Debate erupts over political promises
Tsaone Basimanebotlhe | Monday January 26, 2026 06:00
The comments, which have since ignited a heated political debate, were interpreted by opposition parties as an attempt by the UDC leadership to downplay accountability for promises made during election campaigns.
While Boko clarified that political promises must be supported by constitutional provisions and that parties are not constitutionally bound to fulfill every pledge contained in their manifestos when addressing dikgosi last Friday at Mass Media, critics argue that his position 'undermines democratic accountability and public trust'.
Boko reportedly stated that without constitutional backing, political promises remain aspirational rather than binding, insisting that governance must be guided by what is legally permissible within the Constitution. However, opposition parties were quick to dismiss the explanation, accusing the UDC president of shifting goalposts in the face of growing pressure to deliver on commitments made to voters.
Opposition leaders contend that Boko’s remarks are symptomatic of a party struggling to honour its pledges, rather than a principled constitutional argument.
They argue that election manifestos form the backbone of democratic engagement between political parties and the electorate, serving as an implicit social contract that voters rely on when casting their ballots. Leading the criticism is Botswana Congress Party (BCP) president Dumelang Saleshando, who described Boko’s comments as shocking and deeply concerning, particularly coming from a seasoned politician who understands the central role of manifestos in democratic systems.
Saleshando said political parties do not draft manifestos for ceremonial purposes, but as serious documents that outline their vision, priorities and policy intentions should they assume power. He emphasised that manifestos are essential tools that help voters make informed choices and hold leaders accountable once elected. “If manifestos were not important, I do not think political parties would go through the effort of producing detailed written promises to Batswana,” Saleshando said. “Manifestos guide governance and help parties derive policies. They are not just campaign rhetoric.”
Furthermore, Saleshando argued that dismissing manifestos as non-binding undermines the trust between political leaders and citizens.
According to the Leader of Opposition in Parliament, voters enter into a moral and political agreement with parties based on the promises presented during campaigns, even if those pledges are not explicitly enshrined in the Constitution. “If one fails to achieve what they promised Batswana, they should not try to claim that they do not have a social contract with them,” he said. “Leadership requires honesty and accountability, not excuses.”
Other political parties echoed similar sentiments, warning that such statements risk eroding public confidence in the democratic process. They argued that while constitutional constraints are real and must be respected, they should not be used as a blanket justification for non-performance.
Political analysts note that manifestos have long been regarded as a yardstick against which governments are measured, even in systems where they are not legally enforceable. In Botswana, parties regularly campaign on specific pledges ranging from job creation and economic reforms to education, healthcare and social welfare improvements. Analysts further point out that voters often judge governments based on the extent to which they attempt to implement their manifesto commitments, rather than on whether every promise is fulfilled in its entirety. As such, any suggestion that manifestos lack significance could fuel voter apathy and cynicism.
Civil society organisations have also weighed in, cautioning that downplaying the importance of manifestos could weaken democratic accountability. They argue that even in the absence of legal enforceability, manifestos carry moral weight and serve as benchmarks for evaluating performance in office.
As the debate continues, observers say the fallout from Boko’s remarks could have lasting political implications. For the UDC, the comments risk alienating supporters who voted on the strength of specific promises Whether Boko’s clarification will ease tensions or further entrench criticism remains to be seen.
However, the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) executive-secretary Ame Makoba said just over a year in office, the State President has come out and said he does not have a social contract with Batswana who voted his party into government. He accused the President of blatantly saying that electoral promises are not binding.
'Instead of being a national leader, the President seems to have taken the route of being a lawyer who will defend his client even when odds are stacked against him. He lectures the nation as though he is preparing it for a law examination,” Makoba said in a party statement.
He further said the BDP ruled the country programmatically and realistically. Makoba also explained that while they desire and still desire high wages, high allowances, high social grants, the reality of the matter is that the economy did not allow it in the past, and it certainly does not allow it.
Furthermore, he said for a fact, the ruling party knew this when they campaigned with all their promises. “The state of public accounts is known by all and sundry at all times as they are published,” he said. In addition, he said Boko and his party duped the voting public.
Instead, he said President Boko absurdly says perhaps leaders were voted for their good looks. Moreover, he stated that Boko further that perhaps voters were just angry.
“In short, he took advantage of the plight of Batswana and promised the unattainable. Batswana betsho, you are on your own. President Boko has somersaulted and says he doesn’t have a contract with you. Your vote for his pledges was but a mere act of passing time,” he pointed out.