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:
- A slippery slope? Ethical concerns over Scotland’s assisted dying legislation
- Scotland’s public services ‘hollowed out’ by £3bn outsourcing leak
- America first, Europe last? Why Trump’s security strategy demands serious debate
- Festive planning by ferry: the realities of an island Christmas
When the making of promises does create prima facia moral obligations to keep them, such obligations are not absolute. They do not always obliterate or override previously existing obligations and obligations that subsequently arise.
Governments have responsibilities regarding various spheres of public policy such as: defence; education; health, civil and criminal justice; transport; climate change and the economy in addition to various matters that might, unexpectedly crop up. To try to produce an overall optimal combination of feasible outcomes of governmental policies in all these spheres should be their aim. This might not be consistent with the implementation of the menu of policies proposed promised by a political party in its pre-election manifesto.
Moreover, governments might consist of members of different parties with different election promises.
If a government decides that a particular policy is, overall, in the public interest, it ought to introduce it, regardless of what promises were or were not made in the manifesto of its party prior to the election. If members of Parliament agree that a particular policy is, overall, in the public interest, they ought to support it, even if they previously promised not to do so.
Contracts specify what the terms of a particular deal are. With a contractual arrangement, there is an agreement between two specified ‘parties’, i.e. agents or agencies, regarding a specific transaction. One party knowingly and voluntarily agrees to do a specified thing in return for a specified response from the other party, typically the payment of money.
For instance, if we agree to pay a specified company, say, £600 to paint the outside of our house, we create a moral and a legal duty to pay them if they do so and they acquire a moral and a legal right to the payment. Similarly, if they accept in advance the payment from us, they create for themself a moral and a legal duty to paint our house and we acquire a moral and a legal right that it is painted. Consequently, we have a moral and legal right to the refund of our money if our house is not painted or not painted properly after we have paid.
No such deal or transaction and no such rights and duties apply with regard to voting in a parliamentary election. When someone casts a vote for a particular party, that does not constitute the acceptance of a deal or the fulfilment of the agreed terms of one. Elected candidates are not the hired agents of those who voted for them but the representatives of all their constituents.
If, say, Mr Farage becomes the next Prime Minister, whatever policies are introduced will apply to all citizens. There will not be different laws and policies applicable solely to those who voted for the Reform party candidates. This is unlike the nature of contractual arrangements. Painters do not paint the houses of all local householders regardless of whether specific deals were made with them but only those of their clients
Only those who have the power and authority to bring about the painting of our houses can legitimately and honestly make a deal with us to paint our houses. Political parties do not have the power and authority to enact the policies that appear in their manifestos. Such legislation will be passed only if, at the instigation of the subsequently elected government, both houses of parliament agree to pass them
In the Reform party’s manifesto, clearly indicated at the end of a list of so-called ‘core pledges’ is the statement: ‘This is what Reform UK MPs will fight hard for if elected’.
It would be a strange sort of deal if a painter said: ‘I will fight hard to clean your windows, if you give me £600’. We do not pay painters for the mere honest intention or promise to try to paint our houses. We make deals with individuals and organisations who have the actual power and authority to paint them and to give us our money back if they fail to do so.
Moreover, neither Mr Farage nor the leader of any other political party can make valid promises on behalf of those candidates of their parties who successfully stand for election. They do not have the power or authority to predict far less to control the behaviour of their MPs as, for instance, Sir Keir Starmer discovered. If elected, Reform UK MPs, like the elected MPs of any other political party might or might not fight hard for the policy proposals and promises contained in the manifestos of their respective political parties.
Manifestos should advertise the intentions of political parties. They should be honest accounts of what the parties want to do and of how and why they want to do it. Promises are unnecessary and misleading. Manifestos should not be misrepresented as contracts.
Professor Hugh McLachlan is Professor Emeritus of Applied Philosophy, Glasgow Caledonian University and member of the Battlefield Writers.
Share