Today, as the home stretch of Ontario's election campaign begins, Conservative leader John Tory announced that he will allow a free vote after all on his controversial proposal to extend public funding to faith based schools. Many will seize on the turnaround as evidence of a "broken promise" (Tory has earlier indicated he would not put the proposal to a free vote if elected on October 10th). Perhaps this is an example of Tory having to get cozy in a bed of his making. Much of Tory's campaign has emphasized Premier McGuinty's broken promises, including most notably his "no new taxes" pledge of the 2003 campaign and the Liberal's subsequent decision to impose a new tax (the "health premium").
This all raises the question –What is the nature of integrity, ethics and accountability in political campaigning?
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, which had encouraged the “no new taxes” pledge in 2003, took Premier McGuinty to court after the health premium was passed in 2004, arguing that he had breached a contract. The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected this legal ploy, affirming the obvious, which is that politicians who make campaign promises have not created a legal obligation to do the thing they promised.
So, if legal accountability is unavailable, should politicians pay for broken promises at the ballot box? There is a natural tendency to equate integrity and honesty with keeping promises. But this is a deeply contextual virtue, especially in political contexts. There are many situations where we would encourage, and even insist on a politician breaking a promise - here are just a few examples:
1) where the promise was made based on false, partial or imperfect information (this is McGuinty's defence, by the way, as he claims the Liberals had no idea how bare the coffers were when they assumed office in 2003. Of course, this raises the legitimate question about why the Liberals made a promise in the dark in the first place).
2) where an intervening and unanticipated event alters the premise (the U.S. Government’s promise to fix social security, which loomed so large in the summer of 2001, was abandoned after September 11th)
3) where a previously unheard party voices a persuasive critique of the promise and/or a better alternative (The Government of Ontario was committed to recognizing judgments of Shari’a tribunals until the women in the Liberal caucus persuaded the Premier that vulnerable Muslim women could be exploited as a result of the Government plan).
4) where a promise proves deeply unpopular and divisive (arguably the story behind John Tory’s announcement today).
Given all the good reasons to break promises, one is lead to wonder whether the problem is making the promises to begin with.
Ethics is about judgment and integrity. Elections should be about putting people in office whose judgment and integrity we trust. The campaign culture, by contrast, puts a premium on black and white choices such as “no new taxes” or “raise the minimum wage to $10.00.” In such an environment, the electorate is left on the horns of a dilemma. The party that keeps promises even where its premise might be flawed and/or its effects might be disastrous should not be lauded. The party that breaks commitments as lightly as it makes them deserves no applause either. The result is cynicism, apathy and frustration on the part of voters.
So, what’s the answer? Perhaps, a start is for parties and their leaders to talk about their ideas, their values, and their priorities, not the specific policy they will or will not implement. Political ethics demands that those who seek public office be principled, reasonable and responsive. Rather than promising not to break their promises, it is time for politicians to stand up and promise not to make them.