Anashe Mpamombe
The executive orders recently signed by both outgoing President Joe Biden and freshly inaugurated Donald Trump have raised significant ethical and constitutional concerns, with actions that seem to undermine the very principles they claim to uphold. When scrutinised under the lens of fairness and justice, particularly in comparison with policies often criticised in countries like Zimbabwe, these orders highlight glaring contradictions in the US’ much vaunted democracy. In both cases, the actions of these leaders appear to prioritise political advantage over the rule of law, personal accountability, and the moral duty to uphold justice for all citizens.
One of the most controversial executive orders signed by Biden exempts his family members from prosecution for crimes they may have committed. This move has drawn considerable criticism for its ethical and legal implications. The very idea of granting a blanket immunity to family members of a sitting or outgoing president undermines the fundamental principle of accountability that is crucial to the functioning of any democracy. In a country that prides itself on the rule of law, this decision contradicts the core notion that no one, regardless of their position or relation to power, is above the law.
This exemption could easily be perceived as an abuse of office, a clear attempt to shield personal interests from legal scrutiny. While executive orders are meant to address specific and legitimate national concerns, an executive order designed to protect a president’s family members from criminal prosecution raises the question: What does this say about the integrity of the office? If such an executive order were implemented in Zimbabwe, it would beloudly criticised as an authoritarian move, a blatant violation of democratic norms, and an example of political nepotism.
Similarly, Trump’s executive order to release the perpetrators of the violent Capitol Hill attack just before Joe Biden's own inauguration in 2021 further exposes the ethical flaws in the use of executive powers. The attack on the US Capitol resulted in deaths, injuries, and widespread destruction. Many of those involved were hardened criminals, some with extremist views or prior criminal records, yet Trump sought to pardon or release them through executive action. This decision has been widely condemned as a failure to uphold justice, especially for the victims of the violence.
While Trump’s executive order was framed as a gesture of “forgiving” those involved, it ignored the fact that people died during the violence, and the perpetrators committed serious crimes. The message sent by such a move is one that undermines the principle of justice and equal accountability under the law. The attack on the Capitol was a direct assault on democracy, and by offering clemency to its instigators, Trump seemed to validate such behaviour. If Zimbabwe were to take similar actions,granting amnesty to those who engage in acts violence with the potential to destabilise the country,the West, including the US, its Western allies and their Trojan Horses of civil society organisations, would condemn it as a gross violation of democratic principles and the rule of law.
When President Emmerson Mnangagwa granted amnesty to 4,000 prisoners as part of efforts to decongest the country's crowded jails, there was an outcry by critics, who apparently have gone mute with regards Biden and Trump’s controversial executive orders. Yet if it's done in US its generally viewed as democratic and constitutional.
Both of these executive orders raise serious concerns about autocracy and the abuse of power. In both cases, the executive orders serve the political interests of those in power, sidelining the interests of justice, fairness, and accountability.
However, the actions of Biden and Trump mirror the very behaviours they so often condemn in other nations. If a country with estranged relations with Washington were to implement policies favouring those in power and their allies, such as granting immunity to family members or pardoning violent criminals, the US would decry the move as autocratic and unconstitutional. When these same practices are adopted by Western governments, the development is nicely packaged as “political pragmatism” rather than a breach of democratic norms. This glaring double standard exposes the hypocrisy that underpins much of US foreign policy rhetoric.
From a constitutional perspective, both Biden and Trump’s executive orders seem to stray dangerously close to undermining the very system of checks and balances that ensures the US remains a nation of laws, not of men. The US Constitution is clear about the need for accountability, justice, and the preservation of public trust. Executive orders that circumvent these principles, whether by shielding powerful individuals from prosecution or offering impunity to violent criminals, risk eroding the public’s faith in the legal system and the integrity of democratic institutions.
The US Constitution does not grant presidents unlimited powers to act in ways that protect their personal interests or absolve others of responsibility for serious criminal actions. Such executive orders risk setting a dangerous precedent, one that erodes the notion of equal justice under the law. While both Biden and Trump may argue their actions were for the "greater good," they miss the fundamental point: governance should be about upholding the law impartially, without bias or favouritism.
When viewed through an ethical and constitutional lens, the executive orders signed by both Biden and Trump present significant flaws. These orders, not only undermine democratic principles, but they also expose a hypocrisy that is difficult to ignore. The US, in its condemnation of Zimbabwe and similar nations for actions deemed autocratic, risks failing to recognise when similar behaviours are enacted within its own government.
Ultimately, the integrity of any government rests on its commitment to justice, accountability, and the rule of law. If the US continues to implement policies that shield individuals from prosecution based on their political connections, it opens the door for autocratic tendencies. What is deemed unethical and unconstitutional for other countries must be held to the same standards within the US, and the international community must call out these inconsistencies if it hopes to promote genuine democracy worldwide.
