An interesting topic to bat about with historical  reference, me thinks. Oaths ought be included;  these are daily broken in Courts world wide and many marriages near to you -  yet it is those made by leaders that grate the most. Perhaps we can dredge up a few more from History...... and  without forgetting noteworthy Promises Kept.

How many political promises are actually in the gift of those who might make the promise and, if they are, then how many therefore contain any real worth?

By definition, any truly democratic society would by its nature therefore involve an implied "if you guys are ok with that" as a codicil to each vow, regardless of whatever promise has just left the leader's lips. On the other hand an autocratic leader who brooks no interference from those beneath them, especially those to whom the promise is being made, can therefore promise as much as they wish with complete impunity when they fail to deliver. From such people therefore the only promises one could reasonably expect them to keep are the ones issued as threats.

In most societies it is therefore a smart move on the part of the populace to interpret any stated promise from its leaders as an exercise in aspiration, however strongly asserted in the making. When those less astute are disappointed - as they almost inevitably are - upon the failure of the promise to materialise, then it is less a criticism of the promise maker (whose intentions may well have been sincere) than of the gullibility of those who believed them.

On the matter of "promises kept", and it should serve as a warning along the lines of "be careful what you wish for" when applied to the political sphere, it is worth noting that one 20th century leader in particular enjoyed a huge reputation among his people for being the noteworthy exception to the rule and an inerrant keeper of his promises, of which he made many. His ability to keep his promises only wavered towards the end of his career, a fault brought about by a combination of circumstances and, ironically enough, the fact that he'd delivered on so many previous promises along the way. His final promise, that he would elect to commit suicide in his bunker rather than surrender, was also kept.

I suppose the lawyers always put weasel words and phrases in oaths. That's their job, after all. For example, even in that most solemn of all oaths, the Coronation oath, there are a fair few loopholes. Here's one:


Archbishop: Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?


"As by law" crops up in the oath, surely a tricky phrase: the law, as we all know, is subject to change.

I suppose the only honest response, as in the marriage service, should be, not so much "I will", as: "I'll give it my best shot."

But is not the wording of the marriage vow more realistically correct? The question and response is "Will you...?" and "I will". It is not "Shall you?" ... "I shall".  The question is not couched in the predictive simple future tense, but is about a present declaration of intent concerning the unknown and unknowable future. Hence the question is really "Do you will this to be so?", ie is it your will that it should happen: do you want this to happen?, bearing in mind there's no guarantee that it is going to actually occur. Or is that just semantic nit-picking?

Oh, excellent point! I suppose that's why the "to my power" is so important. They don't include that in the marriage service.

During the First Punic War, consul Marcus Atilius Regulus was captured by the Carthaginians. He was subsequently returned to Rome under parole to negotiate a peace treaty. Regulus however, argued against peace and, despite being urged not to, returned to Carthage rather that break the terms of his parole. The Carthaginians tortured him to death.

An example of taking not breaking a promise to extreme lengths.