Election manifestos are often treated as binding contracts, but that’s a dangerous misconception. In a parliamentary democracy, pledges are intentions – not guarantees – and governments must prioritise the public interest over rigid promises, says Hugh McLachlan.

The manifestos of political parties are nowadays often considered to be a set of promises which the successful party is dutybound to fulfil in government. The manifesto of the Reform Party for the general election of 2024 was even called: ‘Our contract with you’. This is a misleading theory of how Parliamentary Democracy should work. Election manifestos are fundamentally different from contracts.

Although the making of promises can create for the promise-makers an obligation to keep them, there are often very good reasons why politicians cannot or should not do what they promised to do.

For instance, politicians often make promises which are contradictory or conflicting. A promise, say, to promote economic growth might be thwarted by promises, say, strengthen workers’ rights or by promises to increase particular benefits or taxes.

The so-called promises of election manifestos can often equally be seen as election threats. For instance, if you own a mansion, a so-called promise to introduce a mansion tax might plausibly be thought of as a threat. A promise not to increase the tax burden on, say, working people might be seen as a threat by other people. It is hardly a sound moral principle that we should aways carry out our threats.

Read more:

When the making of........

© Herald Scotland