Lalit Garg
In the Bihar Assembly elections, both alliances have released their election manifestos filled with populist promises — designed more to attract or mislead the voters than to offer realistic governance plans. The nature of these promises raises a serious question: have election manifestos become the most powerful weapon in the grand festival of democracy, or are they merely electoral deceptions? Certainly, they have become a major tool to influence public opinion and win votes. But the bigger question remains — how many political parties have sincerely implemented their manifestos once they came to power?
In truth, a manifesto is supposed to be a party’s vision document — a public declaration of its ideology, objectives, and commitments. It outlines how a party intends to shape the direction of the state or nation if elected, which fundamental issues it aims to resolve, and which path of development it plans to pursue. During elections, manifestos spark fierce accusations and counter-accusations between rival parties, yet meaningful debate over their content is rarely seen — unlike in developed democracies where such discussions help build an informed and responsible electorate. Sadly, in India, election manifestos are fast losing their significance and seriousness.
In a democracy, the role of the manifesto is extremely important, for it provides voters with the necessary information to make an informed choice. It enables citizens to understand what each political party stands for, what its priorities are, and what welfare measures it proposes for different sections of society. The manifesto represents a party’s public pledge — a symbol of accountability. Unfortunately, in Indian democracy, this accountability has largely remained confined to paper. Most parties conveniently forget their manifestos once elections are over. Voters too fail to demand fulfillment of promises in exchange for their votes. Consequently, manifestos have become mere formalities and instruments of display rather than documents of commitment.
A look at history shows that most promises made in manifestos are either half-fulfilled or completely ignored. For example, the previous government in Rajasthan fulfilled only about 64% of its promises, while in Karnataka, merely 3% were implemented. These figures reveal that neither political parties nor the public treat manifestos with the seriousness they deserve. This attitude goes against the spirit of democracy, which thrives only when citizens question their representatives and demand accountability. A major problem with most manifestos is that many of the promises they contain are financially impractical. In the eagerness to please voters, parties make commitments that are neither economically feasible nor administratively planned. There is also no legal provision that binds parties to fulfill their pledges. As a result, such promises are forgotten once the elections conclude.
Looking specifically at Bihar, both the NDA and the Mahagathbandhan (Grand Alliance) have issued manifestos filled with highly attractive but unrealistic promises. The NDA’s Sankalp Patra includes pledges such as creating one crore (ten million) jobs, financial assistance of up to two lakh rupees for women, skill centers in every district, an annual honor fund of nine thousand rupees for farmers, and construction of seven new expressways. Meanwhile, the Mahagathbandhan’s Tejashwi Pran promises a government job for every family, monthly assistance of ₹2,500 for women, health insurance worth ₹25 lakh, 200 units of free electricity, guaranteed minimum support prices for farmers, and restoration of agricultural markets.
Both manifestos share one thing in common — they are highly ambitious and populist. Promises of jobs, free electricity, cash transfers, and massive infrastructure projects may sound appealing, but their feasibility remains questionable. In a state like Bihar, where resources are limited and employment opportunities scarce, such commitments are difficult to fulfill. Neither side has explained how these expenditures will be funded, which departments will implement them, or when results can realistically be expected. Although these manifestos carry an apparent intent of public welfare, they seem to be based more on imagination than reality. The real problems of Bihar — education, healthcare, migration, agricultural distress, unemployment, and lack of industry — cannot be solved merely through populist declarations. Before making such commitments, parties must carefully study their financial and administrative feasibility. Unfortunately, manifestos are now being used more as tools of political marketing rather than instruments of public service.
Voters, too, must become more discerning — not merely impressed by grand promises but aware of what previous governments actually delivered. The media and civil society organizations also have a responsibility to track post-election performance and hold parties accountable for their manifestos. Manifestos will become meaningful only when their promises are measurable, time-bound, and resource-backed. Political parties must transform slogans into concrete programs, not just catchy rhetoric. It is also essential for the Election Commission to formulate clear policies preventing parties from making impractical or impossible promises that mislead the electorate. The central question remains — should we not ensure that the promises made in election manifestos are legally and practically implemented after elections? After all, a manifesto is essentially a list of policies through which a political party expresses its intentions, objectives, and principles before the electorate. Once a party comes to power, it is expected to act on these policies. Thus, the manifesto is, in effect, a vision document — and should be treated as a legally enforceable commitment.
One can rightly say that a manifesto serves as a vital instrument through which voters evaluate the governance agenda and ideology of competing parties. Voting, in this sense, becomes a form of transaction — where promises are exchanged for trust and votes. Hence, once a party comes to power, it should be legally and morally bound to honor this social contract. Under the very social contract theory upon which governments are elected, should they not be held accountable for fulfilling their promises? The Election Commission must revisit this issue and explore viable mechanisms to ensure compliance. Undoubtedly, election manifestos have emerged as one of the most influential instruments in the grand celebration of democracy. But as long as they remain collections of lofty words without any binding commitment, they will continue to weaken the true essence of democracy. The manifestos released by both alliances in Bihar may add color and excitement to the democratic festival, but only time will tell whether they truly meet the aspirations of the people — or turn out to be nothing more than another electoral illusion. |
