal in national politics, with George Washington serving as the sole independent president from 1789 to 1797 before the dominance of the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties. Currently, the U.S. Senate includes two independents: Angus King of Maine, elected in 2012 and reelected in 2018, and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, first elected in 2006 and reelected multiple times, both of whom caucus with Democrats for committee assignments and legislative organization. No independents serve in the U.S. House of Representatives as of 2025, reflecting the challenges of ballot access, fundraising, and the first-past-the-post electoral system that favors major parties. At the state level, independents hold approximately a dozen seats in legislatures, concentrated in states like Vermont and Maine with histories of non-partisan traditions. Notable successes include Jesse Ventura's 1998 election as governor under the Reform Party banner, often cited as an independent campaign that secured 37% of the vote by appealing to voter dissatisfaction with major parties. Similarly, won the governorship in 2010 as an independent after leaving the Republican Party, serving until 2015. Presidential bids by independents, such as Ross Perot's 1992 run capturing 18.9% of the popular vote, demonstrate potential influence on outcomes without victory, as Perot drew votes from both major candidates. However, structural barriers like winner-take-all elections limit sustained independent representation, with only rare breakthroughs in gubernatorial or senatorial races. In Canada, independent members of Parliament (MPs) are exceedingly rare due to the Westminster system's emphasis on party discipline and strong party identification among voters. Since Confederation in 1867, fewer than 20 MPs have been elected explicitly as independents, with most subsequent independents resulting from party expulsions or defections rather than initial independent candidacies. As of 2025, the House of Commons has no sitting independent MPs, underscoring the dominance of major parties like the Liberals, Conservatives, and New Democrats. Provincial legislatures occasionally feature independents, but their influence remains limited without caucusing support. Across , independent politicians face even greater hurdles in multi-party systems often characterized by , mandatory party affiliations for , and populist movements that coalesce into new parties rather than pure independents. Few verifiable examples of elected independents persist at national levels; in , independent presidential candidates have been permitted since 2014, but none have exceeded 5% of the vote, as seen with Jaime Rodríguez Calderón's 2018 campaign. In countries like and , figures such as (elected president in 2023) and (reelected in 2024) campaigned as outsiders but ran under newly formed parties, blending independent appeal with organizational backing. This pattern highlights how regional electoral laws and cultural reliance on parties constrain true independents, leading to hybrid models where personalist leadership substitutes for formal independence.

Asia

In Asia, independent politicians face significant structural barriers to electoral success, including dominant systems, networks, and resource disparities that favor organized parties. Parliamentary elections across the region typically yield few independent winners, with success rates often below 5% of seats in major legislatures. For instance, in India's 2024 elections, only 7 independent candidates secured seats out of 543, representing approximately 1.3% of the total, despite thousands contesting; these victors, such as Rajesh Ranjan (Pappu Yadav) in , often leveraged personal popularity and local grievances rather than broad ideological platforms. Similarly, South Korea's 2024 election resulted in zero independent legislators among 300 seats, underscoring the entrenched two-party dominance and high campaign costs that marginalize non-partisan bids. Notable exceptions occur in contexts of political disillusionment or localized contests. In Nepal's 2022 federal elections, independent candidates, particularly young reformers, captured several seats by capitalizing on voter fatigue with established parties, though their overall share remained under 10%. In Thailand, independents have fared better in executive races; Chadchart Sittipunt, running without party backing, won the 2022 Bangkok gubernatorial election with 50.9% of the vote, defeating party-affiliated rivals amid anti-military sentiment. Indonesia permits independents in local elections since 2005, but empirical analysis of 2005–2015 data shows only 17.5% of winning pairs were independents, predominantly former party insiders or notables with pre-existing networks, limiting true outsider breakthroughs. In authoritarian-leaning systems, independents encounter outright suppression. China's local elections constitutionally allow independents, but as of , candidates face vetting and harassment, rendering victories symbolic at best and often co-opted by the . Hong Kong's 2021 legislative polls excluded most independents under Beijing-imposed electoral reforms, with pro-democracy non-partisans barred, reducing their representation to near zero. Bangladesh's 2024 parliamentary elections saw independents win amid dominance, interpreted as a signaling instability, yet their 10–15 seats did not alter the ruling coalition's control. Across , independents who win rarely sustain long-term influence without affiliating with parties, as evidenced by post-election alliances in and , reflecting causal dependencies on institutional support for legislative efficacy.

