Friday, January 6, 2017

The Lame-Duck President Hiatus – Unhelpful for Emerging Democracies.

by Eze Eluchie,

The disdain and odium the ‘lame-duck’ posture foisted on the occupant of an executive political office (particularly that of President) by virtue of the time lag between the election of a new candidate and the departure of the incumbent from office, often times presents a risky and fluid transitional period which if not properly controlled may lead to unsavoury outcomes. For instance, whilst the pacifist nature of former Nigerian President, Goodluck Jonathan, who conceded defeat early as soon as it was clear he had no path towards being re-elected had served to douse tension and give the incoming President a smooth path to office, ensuring a smooth ‘lame-duck’ period; on the other hand, the picturesque West African country of The Gambia, is currently in a state of political flux resulting from comments made by the President-elect and some of his supporters during President Yahya Jammeh’s ‘lame-duck’ period, after the incumbent had publicly conceded defeat, were deemed sufficiently provocative and troubling for the incumbent and his supporters, for the incumbent to renege on his earlier resolve to depart office at the end of his tenure and support the President-elect/incoming President.

In the case of the United States, the space between 8th November of the election year and the 20th January handover date has always served to facilitate a smooth transition, preparing the incumbent to ease out in peace whilst allowing the incoming President sufficient time to understudy the enormity of functions and issues to be addressed by US Presidency distinct from the euphoria of electoral campaigns. This arrangement, which had worked near seamlessly for decades, is now unraveled in a most unpalatable way, leading to the ridiculing and scaring of the exalted office of the President of the United States.

After his party’s candidate lost in the Presidential polls despite his having thrown in all the political capital he could muster into the fray, including degenerating into some uncouth language in response to now President-elect Donald Trump’s bombastic and highly unrestrained gutter approach to campaigning, US President Barack Obama was left in the very awkward situation where his successor in office had promised to virtually wipe away whatsoever legacies he, Obama, might have laboured for during his stint in the White House these past eight years.

In a bid to preserve his legacies, particularly in the areas of environmental protection/conservation and health insurance, President Obama had to resort to Executive actions which to all intents and purposes were geared to frustrating the ability of his successor-in-office to easily roll-back achievements of the Obama presidency – incredulous as it was, a US President was in effect, undermining the abilities of his successor-in-office to succeed/fulfill his electoral promises. 

Had the schism been restricted to domestic affairs, it would have been partially all well and good. Things however get murkier when the efforts to undermine the successor regime got extended to involve actions impacting on foreign authorities and Governments. From the surprising abstention in a UN Security Council vote against the State of Israel, to a scathing address, shortly thereafter by US Secretary of State, John Kerry, castigating the Government of Israel and the decision to expel 35 Russian Embassy officials and the closure of two Russian diplomatic building in the US, the outgoing administration of Barrack Obama seemed to have become hyper-active in seeking to undermine the powers and integrity of the succeeding Government of the US. The actions concerning the State of Israel had clearly been geared towards stoking ill-will against the incoming Trump administration which had promised to revive US-Israeli relationships, a relationship which had gone sour during the Obama days, and recognize Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel; whilst the Russian diplomatic face-off was clearly aimed at rubbishing the promised rapprochement Trump had assured the US electorate he intended to seek with the Russians and making any efforts by the incoming President Trump to fulfil the pledge on Russia appear at variance with common sense and the interests of the United States.

For the stature of the United States, the age old injunction never to wash dirty linen in public soon came haunting. In response to the Secretary of State’s comments against the State of Israel, in addition to the unprecedented and swift tongue-lashing of the US Secretary of State’s comments by the Israeli Prime Minister, the British Government, (yes, even the British Government who ordinarily would never utter a sound against any US position), felt emboldened enough to condemn John Kerry’s remarks. On its part, the very matured Russian response of no response whatsoever, to the extremely hasty expulsion of Russian Embassy staff and closure of Embassy premises, certainly portrayed the US presidency in poor light before the international community.

The lacuna in leadership in the White House created by the lame-duck period, made more prominent by the confusion as to who was really in charge, with the in-coming President tweeting policy statements and making pronouncements which further diminished the stature of the incumbent occupant of the US Presidency. Many outside the United States felt moved to respond more to utterances from the incoming who had a full term ahead in the White House than the out-going who with less than 2 months left in his tenure was more focused on ‘protecting legacies’ than governance; the post-election transitional period in the US presidency is proving to be a huge burden to not only the stature of the US but also to the transitional process in a democracy.

The United States has a long and well established pedigree in democratic governance and practices, and so has inbuilt institutional structures and mechanisms to withstand the affront posed by the Lame-Duck period or the likelihood of an in-coming President being publicly disrespectful and cantankerous of the incumbent out-going President. Sub-Sahara African states or others with yet evolving democratic structures might not have the patience and capacity to withstand the tension and pressure inherent in the Lame-duck period.   

Why should anybody outside of the United States and particularly non-citizen of the US be concerned about the any diminution in the stature of the Office of the President of the US? Just like the collapse of the Soviet Union, which had hitherto served as a balancing factor in international affairs and relations was a great minus for the global community; the loss of stature of an Office that personified the ideals of democratic precepts should likewise be of concern to the international community as a whole.

Soon enough, the consequences of the US having an inward-focused President with diminished global stature and respect will come haunting. Already, increased volatility in relationships between South Korea and Japan, a likely 4th Intifada, and a weakened NATO are but a tip of the iceberg of what portends to be an interesting period for global affairs and inter-State relations sequel to the self-inflicted wounds of the lame-duck period of the US presidency. 




Picture: The outgoing 44th and incoming 45th US Presidents.


No comments:

Post a Comment