An election manifesto is generally defined as a published declaration of the intentions, motives, or views of an individual, group, or political party. It is released ahead of elections to make people aware of the opinion and stand of the party on various issues of public interest as well as how the party would address these issues, if elected to power. The voters are expected to compare the ideologies, policies, and programmes of different political parties as presented in their manifestos, and come to an informed decision on what best suits their own expectations.
Election manifestos have been brought out by political parties since 1952 when the first general elections were held after India’s independence.
The ideals of the public at large are fulfilled if the election manifestos are properly implemented.
Importance of Election Manifestos
An election manifesto provides the essential information about the party’s vision and ideology, and its ideas on what it will do for the people if it comes to power. A useful manifesto would give substantive facts, and not mere ideological dreams, to enable voters to choose the type of government they actually want. The manifestos are a form of competition between political parties: the people choose the party whose manifesto highlights aspirations that are close to their hearts. By giving rise to debates and discussions in the media, the manifestos could further enlighten the voters.
Problem with Election Manifestos
Political parties often present rather grandiose schemes and policies in the manifestos in their effort to woo the voters or project general ideals of governance. But they do not include information on how these will be implemented and how the exchequer will fund them. Thus, the manifestos conveniently ignore the nitty-gritty.
Moreover, various political parties, in recent times, have been offering freebies in their manifestos to induce people to vote for them. Freebies are easier to implement than developmental policies. However, no information is given on how the freebies will be funded or how much they will cost the exchequer. After all, as the taxpayers’ money will be used, the voter has a right to know the finances involved.
If a coalition government is formed after the elections, the commitments made by the different parties in the coalition need to be adjusted, and some even have to be discarded as they are not compatible. So, in a way, the voters are deprived of the results in the hope of which they voted a certain political party.
In the past, some parties have even released their manifestos on the day of voting. Obviously, voters could not get time to read and understand the intentions of the party concerned. This made the Election Commission of India (ECI) come up with additional guidelines for the 2019 elections saying that the election manifestos could not be released in the 48 hours before the polling date.
Most of the time, the election manifestos are ignored by the political parties once elected to power. This happens as there is no law or mechanism to enforce the commitments made in the manifestos. Nor does the opposition in the legislature raise any question on this matter.
In 2013, a Supreme Court bench of Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice P. Sathasivam observed that if the dignity and respect of Indian democracy has to be kept intact, then the declarations in the manifestos must be given a legal shape, and the political parties should be made accountable. There were guidelines in the model code of conduct given by the ECI for the 2014 general elections prohibiting parties from making promises in their manifestos that would have an undue influence on voters. However, as the guidelines are not legally enforceable, they are simply not adhered to by most political parties. As pointed out by the Supreme Court bench of the then Chief Justice of India, H.L. Dattu and Justice Amitava Roy in 2015, since these manifestos are not legally enforceable, the court could not entertain the petition regarding non-fulfilment of promises.
In August 2022, a bench led by the then Chief Justice of India, N.V. Ramana, ordered a three-judge bench to be set up to review the court’s earlier position that pre-poll promises made by political parties to entice voters do not fall within the ambit of Section 123 (corrupt practices) under the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951. The S. Subramaniam Balaji judgment, delivered by a two-judge bench, had observed that “although the law is obvious that the promises in the election manifesto cannot be construed as ‘corrupt practice’ under Section 123 of the RPA, 1951, the reality cannot be ruled out that distribution of freebies of any kind, undoubtedly, influences all people”.
In November 2023, the Supreme Court, while deliberating on pleas, was informed that political parties’ promises of pre-election freebies constitute bribery and are grounds for voiding an election under the RPA, 1951. Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria argued that such promises fall under Section 123(1)(A) of the RPA, 1951, defining bribery. He emphasised that these promises essentially function as bribes, enticing electors to support a candidate. The court heard pleas, including one filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, opposing such promises during polls. Upadhyay’s plea sought directions to freeze election symbols and cancel the registration of parties making these promises. The court referred the case to a three-judge bench for further deliberation, the need for an extensive debate on the issue.
Making Manifestos Legally Enforceable
The question that arises is: if the voters have voted on the basis of what a manifesto has said, are they not entitled to expect all the commitments made to be implemented in full by the government formed of the particular political party/parties? It is not just the issue of freebies; many promises in the manifestos are ideal, but they are included only because they have the potential to act on the emotions of the voters and raise their expectations. In the circumstances, it is all the more necessary to see to it that the promises are enforced.
It could be argued that it may not be possible for a political party to give a complete solution including the financials involved at the time of making a promise before the polls. However, in that case, promises should not be made at all if the parties cannot avail of or are incapable of doing the research to get proper data and information to support their promises.
If governments are made to carry out the promises made in the election manifesto, there would be a move by political parties towards making promises that are practicable and well thought out instead of giving extravagant assurances that are difficult to keep, once in power.
It has been suggested that guidelines could be incorporated in the RPA, 1951 as to what election manifestos should broadly contain—long-term and short-term agendas as well as what the financial requirement for carrying out the promises will be and how they will be sourced.
It is already laid down that the party in power at the Centre or state shall not misuse official power to sanction funds/grants, lay any foundation stone, make the promise of infrastructure development projects, make any specific appointments in the government after election dates are announced to influence the voter. There are guidelines instructing political parties to ensure that the ideals of the Constitution are not violated in the manifestos, and to not make promises that “vitiate the purity of the election process or exert undue influence on the voters in exercising their franchise.” But this does not mean the parties have been made accountable for their tall and unfulfilled promises.
It may be pointed out that very few people actually read a political party’s manifesto. For most of us, it is a mere piece of paper. That should not be the case. The election manifesto should be fundamental in the political process of election. This would be understood if political parties are made accountable for their election manifestos.
Way forward
In 2013, the Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice suggested that the model code be made legally binding and incorporated in the RPA, 1951. Such a move would empower the ECI to prevent political parties from making grandiose promises in manifestos that are difficult to put into practice. It is observed that the voters would throw out a political party from power if its government failed to keep promises made in the manifesto; however, there must be more obvious and quick penalties for unfulfilled promises.
A rule may also be made that the party of the incumbent government should give a review in its manifesto of the progress and status of the promises made in the manifesto for the previous election.
According to the Observer Research Foundation, studies show that in advanced economies, such as Sweden, the rate of fulfilment of promises made in manifestos is as high as 82 per cent over an average of four elections. Spain and the Netherlands have also shown high rates of fulfilment of election manifesto promises.
The ECI should be given the power to whet and approve the party manifestos before the parties issue them to the public, and the commission should see to it that only broad policies affecting the people at large, such as health care, foreign policy, environmental issues, and economic reforms, are discussed and not specific benefits. Financial data need to be included so that an audit can show how realistic or feasible a promise is. The ECI should also filter out any objectionable and misleading campaign material before rolling out manifestos to the public.
© Spectrum Books Pvt Ltd.
