Election manifestos do not sway voters. This was the overriding conclusion of a debate hosted by the University of the Witwatersrand yesterday.

Participants in the debate agreed that manifestos constituted "sound and fury signifying nothing".

One of the panelists, Professor Daryl Glaser of the University of the Witwatersrand's politics department, said that election manifestos were meaningless because they were not read or taken into consideration by the electorate. Glaser demonstrated his point by conducting a quick audience survey on how many people planned to include the Independent Democrats' 58-page tome in their bedtime reading. One person in an audience of around 200 people sheepishly raised his hand.

Glaser's argument was that a manifesto bombarding voters with a large amount of policies did not facilitate "fine-grained" choice. He said that a one-page document containing a few, specific undertakings would be more effective. He cited the Congress of the People's promise to reinstate the Scorpions as an example. Glaser added that specific commitments in a manifesto also make for useful "retrospective accountability" in the future.

Another member of the panel, political journalist Justice Malala, reiterated Glaser's point concerning the inaccessibility of election manifestos. His argument was that party manifestos do not form the basis of a voter's decision. Rather, he claimed, it is the actions and media image of a candidate that count.

Malala said that in the digital age, choices were made "on the basis of the sound bite" rather than extensive policy documents.

The third panelist, Chris Hart, a well-known economist, spoke on the economic dimension of political policy. His view was that good politics and good economics do not often correspond, but that economics always wins in the end. He said that the economic aspects of election manifestos were mostly "hot air with very little detail". The solutions offered by political parties to economic problems were often "flowery promises" that were never realistically possible, and demonstrated a deep lack of understanding of economics.

The economist went on to say that this year's election was an unusual one, as it was being contested under the conditions of a recession, which made politicians desperate. Hart's objection to the election manifestos currently in circulation was that parties were introspectively focused while they should be offering views on how to deal with the economic crisis.