Why do political candidates break their promises when they get in office?

Answer 1

It is a popular misconception that politicians always break the promises they make when elected to public office. There is little evidence to support the idea that politicians fail to keep most of their election commitments, especially in nations where parties produce concrete election manifestos. According to independent analysts at the Tampa Bay Times, US President Barack Obama has either kept or is in the process of realising 59% of the promises he made in the 2008 federal election campaign. A further 14% of the 500+ promises he made were partially realised; only 16% of his promises were actually broken, whilst one in ten were stalled, either by the President or the opposition. This represents a success rate of 73% for President Obama in office - other politicians have comparable success rates, though there are outliers either way.

It is important to remember that opposition parties and critical media outlets have a vested image in making incumbent politicians look like promise-breakers; this wounds their political credibility and makes it harder for them to win re-election. It is important to always be mindful of where criticism of public figures is coming from; politics is an emotional business and every person or organisation engaged in it has their own vested interests in the success or failure of different political leaders.

Having said that, it is an inevitability that public office holders will break some of their promises to the electorate. There are a number of reasons why this might be the case:

• Practical impossibility: it is often difficult to judge what exactly is possible in office until one is elected, particularly when it comes to spending commitments. What seemed like a good idea on paper may not be workable in reality, forcing candidates to abandon a pledge.
• Lack of political will: a policy one candidate or leader is passionate about may not be so enthusiastically received by others in their party, or in the civil service. In these circumstances, it may simply be too difficult to find support from other politicians for the policy.
• Lack of political authority: in political systems where executive and legislative (law-making) powers belong to different people, it may be difficult to get one branch to do what the other wants. For example, if the President (executive) is from Party A and wants to legalise gay marriage, but Party B controls the legislature, Party B can stop the President from implementing Party A's policy, because only the legislature can change the law in such a big way.
• Popular opposition: policies may become unpopular over time, leading to their abandonment by politicians. Simply because a candidate or party won an election does not mean the voters liked every single one of the policies they campaigned for.
• Compromise: it is often necessary to find a middle-ground in politics. Parties and candidates want the reforms they make to last as long as possible; this often mandates that they reach a compromise with other parties to ensure their reforms will stay once they leave office. This can result in some election promises being abandoned.
• Incompetence or failure: some policies can be difficult to translate from paper to reality. It is not uncommon for ambitious reform programmes to be poorly managed, badly implement, become inefficient and/or run over-budget. In these circumstances, it is often better for everyone involved to abandon the policy completely rather than try to salvage reform with further reform.
• Change of circumstance: politicians are usually expected to serve in office for close to half a decade per term. Circumstances can change, and solutions that may have worked for problems at the start of a term may not be as effective at the end of it. Similarly, candidates may over-estimate how much time they have and under-estimate how much effort is needed in office, forcing them to abandon or delay some commitments to a second or even third term.
• Electioneering: in some circumstances, politicians or parties may make promises they know they are unlikely to keep in order to increase their chances of winning public office. Many candidates for public office understand this is an unwise move, however; a politician is more likely to be re-elected and to be remembered fondly if s/he keeps his/her promises to the electorate. Electioneering in this way is not necessarily malicious or selfish, either - many politicians take the view that it is better to have the chance of implement most of your programme than none of it, and so may be willing to make populist but difficult-to-keep promises so they can get elected and implement the rest of their election platform.
• Corruption: every class of people has its bad eggs. There are sadly those who are involved in politics for all the wrong reasons, who may be content to blatantly lie to the electorate and go back on commitments once in office.
• Human error: politicians are people, and people break promises all the time, often without wanting to. Every Human being makes mistakes.

Answer 2

Political candidates may break their promises for various reasons. One reason is that they may face challenges in implementing their proposed policies due to bureaucratic or legislative constraints. Additionally, candidates often make promises during campaigns to appeal to a broader audience, but once in office, they may prioritize different concerns or face changing circumstances that make it difficult to fulfill those promises. Finally, the political landscape and dynamics may change after the election, leading candidates to change their positions or compromise on certain promises.