Making poll manifestoes matter

Every election season, India’s political landscape bursts into colour, noise and promises. Parties unveil glossy manifestos pledging jobs, free power, farm loan waivers and a digital leap in governance. Yet once the votes are counted and the euphoria fades, these documents are quietly shelved. They help win elections but rarely shape what follows.

This gap between electoral intent and executive delivery remains one of Indian democracy’s most enduring blind spots. Voters make choices based on promises, but once in power, governments face little structured accountability for fulfilling them. What if the manifesto were treated not as campaign literature, but as a governing contract – one that could be tracked, rated and publicly audited? India’s democracy has matured politically; it now needs to mature administratively by moving from election to execution, from rhetoric to measurable results.

Manifestos are meant to be blueprints for governance, but in practice they often serve as persuasive documents whose relevance ends on polling day. Once a government assumes office, there is no constitutional or legal obligation to implement those pledges — the Supreme Court has ruled that such promises are political, not legal, commitments. A 2024 study by the Centre for Policy Research (CPR), which analysed seven decades of manifestos from major Indian parties, found that while these documents are rich in vision, they rarely include measurable or time-bound targets, making systematic assessment of delivery nearly impossible.

This lack of measurable metrics creates a structural gap between aspiration and enforcement, allowing parties to make unlimited promises with minimal consequences for non-delivery. The media cycle moves quickly, public attention drifts, and opposition parties rarely have the institutional capacity to monitor fulfilment systematically.

A few civil-society organisations such as PRS Legislative Research and the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) have made commendable efforts to analyse and compare manifesto content with governance outcomes. However, their work, though valuable, is fragmented and not widely accessible to the average citizen. To strengthen democratic accountability, India needs to institutionalise manifesto monitoring as a routine part of governance rather than an occasional civil-society exercise.

A transparent system for tracking manifesto delivery could improve governance in three important ways. It would first enhance policy continuity. Governments often inherit incomplete projects from predecessors, but political rivalry means good ideas are seldom acknowledged or continued. A tracking mechanism could highlight such overlaps, encouraging continuity across party lines. Second, it would build public trust. When citizens can see credible progress reports on promises made versus outcomes achieved, cynicism gives way to confidence. Accountability nurtures credibility, and credibility strengthens democracy. Third, it would improve governance discipline. Knowing that promises will be audited can prompt parties to set realistic goals, allocate responsibilities sensibly, and align budgets with declared priorities. In essence, consistent monitoring could turn manifestos from instruments of persuasion into tools of performance management.

A workable system would require a combination of legal structure, civic participation and technology. Political parties could be required, either by law or through Election Commission guidelines, to submit manifestos in a structured, machine-readable format. Each promise could be categorised under clear policy heads such as the economy, education, health or environment, with measurable targets and timeframes wherever feasible. This would reduce vague rhetoric and encourage verifiable, data-backed commitments.

An Independent Manifesto Audit Council, modelled on the principles of autonomy and transparency that guide the Comptroller and Auditor General, could then be established to evaluate delivery. Comprising economists, policy experts, technologists and civil-society representatives, such a council would track manifesto performance using publicly available data. It could issue a biannual “Manifesto Report Card”, rating each commitment as fulfilled, in progress, stalled or unfulfilled. The methodology would be open-source, allowing researchers and citizens alike to verify its findings.

To ensure accessibility, a Manifesto Tracker Portal could be created, perhaps under the aegis of NITI Aayog or an independent civic-tech consortium. This portal could function as a “promise-to-policy” dashboard, integrating official data with independent verification. Citizens could view real-time updates on key indicators such as jobs created, infrastructure completed or health spending as a share of GDP. India already possesses the digital infrastructure for such transparency through the Digital India initiative and open-data platforms such as the India Data Portal. The real challenge lies not in technology but in institutional credibility and political will. Parliamentary committees could also play a role by incorporating manifesto follow-up into their existing oversight functions. The Public Accounts Committee, for instance, could hold annual hearings on the implementation of major electoral pledges, aligning promises with budgetary allocations and departmental outcomes. Alternatively, Parliament could constitute a Manifesto Performance Committee to undertake systematic review. Since many core governance areas – health, education and policing among them – are state subjects, State Manifesto Councils could replicate the model locally, adapting it to regional priorities and ensuring that accountability reaches the grassroots.

International experience offers useful insights. In the United Kingdom, the Institute for Government publishes a Manifesto Tracker that evaluates each administration’s progress using official data and parliamentary scrutiny. In the United States, PolitiFact’s Truth-O-Meter and Promise Tracker have made post-election monitoring part of civic culture. Across Latin America, countries such as Chile and Mexico have developed participatory evaluation systems where civil society collaborates with government audit offices to monitor reforms. India, with its scale and digital capacity, could create a hybrid model that draws on these experiences while reflecting its own democratic realities.

Studies of specific policy areas tell a similar story. For instance, a 2024 analysis of health commitments in Indian manifestos found that while parties frequently highlight public health priorities, follow-through and budgetary backing are inconsistent once in office. The pattern suggests that promises are not ignored, but that systematic delivery mechanisms are still missing. Of course, any such framework must be designed with care. Not all promises lend themselves to numerical evaluation; some are qualitative and require narrative assessment. The audit mechanism must be insulated from political interference and data manipulation. Reliable, timely and verifiable data are essential, otherwise the exercise risks degenerating into propaganda. Most crucially, citizens must actually use and value the tracker. Without public engagement, even the most sophisticated system will remain symbolic. Integrating the idea into media coverage, civic education and local governance training could help ensure it becomes part of India’s democratic culture.

It is time to bring post-election accountability into the same spotlight as pre-election campaigning. A Manifesto Monitoring Framework is not about punishment; it is about building trust. It rewards realism over populism and performance over rhetoric. If citizens can track food deliveries and train arrivals in real time, why not the delivery of public policy?

As India moves into another cycle of elections, the key question is no longer what politicians promise, but how voters ensure those promises are remembered, measured and realised. 

The author is a public policy analyst and columnist focusing on governance reform, democratic accountability, and citizen participation in policymaking.