First some quick background to set up the debate: Last year Ontario, Canada, held Provincial elections resulting in a complete ousting of the Conservative party. The biggest* problem was that the opposition party (Liberals) made some HUGE promises (click here for more examples, one example was keeping electricity prices down). These promises were exactly what the people wanted, and in theory were the perfect policies. When the Conservative party was questioned on these policies their only reply was that it was completely infeasible, that there was no way the government could afford even one of those promises. Two weeks after the election the new government announced that, “they had looked at the books and realized they can’t afford any of their promises.” As a result eletricity prices will rise significantly which is exactly what they said would NOT happen, and exactly what they were told would happen.
There is nothing new here. We all say, “Of course politicians should keep their promises.” Then follow with, “But that’s what politicians do, that’s the nature of the game.”
But the recent situation in Ontario bothered me because of the shear scope of the promises, how they formed the bases of the Liberal platform, and how both parties knew the budget would not allow it to work.
I want to see some system of accountability placed on politicians, in the hopes that it will limit the ridiculousness we face now. If a politician says that he/she’ll reduce income tax, is told that’s not possible, gets elected, then exclaims, “we can’t afford to reduce income tax, I have to raise it,” there is a problem.
So my topic for debate: Politicians should be held accountable for their promises. Failure to comply is the same as violating the terms of a contract. I voted for ___ because he said he would ___. He reneged on his end, so I withdraw my vote, and he should have to step down.
This is a pretty horrible summary of events, but the theme remains valid. My apologies to people that actually followed the election. Try to avoid directly focusing on that one election.
I disagree. The situation can change, and holding promises, even made in good faith, could become a bad idea. A politician could even understand that he was wrong, and change his mind.
I don’t have much of an issue with holding promises per se but more with good faith (the result is usually the same, but still). I would want the politicians to make their promises honestly and in good faith. I would want them to tell the truth about their choices once elected. About their mistakes. About the real reasons why the take such or such decision (barring some particular cases where national security could be threatened by disclosing informations). I would want them to tell us, as sincerily as possible, what the current situation is, how they analyze it, what they intend to do to ameliorate it, why they intend to do so, and what outcome they expect.
In other words, I would them them to be sincere and tell the truth. Even if it means : “I promised to lower the taxes, but given the current situations, it’s not really a good idea”.
Of course, a politician who would tell the truth (the former president did quite a good job concerning X, but not really concerning Y. If I’m elected, I intend to fix that. Of course, I’ll have to raise the taxes) wouldn’t have the slightest chance to be elected. Bluntly : we have the political leaders we collectively deserve.
The current system in the Western Democracies allows citizens to “vote the bums out” next time around. That’s all I think is needed in order to hold politicians to their promises. The fact that people generally don’t exercise this option just underscores what clairobsur worte: we get the politicians we deserve. No one forces anyone to vote for the incumbent, but most people usually do. So be it.
Besides, I can’t envision a practical means of holding politicians to their campaign promises.
I agree with this completely. I remember Pres Bush getting a lot of heat for giving a massive tax break during a recession. That was a case where the situation changed, and you are right, and a promise shouldn’t be followed when the situation is wrong–quite obviously.
My beef here is when a promise is made KNOWING that it can’t be done. Imagine if the recession had already started when he made those promises, such that both parties know it can’t be kept. In that situation, where the party/politician knows it can’t be kept they should be held accountable.
Unfortunately I have no idea how to make this work. In Canada we have something called a “vote of non confidence” which could desolve parliament but its pretty rare.
I disagree that we should have to wait 4-5 years to vote the bumb out. In too many situations we have to “trust” our politicians. If they say they are going to increase education funding, they should have a plan to achieve that. Such that the promise they make should be backed up and then stuck to.
I think what it comes down to is that voters deserve more information, and specifically information that they can trust. Violation of that trust should not be tolerated, and I guess in the case of Californai–recall.
Or maybe the Canadians (just picking on them because they are the OP example) should have actually used their brains before voting and actually thought about whether it was really feasible or not.
So what do you think of the CA recall process? It was kind of circus atmosphere in many respects, but I think the end results was quite good. I have a feeling we’ll be seeing more of this in CA. I don’t have a problem with it as long as the bar is set fairly high. Otherwise, you’ll just get to a situation where every politician faces a recall as soon as the eleciton is over.
The recall was an interesting case. For this situation I can see two huge changes that would improve the situation. For my example, the recall would have to be based on a broken promise. Also, the new vote would be allow only the original parties. Its more of a re-election than a recall.
So, it would mean that the promises should be written down in a clear and undisputable form, like a contract, and courts would have to decide whether or not the promises were broken? And as a result would “impeach” the elected official?
Why so? And what if the previous challenger isn’t interested in running again, or died meanwhile?