KEY POINTS:
Maybe Helen Clark would be wise to revise plans to base Labour's re-election campaign on the theme of trust. Of course common sense - and political theory - suggests that voters will naturally enough reward politicians who keep their promises.
Otherwise, why make such a song and dance about who promised what and when at election time?
But Canterbury University political scientist Nathan McCluskey has analysed more than 8000 election pledges by New Zealand politicians between 1972 and 2005 and discovered the reverse occurring in practice. The more trustworthy parties become, the more likely we are to toss them out anyway.
In the 1981 and 1984 elections, National's vote share dropped, even though it had honoured 88 per cent of its election pledges. Between the 2002 and 2005 elections, when Labour fulfilled 82 per cent of its promises, its share of the vote similarly dropped.
"It seems the electorate simply tires of parties in government irrespective of what they do," said Mr McCluskey in a Political Studies Association Conference paper.
An alternative explanation might be that without an independent consumer's institute to measure and advertise a party's performance after each term in office, we voters have no idea whether promises have been kept or not, and are therefore left with nothing but our gut instincts to depend on. And they tend not to be very reliable.
Mr McCluskey writes that "research around the world has indicated that irrespective of pledge fulfilment, many, even most, people believe political parties to be characterised by broken promises rather than kept commitments". Yesterday he added that "the public consider politicians to be about as trustworthy as used-car salespeople or professional wrestlers.
"All of which lends itself to a popular impression of dishonesty and a fundamental lack of integrity which colours not only the way individual politicians are viewed, but whether the parties themselves can be trusted to keep any promises at all".
This, he warns, "causes scepticism and generates a lack of faith in the democratic nature of our politics, calling into question the efficacy of our representative electoral system".
Public scepticism and lack of faith in our political parties was hugely reinforced in the decade 1984-1993 by both the main parties in turn, introducing radical economic reforms they had not promised.
Indeed David Lange later admitted that if they'd advertised what his Finance Minister, Roger Douglas, had in mind, they'd never have been elected into office. Mr McCluskey notes this, saying parties have placed a high emphasis on keeping their election manifesto commitments.
"The breakdown of this convention by the 1984-1990 fourth Labour Government, and by National between 1990 and 1993, destroyed this unwritten constraint on government behaviour. Labour's and National's breaches of election manifesto commitments also caused internal splits within these parties, a consequent fall in their support, and a decline in political integrity."
His research showed that between 1972 and 1984, governments kept an average 80 per cent of their promises, but between 1984 and 1996, it dropped to 69 per cent. Under MMP, that dropped again to 62 per cent. Reversing this downward slide was the 2002-05 Labour Government, which, he says, "delivered 82 per cent of its key pre-election policies".
All of which is cold comfort to Helen Clark if voters don't know or don't care.
It's ironic that one of the key politicians in Labour's surprise Rogernomic policies of the mid-1980s popped up in the Herald yesterday talking down the role of promises. Promises made in opposition could prove to be mistakes when in power, he warned, damaging to the country or incompatible with other promises made.
"The real lesson is that political parties should promise less and promise things more realistic."
This is harking back to the 1984-96 period when, says Mr McCluskey, "politicians were heavily influenced by the elitist belief that it was their role to act as trustees for voters, by following policies they considered were in the interest of the country. This resulted in successive governments ignoring many of their manifesto commitments once elected".
Helen Clark, as a minister, strongly opposed the secret agendas of the Lange Government, but was greatly outnumbered. Mr McCluskey notes how, as Prime Minister, she "has carefully sought to restore faith in the mandate" of the manifesto, but says the focus might change if John Key replaces her.
He quotes Mr Key as telling him in May that "elections are not about a few policies in a manifesto ... and I personally think people vote primally. It's really about how you feel, not policies". Given the evidence, he might have a point.
