Online Reporter
Reign Nheta
Herald Correspondent
IN recent years, the role of Executive Orders in shaping American politics has become an increasingly contentious issue.
Both former president Joe Biden and President Donald Trump have leveraged Executive Orders to make significant changes, often bypassing the traditional legislative process and raising critical questions about the use of Presidential powers.
As these two administrations traded blows through the power of Executive Orders, both Trump and Biden’s actions signalled not just policy shifts but also raised alarm about the potential abuse of power and the erosion of democratic norms.
The inaugural days of President Joe Biden in January 2021 saw a flurry of executive actions, many aimed at reversing the policies of his predecessor, Trump.
Among these were orders on climate change, immigration, racial equity, and the handling of the Covid -19 pandemic.
Yet, one of the more controversial executive orders Biden signed was the one before his exit from the White House, which also raised profound ethical and legal concerns, an order that appeared to grant his family members immunity from prosecution for any crimes committed or yet to be committed.
This executive order granting immunity to the President’s family is, on its face, an egregious misuse of executive authority.
Signing such an order is deeply problematic in a constitutional democracy.
The United States, like any democracy, is founded on the rule of law.
The Constitution prohibits the abuse of power and stipulates that no one, not even the President or his family, is above the law.
This unprecedented action by President Biden undermines the basic tenet of accountability, and it sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents.
If such action were to take place in another country, particularly an African country, more so a perceived ‘authoritarian regime’, it would be widely condemned as a flagrant attempt to consolidate power and stifle opposition.
If a president of a developing country, for example, were to use his prerogative to pardon some convicts or protect some errant elements from prosecution, critics would immediately accuse the Head of State of using his office to shield his allies from prosecution and suppress political rivals.
Western sponsored-international human rights organisations and Western diplomatic missions would undoubtedly decry it as a means of entrenching autocracy, warning that it is an open condonation for human rights abuses.
The same standards should apply to the US, where any attempt to immunise family members from criminal prosecution ought to be viewed as a violation of democratic principles.
If Biden’s order is allowed to stand without challenge, it opens the door for future administrations to similarly use their power to exempt their families from legal scrutiny, undermining the very foundation of the justice system.
On the other hand, President Donald Trump’s actions the minute he stepped into the Oval Office are concerning.
Trump’s controversial Executive Orders, are aimed at reshaping the political landscape and solidify his influence.
Notably, one of his most contentious Executive Orders involved the release of criminal elements involved in the violent January 6th Capitol Hill insurrection.
Even though many of the rioters had committed serious crimes, including causing the loss of lives and property destruction, Trump signed an order facilitating their release from custody.
This action is, without a doubt, a direct affront to the principles of justice and accountability.
The attack on the US Capitol was one of the darkest moments in American history, with five individuals losing their lives in a violent assault on the very seat of American democracy.
Trump’s decision to pardon or release the perpetrators raises troubling questions about his commitment to the rule of law. While he may have framed his actions as a means of healing the nation or protecting individuals who were allegedly “caught up in the moment,” the reality is far more disturbing. Many of those involved in the riot were not mere bystanders, but rather hardened criminals who participated in a violent attempt to subvert a democratic process.
The insurrection was not just an isolated incident, but an act of violence driven by a disregard for the democratic system. It involved a coordinated attack on the US Government, motivated by the unfounded belief that the election was stolen.
In the wake of this unprecedented assault on the US Capitol, those responsible for these crimes must be held accountable. By issuing pardons and executive orders to facilitate their release, Trump effectively legitimised the violence and undermined efforts to restore law and order.
It was an attempt to placate his base at the expense of the values that underpin American democracy.
If some African country’s leadership were to engage in similar actions, it would be labelled as an attempt to undermine the opposition, silence critics, and maintain control over the country’s political future.
The perception of such behaviour in any nation, including the US, would be that it seeks to protect perpetrators of violence from the consequences of their actions, while simultaneously weakening the checks and balances that prevent abuses of power.
In a democratic society, actions like these set a dangerous precedent, as they embolden others to exploit their positions for personal or political benefit, rather than upholding the principles of justice.
The cases of Biden and Trump exemplify the potential dangers posed by Executive Orders when used irresponsibly.
Biden’s decision to grant immunity from prosecution for his family members stands in direct contrast to the fundamental principle that no one is above the law.
Both instances highlight the risks of an executive that oversteps its constitutional boundaries, disregarding the very principles that uphold the nation’s democratic fabric.
In examining the constitutional implications of these actions, it is essential to ask whether the US legal system will allow such executive orders to stand unchecked.
The framers of the Constitution envisioned a system of checks and balances, one where no single branch of government could accumulate too much power.
If Biden’s immunity order and Trump’s pardons are left unchallenged, they would mark a dangerous departure from the idea of a government that is accountable to its people and committed to the rule of law.
Ultimately, Executive Orders like these reflect the growing tension between the Executive Branch and the democratic principles that should guide governance.
Both Biden and Trump’s actions call into question how far the Presidential power can extend before it threatens the democratic ideals the US has long championed.
If left unchecked, such Executive Orders could set a troubling precedent for future administrations, further eroding the constitutional safeguards meant to protect the people from the dangers of autocracy.
The American public and the world must remain vigilant in defending the rule of law and ensuring that no one, regardless of their position or power, is above accountability.
