On Election Manifesto: A bag of hope or a bundle of lies?

On Election Manifesto: A bag of hope or a bundle of lies?

Dr. Khimlal Devkota

Political party manifestos are considered an important basis for democratic competition. In theory, a manifesto is a formal public commitment to the party's ideas, policies, priorities, and programs it intends to implement during its next term. A manifesto should guide voters in deciding who to vote for. But in practice, especially in our context, there is a widespread feeling that the manifesto has not been able to fulfill its original purpose.

The long-term policy guidelines for the state are clearly specified in the Constitution of Nepal. The 13 state policies and 96 programs mentioned in the Constitution are the basic guidelines for running the state. In this sense, the Constitution itself has taken the form of the "official manifesto" of the state. The Constitution has already determined the basis for the direction the state will take, what kind of economic, social, cultural, and political development it will undertake. Therefore, political party manifestos should also be refined, implementable, and prioritized based on this constitutional direction.

But in practice, this does not seem to be the case. Party manifestos have become a tool for electoral competition rather than a strategic document coordinated with constitutional state policies. In many manifestos, immediate popularity and vote-grabbing promises seem to be more important than long-term policy coordination. As a result, manifestos have become a list of political assurances rather than a responsible roadmap for state governance.

Public interest in manifestos is also very limited. A few days before the election, manifestos are made public, there is some intellectual debate, and there is discussion in the media, but after the vote, the document is almost forgotten. Even during election campaigns, the culture of debate or campaigning on the basis of manifestos is not strong. Voters have also not developed the practice of voting after comparative study of manifestos. Thus, manifestos have become nothing more than intellectual discussions or formalities, failing to become the real basis for political decisions.

One of the main reasons for this situation is the lack of mandatory responsibility for the implementation of manifestos. Even if parties make impossible or impractical promises, there is no institutional review or evaluation system for them. Even if most of the programs written in the manifesto are not implemented after winning the election, there is no clear provision for political or legal liability. This has made manifestos more of a promotional document than a responsibility.

The situation could change if a tradition of regular “audits” of manifestos were developed. Audits are not just financial audits, but also evaluations of the implementation of promises. Parties are more likely to be held accountable if there is an independent body that publicly evaluates the progress of the programs mentioned in the manifesto within a certain period after the election. Such a system can be developed with the joint participation of parliament, civil society, the media, and educational institutions.

International experience shows that in developed democracies, manifestos are considered to be a basic contract of governance. For example, in the United Kingdom, the manifesto of the ruling party is considered a legitimate basis for the implementation of government policies. Many bills are introduced in parliament based on the commitments mentioned in the manifesto. Voters also constantly review election promises.

 

Similarly, when a coalition government is formed in Germany, the parties conclude a detailed “coalition agreement,” which is a practical version of the manifesto. It clearly states the implementation schedule, resource management, and responsible body. Therefore, manifestos are not just assurances but rather agreements on policy implementation.

In the United States, election promises are also a major topic of public debate. Media and research institutions regularly publish fact-checks and progress assessments of promises before and after elections. This strengthens political accountability.

Efforts to reform are also evident in Asian democracies. In India, the Supreme Court has expressed concern about excessively unrealistic or vote-swinging promises in manifestos and has recommended regulatory measures to the Election Commission. Although full regulation remains a challenge, the debate on the accountability of manifestos seems to have reached an institutional level.

These experiences provide a clear lesson—manifestos are effective only when three conditions are met:

First, the manifesto must be realistic and resource-based.

Second, there must be a public monitoring system for implementation.

Third, voters must make the manifesto the basis for political evaluation.

In the context of Nepal, reform can begin with the mandatory alignment of manifestos with constitutional policy. There can be legal or institutional guidelines for parties to prepare their manifestos based on the 13 policies and 96 programs outlined in the constitution. This ensures long-term policy continuity.

In addition, a system of manifesto audits—such as annual progress reports, mandatory parliamentary reviews, and independent evaluation commissions—could be established. Universities and research institutions could also prepare manifesto implementation indices.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of a manifesto is not only the responsibility of the party or the state, but also a matter linked to the political culture of the voters. Unless voters make the manifesto the basis for their votes, the chances of parties becoming serious are limited.

In this sense, a manifesto can be not only a formal document of democracy but also the basis of accountable governance. But for that, coordination with constitutional guidelines, an implementing Institutional audit, and an informed voter culture are essential. If these three elements are strengthened, the manifesto can become a real governance roadmap, not an intellectual luxury.