It is known that elected representatives step down when gross/complete failure of their responsibility occurs. Like owning up responsibility in accidents caused by negligence.That is in proper spirit.

However has there been at any time in democratic history an elected representative or a group/party stepping down after non-completion of works/tasks promised in the manifesto ahead of his term of office? Of course it would be a disadvantageous gullible act of idealism on part of the legislator.

Can such a provision ( continuation of office linked to MP's performance ) ever be built into the Constitution a priori in order to exercise a powerful control by the people/electorate to check on non-performing electees?

The question arises with voters who have waited for too long with frustration as representatives do not deliver what is expected of them in time ... thereby failing to discharge accepted manifesto commitments.


Any service ordered on taxpayers' money by government, on itself or another service handler, should be actually performed. Else it tantamounts to giving out free holidays.

Why does not government act to assess legislative services received in return ( when not returned in adequate measure) to take remedial measures?

Why should the electorate be indifferent to such a crucial legislative deficit in execution? i.e., executive deficit in legislation?

  • 2
    I've voted to close this as unclear. Jan 10, 2019 at 19:36
  • 3
    +1 for making me look up "demit/demitting" - I was thinking maybe it was an Urban Dictionary term related to Mitt Romney. Jan 10, 2019 at 19:52
  • @DrunkCynic this is correct. Title has no question. The two supporting questions are contradictory in that one is asking for voluntary removal and the other asking for an involuntary removal process. The question appears to be UK specific, but is not tagged as such.
    – David S
    Jan 10, 2019 at 20:17
  • 1
    In the title I implied a forced removal by provision of an article of Constitution.. that has yet to be put into place; it is assumed that "expulsion" is too strong for an elected member of honor.
    – Narasimham
    Jan 10, 2019 at 20:48
  • 1
    What country? The question is unclear Jan 10, 2019 at 20:53

2 Answers 2


A rule like that would take decisions out of the hands of humans and into the "hands" of a piece of paper written months or years before they are enacted. So why would you need representatives any more, you'd have elected a manifesto.

In a way that happens with ballot proposals which take power away from elected representatives and directly into the hand of the voters. But there are limits to what ballot proposals can do -- it is too easy for the voters to vote I want my cake and eat it, too. Notably, few places put the budget up to a direct vote. Much easier to vote yes or no on the legalization of previously illegal drugs. That's a clear question.

For a current example, take Brexit. There seems to be no majority for remain, and no majority for hard Brexit, and no majority for any specific deal. A representative who ran on remain might now have to support a deal over hard Brexit, or vice versa.

  • Thanks for this answer, I like it. In instances when one legislator has to stand alone against direct or vested interest of the remaining legislators they should be out, leaving it to the President/ Governor to take on temporary /routine administration while the democratic process continues with new initiatives.
    – Narasimham
    Jan 11, 2019 at 5:42
  • 2
    @Narasimham, I'm not sure what you mean exactly. But it is the duty of every legislator to apply his conscience and princples to any new problem that comes up, even if that means standing against former friends.
    – o.m.
    Jan 11, 2019 at 5:45

Technically what you are referring to is a Recall Election. It legally exists only in a small number of countries and in any of them it has certain limits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_election

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .