Every election season, politicians flood the airwaves with lofty promises. Jobs will be created, roads will be built, corruption will vanish, and every citizen will feel the winds of change.

These pledges are sold with the polish of a marketing campaign slogans, jingles, billboards, and hashtags. They inspire hope, ignite debates, and stir emotions. But what happens after the votes are counted and the banners come down? To answer that question, it is useful to borrow a tool not from political science, but from marketing: Expectation–Confirmation Theory (ECT).

The theory was originally used to explain consumer satisfaction in the business world. The theory suggests that people form expectations based on promises, then compare them to actual performance.

If the product or in this case, the government meets or exceeds expectations, satisfaction follows. If it falls short, disappointment and even anger take root. This marketing-based lens provides a fresh way of examining the fate of political promises.

It helps us understand not only why governments struggle to satisfy citizens, but also why citizens, despite years of broken promises, keep returning to the political marketplace with fresh hopes.

Campaigns as Marketing, Citizens as Consumers

Viewed through this lens, campaigns are nothing more than grand marketing exercises. Political parties act as brands. Their manifestos are catalogues of value propositions. Citizens, the “customers,” cast their votes as investments of trust.

Just as a shopper expects a phone to match the description on the box, citizens expect governments to deliver on their manifestos. The connection is striking. When a company advertises that a product is waterproof, consumers expect it to survive a splash. When it fails, anger follows and sometimes with lawsuits or boycotts.

Similarly, when a party promises free healthcare, reduced fuel prices, or massive infrastructure projects, citizens expect those pledges to translate into reality. The trouble, of course, is that politics has no return policy. Citizens cannot demand a refund when promises are broken.

Their only recourse is dissatisfaction, protest, or punishment at the ballot box in the next cycle. Between elections, citizens are locked into their “purchase” of governance, no matter how disappointing the product becomes.

When Promises Become Disappointments

Expectation–Confirmation Theory helps explain why broken promises sting so much. It is not merely the unmet need, but the gap between what was promised and what was delivered that shapes perceptions. Take two hypothetical governments. One promises modest improvements in healthcare and successfully delivers slightly more than expected.

Citizens feel pleasantly surprised, much like a shopper whose new phone battery lasts longer than the company claimed. Another government promises to eliminate youth unemployment within four years but manages to reduce it by only 10 percent. By most measures, a 10 percent reduction is progress, yet the public feels cheated because expectations were set unrealistically high.

From a marketing perspective, this is a classic case of over-promising and under-delivering, a pitfall that destroys brand loyalty in business and political trust in governance.

In consumer markets, companies that fall into this trap suffer reputational damage, lost customers, and even collapse. In politics, the equivalent is public disillusionment, declining voter turnout, mass protests, or electoral defeat.

Managing Expectations, Marketing Reality

Governments, like smart businesses, must learn the art of managing expectations. In marketing, successful brands carefully calibrate their promises. They avoid hype that cannot be sustained and instead build long-term trust through consistency. Politicians can learn from this strategy.

One way to do this is by making realistic promises. Instead of declaring, “we will eradicate unemployment,” governments could commit to reducing unemployment by 15 percent in four years through targeted programs. While less dramatic, such promises are more credible and achievable.

Another approach is to provide transparent timelines. Companies often give delivery estimates and progress updates to customers. Governments could adopt this practice by offering quarterly reports on manifesto commitments, thereby showing citizens exactly where progress is being made. Equally important is clear communication which involves managing citizen expectations requires honesty about obstacles.

For example, if an international economic downturn affects fuel prices, governments should explain the limits of their control rather than remain silent or deflect blame. Citizens also have a role to play. Just as informed consumers read product reviews before purchasing, politically literate citizens must scrutinize promises, evaluate feasibility, and hold leaders accountable without falling for populist marketing.

Service Recovery: Politics’ Customer Care

In business, when companies fail to deliver, they often turn to service recovery strategies such as apologies, compensations, or product improvements to rebuild trust. Governments too can engage in political service recovery.

For example, when a government fails to deliver promises on large infrastructure projects due to budget constraints, it could focus on smaller but high-impact social interventions and initiatives like rural electrification, urban sanitation and streetlights, provision of boreholes, improvement in community schools and digital services. While these may not erase disappointment, they demonstrate responsiveness.

Similarly, open acknowledgment of failure in the context of ‘‘apologia’’ rather than ‘‘apology’’ can sometimes strengthen credibility, like consumers, often forgive missteps when they feel respected and informed. Populist handouts such as subsidies or sudden policy giveaways are also attempts at service recovery, though they may be unsustainable. The danger lies in using short-term appeasement instead of structural solutions.

The Democracy Connection

The survival of political promises is not just about politicians keeping their word; it is about maintaining the delicate relationship between citizen expectations and government performance. When this bond frays, cynicism grows, turnout falls, and the very fabric of democracy weakens.

In many democracies, disillusionment with broken promises fuels apathy. Citizens stop voting because they see no difference between competing brands. Others turn to protest movements or outsider candidates, hoping to find authenticity where mainstream politics has failed.

In extreme cases, chronic disappointment opens the door for authoritarian leaders who promise certainty in place of democracy’s endless cycles of unmet expectations. Seen through Expectation-Confirmation Theory, democracy’s survival depends on narrowing the gap between promise and delivery.

When citizens consistently experience negative disconfirmation, trust erodes. When they experience positive confirmation, loyalty grows not to a particular leader, but to the democratic system itself.

Governing as Brand Management

Ultimately, politicians must remember they are not just selling dreams; they are managing a brand called government or largely their political parties. Like any brand, its reputation is shaped by the delicate balance between promises and delivery.

Citizens, much like discerning customers, never forget when they have been sold a faulty product. Expectation–Confirmation Theory provides a sobering reminder: survival in governance, like survival in business, depends not on the boldness of promises but on the faithfulness of delivery.

Over time, governments that consistently align expectations with reality earn loyalty, while those that chronically disappoint breed cynicism and instability. The question, then, is not whether politicians should make promises but whether they can survive them.