Political promises--what do they mean?(Politics)

There is a widely held view in Australia that political promises are glibly made and almost routinely broken once politicians have used them to gain votes. Indeed, the charge of "broken promises" has become a significant part of our political debate, especially during election campaigns, when opposition parties try to capitalise on the claim that the outgoing government has not implemented the promises made in winning office. Lists of promises made, and their fate, are sometimes published by such parties, and by the press (and not solely by the sensationalist, tabloid press), and the message is echoed by many ordinary citizens. In recent times, economic mismanagement and the breaking of promises--often linked together--seem to be the two most prominent reasons given for attacking a government presenting itself for re-election

Governments themselves have applied tortuous logic to explain or justify how their actions relate to the promises they made in getting elected to office. The Prim Minister, John Howard, explained in June 1996---soon after winning office for the first time--that some of his party's promises were "core" promises, and some were "non-core", and that his government (in the light of the unexpectedly poor finances it had inherited) would keep only core promises. The distinction, depending entirely on his own discretion, has now entered the Australia lexicon as a code for political cynicism in general.

While cynicism about the keeping of political promises may be high, there are a number of matters that warrant consideration before we consign politicians to ethical oblivion. The chief problem with both the political charges of breaking promises, and the denials of an justifications for not fulfilling them, is that such exchanges have become a ritual. It is a ritual that doe not confront the task of systematically explaining the nature and obligations of political promising in complex, liberal-democratic societies; rather, it is designed t score partisan points and win political advantage. The tactics of the political game make no concessions to the dilemmas of promising, but contribute instead to a pervasive sense that politicians make promises in bad faith

Politicians have made the understanding of the issue, surrounding promises more difficult because of their relentless determination to insist--when out of government--that promises are binding, and--when in government--that fulfilling promises is contingent. The political rhetoric that emphasises the breaking of promises contributes to the disrepute in which politics is nowadays held.

This essay argues that not all political promises are broken, even if broken promises tend to be more prominent in public memory; mat promises are broken for a variety of reasons, few of them connected with bad faith; and most importantly that promises themselves do not, and should not, place politicians under binding legal or moral obligations. In particular, it opposes the naive approach that political promises should be absolutely binding. Its purpose is neither to denigrate nor defend politicians, but to help understand the pressures on making, and the difficulties of keeping, promises. Above all, it argues that the most appropriate sanctions for "promise-breaking' are political: informed citizens must make judgments about why promises were not kept, and must use their vote accordingly.

THE ROLE AND LIMITS OF PROMISES

PROMISING IS a very important social institution. John Locke believed that making oaths, and the trust they inspired, was the vinculum societatis: the very bond of society. Most discussions of trust consider promising a precondition for co-operation between individuals, in that it sets up expectations about others' behaviour, even if such discussions differ over what are the boundaries, and especially the sources, of trust. Promises honoured keep the levels of trust high in extensive, relatively anonymous societies where family ties are weak and interactions are wide-ranging and often brief and non-repeated: that is, in societies like ours. In short, they allow humans to co-operate with each other and multiply their efforts, in an atmosphere of enhanced trust and mutual confidence.