Election Promises – How Credible Are They?

Morailty and philosophy aside, the legal analogy on this issue might be worth addressing.  According to basic tenets of the law, any person who is in charge of the lives of persons under his care, such as a doctor, surgeon, pilot or even bus driver, gives the implicit assurance and promise to his charges that their lives will not be jeopardized under his care.  On the contrary their lives would be safe.  This is based on the fact that they profess special skills to perform their functions in the best interest of their charges.

by Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne

A prudent leader cannot keep his word, nor should he, where such fidelity would damage him, and when the reasons that made him promise  are no longer relevant…. Machiavelli

( April 14, 2015, Montreal, Sri Lanka Guardian) An article by N.S. Venkataraman in yesterday’s issue of this journal on the Prime Minister of India – Narendra Modi – caught my eye, particularly when the writer says: “People who believed his poll promises during the election campaign and genuinely thought that he would deliver his promises as per the schedule indicated, now think that Mr. Narendra Modi is tall on promises and short on performance”.  The writer went on to say: “All said and done, the biggest expectation of people from Mr. Modi is that he would root out corruption. Many people believe that most problems faced by India today are due to the high level of political corruption and corruption and nepotism in administration. The ground reality is that Mr. Modi has not been able to create fear in the mind of the corrupt elements in the country”.

One cannot be blamed if one believes that this statement resonates a certain gravitas in a certain country.  Of course, there is no gainsaying that corruption is everywhere.  The issue is how the voter rationalizes election promises post election. The average voter, whether as a result of his naiveté or blind trust, thinks along the assumption that there is a general propensity of a candidate before an election to honor his promises. The voter may not take into account that the candidate thinks his strategy through carefully and prepares his future obligations to be presented to the electorate.  At this point he may or may not envision that keeping those promises might curtail his own freedom once elected. Another factor is that the resources a candidate has for decision making and policy analysis could be expensive and rare and the limited resources available are put to use in solving urgent issues and problems after the election.  A simple cost-benefit analysis proves to the candidate after election that fulfilling promises made earlier would be impossible for various reasons, two of which could be the gravitas of favoritism and nepotism which is an inevitable baggage that emerges to haunt an election winner; and changed circumstances that would make it impossible to keep pre-election promises.  Government, which is a bureaucracy, invariably functions on operating procedures and routines which make it even harder for a ruler to keep promises made prior to the election.   Added to this is the change of economic and political circumstances which obfuscates the meaning and purpose on which the voter based his choice, all of which mercifully acts to the benefit of the promisor.

Election promises must be teleological, in that the promise must have a purpose.  In this instance, the purpose is the theory of social contract and social justice according to which a government functions. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy says the social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, reflects the view that persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live.  Social justice is based on truth. Without truth, justice cannot prevail, and without respect and compassion, morality cannot prevail. At the end of the day, social justice is about respect for human rights and dignity. A government’s authority comes from the will of the people.  Therefore, it behooves the promisor to keep his promises.  But how does he do that?

Firstly, the elected ruler must invest extra resources that could advise him on how his promises can be met.  Secondly, the ruler must be transparent in the requirements of his regime and how he performs.  Such would, even if promises cannot be kept for unavoidable reasons, create reassurance among the voter, and encourage key players to make every effort to assist their leader in achieving the objectives of an election manifesto.

Thirdly, the ruler must ensure technical assistance, otherwise called “capacity building”, in pursuing his promises.  Through sustained planning, the capacity required to keep election promises can be built to an extent that the voter would be convinced that a genuine effort is being made and that the trust between him and the elected ruler is not endangered by possible breach.

Michael Sandel, Professor at Harvard University says: “According to many modern liberals, moral obligations arise in only two ways. First, there are universal duties that we owe to every human being, such as the duty to avoid harming people unnecessarily. Second, there are voluntary obligations that we acquire by consent, as when we agree to help someone or promise to be faithful to our partners and friends”.  Immanuel Kant calls keeping promises a categorical imperative with the label “I must”.  Some commentators claim that the weakness in the categorical imperative of a promise lies in the fact that there is a time lapse between the time of the promise and the due date for performance. The fundamental postulate of their argument is that the falsity of the promise would depend on the promisor’s genuine belief as to his ability to keep the promise, which may not necessarily be rational.  According to this argument the entire contract between the voter and the promisor – who is subsequently elected on the promises he makes –  do not hinge on the breach of the promises but rather on  the relationship between the promisor’s beliefs and claims about the future.

Morailty and philosophy aside, the legal analogy on this issue might be worth addressing.  According to basic tenets of the law, any person who is in charge of the lives of persons under his care, such as a doctor, surgeon, pilot or even bus driver, gives the implicit assurance and promise to his charges that their lives will not be jeopardized under his care.  On the contrary their lives would be safe.  This is based on the fact that they profess special skills to perform their functions in the best interest of their charges. A politician falls into the same category and should undertake to abide by his foreseability of performance. .  Any breach of such assurance is gross negligence which has serious consequences for the person who gives that assurance.

Perhaps it is time to forget the philosophers and their moral theories; the political theorists and their ideals and go back to the lawyers who can litigate this matter before an adjudicating tribunal?