Question

The head of some party wants to bring down the elected government.
But democracy has spoken.
What does he do?
He goes and promises positions to several people (and apparently at the same time jerked them and their family members around, threatened them, and harassed them according to some reports — and in one case even from close personal knowledge, terrible threats and harassment), and they left the government and relied on the promise that they would be placed in reserved slots.
And indeed, the government lost its majority in parliament and they are going again to elections.
That is: those given the reserved slots gave their side of the deal.
 
In his party they held primaries, and there was even a question whether to grant the reserved slots according to the judgment of their party chairman.
It was officially published that there was the majority required to grant the reserved slots, and those who left in exchange for the promise felt that everything was in order.
 
Now it turns out that this was not actually the reality, and there was no majority that voted in favor.
But that is after they published that there was…
Meaning, those promised reserved slots in exchange for leaving were indeed promised them, and it was indeed published that this was approved, but in fact there was no majority.
 
Do those promised reserved slots have a “legal acquisition” in the promise, since in exchange for it they left?
Or at least a “legal acquisition” in the fact that it was said there was a majority for the reserved slots?
Or since in reality there was no majority, there are no reserved slots and no nothing? They placed their trust in a broken reed. They deserve nothing at all?
 
(Of course, there is some history with the promiser, who is known not to keep promises, and perhaps from the outset the obligation to keep it is not really valid, since everyone knows that his promises are not like those of an ordinary person…?)