Boko’s ‘no social contract’ words haunt UDC post-Sefhophe
staff writer | Wednesday October 21, 2026 11:57
Following the coalition's loss, some voters and members of the opposition are appearing to remind the government that political commitments carry consequences. The BCP secured 800 votes against the UDC’s 705, winning the contest by 95 votes in a result that could signal growing dissatisfaction with the ruling party barely two years after its historic 2024 election victory. At the centre of the debate is Boko’s assertion earlier this year that election promises do not constitute legally binding contracts, a position that has continued to haunt the UDC as voters grapple with economic hardship and rising living costs. Boko, who is also the UDC president, argued that politicians were wrong to describe their campaign promises as contracts, challenging the legal and moral basis of that interpretation. “It is not correct, legally and morally; even in political theory it is incorrect,” he said.
The UDC leader explained then that a contract requires a meeting of minds, known in legal terminology as consensus ad idem. Boko, who is a lawyer by profession, argued that politicians merely make offers during campaigns and that acceptance would be necessary for a contract to exist. He went further, invoking French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s social contract theory, which explores the relationship between citizens and the authority governing them. His argument, however, has done little to silence the political debate over the UDC’s campaign commitments, particularly as the government faces mounting pressure to demonstrate tangible improvements in people’s lives. Following the Sefhophe defeat, some voters reportedly expressed reluctance to support a party they felt had no social contract with them, bringing renewed attention to the president’s earlier remarks. The by-election result may be localised, but the message emerging from the ballot box could have wider implications for a governing coalition whose electoral appeal was built partly on promises of change.
For voters facing the pressures of daily survival, the distinction between a legally enforceable contract and a political promise may matter less than whether the government delivers on its commitments. Boko had also questioned the assumption that voters choose candidates primarily on the strength of their promises. He argued that electoral decisions are influenced by several factors, including a candidate’s physical appearance and voters’ emotions. He maintained that claims about the decisive influence of campaign promises required empirical evidence rather than assumptions by politicians. Now, according to some observers, the Sefhophe outcome shows that a government cannot afford to disregard the expectations they create even if election promises do not meet the legal requirements of a contract. With the cost of living remaining a concern for many households, the party’s challenge is no longer simply to explain the legal meaning of a social contract, but to convince voters that the change they voted for is materialising.
Some analysts, however, noted that BCP’s 95-vote victory does not, on its own, establish a nationwide shift in political sentiment. They argued that it offers the opposition an opportunity to frame the result as a warning to a government whose promises remain under public scrutiny. For Boko, the words he used to challenge the legal interpretation of campaign commitments have become a political burden of their own. In Sefhophe, the ballot has ensured that the debate over the UDC’s promises is far from over.