Democracy is closely tied to elections, the right to self-determination, and political participation. In this context, promises made by candidates and political parties during election campaigns, while potentially facilitating the proper exercise of the right to vote, often become ineffective or meaningless due to certain electoral system flaws. These include a lack of oversight over promises or the absence of systematic monitoring of their fulfilment, which can diminish or nullify the participation of the voters and the sense of self-determination. This descriptive-analytical study, using comparative methods, addresses how Islamic political thought, in contrast to Western legal systems, can uphold and compensate for voter rights when campaign promises are broken, especially in the absence of pre-election oversight mechanisms. The study concludes that Western thought protects campaign statements under the umbrella of free speech, which at times even condones the “right” to lie with the only recourse being voters’ judgment in the next election or moral accountability, as the judicial system does not have jurisdiction over breaches of political promises. This is partly due to the principle of separation of powers, which views political issues as non-justiciable. In contrast, Islamic political thought, besides emphasizing the necessity of fulfilling campaign promises, presents multiple principles for suitable compensation mechanisms, such as preventive responsibilities and shifting the burden of proof.