Manifestos are an old tradition where political parties establish ‘contracts’ with the electorate. As the August polls approach, parties have launched or will be launching their manifestos. 

Azimio-One Kenya released its manifesto to the public recently while Kenya Kwanza is exceptected to do the same on June 30.  

The Azimio manifesto was full of promises they intend to work on if they form the next government. However, like in many other previous manifestos, the plan had no much freshness in ideology. Politicians or parties have the tendency to give promises that are vague and full of the same old issues that the past regimes failed to fulfil. Besides, some of the campaign promises are nothing but slogan to win the heart of voters. Campaigning is about making desirable promises according to the expectations of the voters. 

A closer examination of the campaign promises shows the presidential aspirants are recycling perennial election promises that they or others have used in the past battles for the top office. One would be tempted to ask what is so unique in the documents that warrants the attention of voters? Why? Because politicians renege on their promises and there is no one to ask how they used the resources at their disposal.

We all need to ask, do voters really analyse and critique manifestos? Do they read and vote on the basis of their content? Manifestos are hardly read by voters and most parties are not confined to the document in making policy statements after winning. It only works as a guiding force during election season. Manifestos have long stopped being serious documents of parties in this age of politics of alliances. They have dwindling relevance to the overall electoral process and this call for serious analysis of the documents. 

Kenya like in many African countries; people vote against the government of the day on tribal affiliations and not for what they are promised in writing. This is why it is so easy to be glib in a manifesto. It does not make much difference on the ground whether a political party has a manifesto or not. 

There is no doubt that manifestos are useful tools in electoral politics. Outlining party promises during the election period offers an entry point for people to understand party intentions and for voters to make informed decisions. 

Therefore, manifestos can be considered as a cornerstone for electoral democracy. Since the advent of multiparty democracy in 1992, parties have been issuing manifestos to woo voters. However, every election, voters are always disappointed by the leaders they elect when they take stock of their leadership after five years’ tenure. 

A manifesto should serve as a monitoring device. That is, when the incumbent party fails to address certain promises in their manifesto, it should be easy to hold them accountable. However, this is not the case as most parties seem to design the documents as a formality, a recurring ritualistic element of electoral campaign. When it comes to delivery, challenges arises and the promises end up being broken. For instance, outgoing ruling Jubilee Party promised to construct five state-of-the-art stadia in five counties and create 1.3 million jobs annually to the unemployed youths but did nothing to fulfill the promises. 

The question is how serious should election manifestos be taken? While parties are not legally obligated to fulfil promises contained in the manifesto, there is a need for parties to be compelled to indicate the rationale behind a commitment as well as the capital or resources needed to meet certain promises. 

Parties should not make promises that vitiate the purity of the election process or exert undue influence on the voters in exercising their franchise. Given manifestos are explicitly worded documents, there is a need to make voters more aware of its contents to help them make more informed choices. 

There is need for rigorous discourse on manifestos to stop the trend where they continue to be overlooked as a tool for promoting accountability.

—The writer is a communication practitioner