A trust based understanding of electoral promises

The presentation introduces a foundation for a theory of electoral promises based on trust. I will elaborate how it is problematic for the legitimacy of democracy, when electoral promises remain a contested concept. Personal flaws like a shortage of skill, motivation, political competence and non-functional views based on private promises as well as faults of political institutions lead to faulty understandings. Electoral promises are a point of interest and matter of discussion especially during elections. They should inform constituents about candidates’ priorities, ideologies, objectives, and normative commitments to help the constituents to decide how to vote. A divergence of understanding between promisors and promisees contribute into disappointment of trust even if promisors act honestly. Lack of communication may indicate trust and confidence, but also predict disappointment and distrust. Functional institutions of deliberation, participation and direct democracy help to alleviate this problem. Two-fold understanding of electoral promises is warranted. Trust about electoral promises may be based on central commitments, mandates, or ideologies of political parties, but also promises of individual candidates. These often overlap to different degrees. A level of trust would be increased if politicians and parties with different preferences would collaborate and make up electoral promises together. This should increase a level of justification and an amount of trust experienced by constituents i n regard abilities of different political coalitions. This solution may conflict with preferences of candidates who wish to express firm non-negotiable commitments. A strategic purpose of electoral promises i s to secure necessary votes to achieve a political office. This sometimes complies with, but often also impairs a normative purpose based on trust to reach the most valuable outcomes. Populistic, too optimistic or pessimistic electoral promises are examples which do not propose realistic outcomes and may contribute to a lack of trust. Trustworthy promisors should ensure necessary actions of fulfillment, political consequences and benefits for recipients. The personal and limited nature of private promises does not seem to conform with electoral promises. They should establish rights, expectations and trust for larger groups of people who share preferences, but are also at least tacitly acceptable for the most of constituents. Understanding the scope, opportunities and limits of electoral promises i s a requisite for normative theory which addresses a crisis of popular justification of an institution of electoral promises and trustworthiness of political promisors. Electoral promises should make up, transform, or inform about acceptable and trustworthy claims for a political mandate. This should not establish a representative environment of servitude, clientelism or even corruption. Morally basic electoral promises based on clear relationships might translate to an improper design for political promising, which makes up a profound challenge for the construction of the institution.