Europe

Independent politicians in Europe operate within electoral frameworks that predominantly favor organized parties, such as systems with closed party lists, which limit opportunities for non-affiliated candidates to secure seats. High nomination thresholds, party funding advantages, and strict further marginalize independents, resulting in their underrepresentation across most national parliaments; for instance, countries like , , and rarely elect true independents to legislative bodies due to these structural barriers. In contrast, systems permitting personalized voting, such as Ireland's or the United Kingdom's first-past-the-post, enable sporadic successes, though independents often struggle with resources and visibility compared to party-backed rivals. Ireland exemplifies higher prevalence of independents, where voter disillusionment with parties has sustained their viability. In the 33rd Dáil Éireann, elected on February 8, 2020, with 160 seats, independents initially captured 19 seats, forming a notable bloc amid fragmented party politics; some later coalesced into groups like Independent Ireland, which held four seats by 2025. Catherine Connolly, an independent Teachta Dála (TD) for Galway West since 2014, advanced to the presidency in the October 2025 election, campaigning on domestic reforms while critiquing establishment policies. This reflects causal factors like localist appeals and anti-party sentiment, allowing independents to leverage personal networks in multi-seat constituencies. In the United Kingdom, independents remain outliers but gained traction in the July 4, 2024, general election, with six elected to the out of 650 seats—more than double the 2019 figure—often capitalizing on single-issue campaigns. Shockat Adam's victory in Leicester South, unseating a Labour incumbent by focusing on Gaza-related concerns, highlighted how targeted voter mobilization can overcome party dominance in majoritarian districts. Additional independents, such as in Islington North after losing Labour's whip in 2024, underscore a pattern where former party members transition to independent status, though their autonomy is debated given lingering affiliations. At the supranational level, the includes non-attached members (non-inscrits), totaling 30 out of 720 seats in the 2024–2029 term, comprising those rejecting group affiliation for ideological or personal reasons. Notable cases include from , a non-politician elected in 2024 without party backing, relying on social media virality to secure votes. In , independents like Romania's , who topped the first round of the 2024 presidential election as a non-party emphasizing nationalist themes, illustrate occasional breakthroughs in executive races, though parliamentary examples remain scarce. Overall, European independents thrive more in protest contexts or hybrid systems but face systemic incentives to align with parties for influence and reelection.

Oceania

In Australia, independent politicians have achieved notable success in federal and state parliaments, facilitated by the preferential voting system that allows non-party candidates to secure victories through second-preference votes from major parties. As of April 2025, the federal includes independents such as (elected 2010, representing , ), Helen Haines (elected 2019, Indi, Victoria), and several "teal" independents who won Liberal-held seats in the 2022 election by campaigning on climate policy, institutional integrity, and women's representation. These teals, including (Curtin, ) and Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Victoria), retained their seats in the 2025 election and demonstrated voting cohesion on key issues exceeding that of some major parties at times. In the Senate, independents like David Pocock (Australian Capital Territory, elected 2022) have influenced legislation, including blocking or amending bills on environmental and social matters. Historically, independents have held balance-of-power roles, as in the 2010 federal election when Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott, and supported the Labor , extracting concessions on regional infrastructure and governance reforms. At the state level, elects dozens of independents; for instance, 56 were returned across state parliaments in recent cycles, often deciding governments in upper houses or hung assemblies. In , independent MPs are rare under the mixed-member proportional (MMP) system, which allocates seats via party lists to ensure proportionality, disadvantaging unaffiliated candidates who lack list support. The current 54th (as of 2025) has no independents among its 123 members, all aligned with six parties. Historical examples include figures like in the 19th century, but modern independents typically emerge only after party expulsions, such as Chris Carter in , and rarely endure without rejoining parties. Across other Oceania nations like and Pacific island states, formal party structures are weak, with politics often driven by personal alliances, kinship ties, or regional interests, resulting in high numbers of nominally independent MPs who switch affiliations fluidly post-election. In 's 2022 national election, over 40% of parliamentarians entered as independents before coalescing into coalitions, reflecting systemic instability rather than ideological independence. This contrasts with Australia's more institutionalized independent successes, where voter disillusionment with major parties—evident in declining primary votes below 40% in 2022—has elevated non-partisan voices.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.