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