Should governments be legally forced to step down if they don't fulfil their promises in a set amount of time

Question

Having a government, that before being elected, lied about figures or what it can do or achieve creates more anarchy, unrest, lack of trust, just look at Hungary yesterday!

I should have added a time limit of say 2 years or so in the question, instead of having to run the full term, but I was trying to keep the question to the point.
Sarcastic comments/answers really don't achieve anything, if we all answer the questions put here sarcastically without any input or argument, what answer or message do we get across?

Answer 1

This is actually a good question. However, it is not a simple question and there are no simple answers. I think the easiest way to go about this is to take an example.

In California, the populace was unhappy with Governor Gray Davis. So he was recalled and the voters chose a new Governor. Now recall is not the same as impeachment. Impeachment is by the congress (either state or federal depending on who is being impeached) and recalled is done by the voters.

The people running for the office of Governor made promises and many of those running had NO political experience at all. Therefore most of those promises were made in good faith. Arnold Schwarzenegger was among those running for office. Some of the items he said he would change if elected dealt with reforming the government, the increasing car taxes and so on.

He was elected. Once elected, he did get the car tax repealed. However, from that point onward, he had to fight for everything he wanted. In many cases, he ended up compromising. Some of his campaign promises went by the wayside. In essence, you could say he had lied to the populace. Yet on closer examination, what had happened was that the reality of being in office and dealing with a myriad of other representatives who were also try to live up to their promises to the people who voted for them, resulted in someone losing.

The other option, although not commonly done in this country, is the military coup. You might it find interesting to read about the one that just occurred in Thailand. Here again, there was unhappiness with one ruling group and so the military decided to make changes.

As I said when I started there is no easy answer. To just decide to make changes after a set period of time because the incumbent did not live up to their campaign promises is naive. Most politicians do not make empty promises, they fully intend to insure those promises are met, and then they meet reality once in office. Has that never happened to you? You made a promise and found you couldn't fulfill that promise? Then just imagine it happening on a larger scale.

The president wants to lower taxes. Group A agrees with him and Group B doesn't agree. Plus there are two different houses of congress with groups A & B in both. How many people is that? Then how long does it take for a bill to pass? A month? Several months? A year? Two years? So you see, running a government is not easy. For those of us on the outside, we only see portions of what really goes on day to day. My suggestion is to do more investigation into what really happens in the federal government, in your state government, and in your local government. Get involved, become proactive, investigate the issues... then you might better understand why sometimes the campaign promises remain just that... promises.

Answer 2

It's a nice idea but a little impractical, outside influences can be the cause of altering course or slowing down.

I think if they were proved to be deceitful, saying they will carry something out and having no intention to or having not looked into it's viability to the extreme first then they should step down.

They should also step down as individuals if they fail

The Greeks, it is said started democracy would fall on their swords (literally) if they failed.

Answer 3

I like the idea, but ... Take our own gov't. One party has an agenda and gets elected on it. The other party always always impeeds their progress. So I would have a hard time agreeing to this when their is such a situation where it may not be possible to fulfilltheir promises due to partisan politics.

Answer 4

That would mean total anarchy...and I don't think that's a nice thought for the future.

Unfortunately there are very (very very) few governments and politicians who can actually fulfill all they promise...

If that's what we really (realistically) expect to happen, we should go back to an outdated form of rulership.

Answer 5

If it was so, I think that many actual politicians would not have chosen this career just because they would not have been able to fulfill their promises at all. I also think that such a measure would have cleaned the world from these 'oppressors'/parasites who are keeping on sucking poor people's blood and building empires for their own profit and to satisfy their "inner circle's" desires.

Answer 6

I suppose that would depend on the country of which you are speaking if you mean the U.S.A. then my answer is are you out of your mind? they have four years to fulfill an agenda set by themselves if they can't get ther don't reelecet them now I now you will ask what about second terms or more. use your vote if your man or woman don't win maybe you better re-think your position. Reaper out......

Answer 7

If only we could, it would keep them on their toes, and stop them from making false promises they have no intention of keeping. It will be interesting to see the next package of promises during the electioneering fiasco, which will be upon us soon.

Answer 8

You cannot legally force down the maker of the laws. Only justly.

Answer 9

Are you being serious? Every government worker would be out of office.

Answer 10

Isn't that the purpose of the election process?