Honor system during transition of power puts world in peril
Nobody is above the law — is one of the most frequently delivered quotes around the world, implying justice is to be delivered under any circumstance. But enforcement of law is not the only way we maintain order and civility in a society. There is also a whole different world beyond the jurisdiction of law or lawfulness: We call it the honor system. Our day-to-day behaviors, pursuit of normal chores and expectations from fellow citizens revolve around the honor system. That is whywe are expected not to violate certain social norms although there may be no binding law to enforce those restrictions and prosecute violators. Thus, it is only pertinent to ask how a society decides the gray line of demarcation between the honor system and the rule of law.
That question has taken a new meaning during the 2020 post presidential election period with President Donald Trump’s stubborn reluctance to concede the election and putting roadblocks in the way of the transition process — causing disruptions and sufferings in the lives of so many. Many matters of grave concern — controlling the spread of COVID-19 spread, national security, priorities of U.S. embassies around the world, planning vaccine distribution — have been in dire uncertainty. Just one person’s eccentricity put U.S. citizens, if not the whole world, in peril. The experience is unprecedented and it begs the question: how could it happen? Answer is simple — with the experience gathered over two centuries, wetook it for granted that every U.S. president is somehow made of the same gene as George Washington who voluntarily stepped down after two terms, a phenomenon truly unparalleled in history.
We continue to watch Donald Trump with distress as he regrettably turns more and more revengeful during this interim period leading up to the Jan. 20 inauguration. Mahatma Gandhi’s widely used quote “Try to be the change that you want to see around you” is conveniently transformed to “Try to be the change that serves you and you only.” This transition lasting nearly 2.5 months until the January 20 inauguration is by far the most volatile and potentially explosive when a president after losing a fair election turns belligerent against his own country under the false pretext that he has been betrayed.
With a little over six weeks left in his presidency Trump seems determined to go out while pushing through some of the more controversial policy proposals he has made since being elected in 2016. For example, on Dec. 3 the president authorized the auction of oil and gas drilling rights in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. There are credible reports that Trump was planning an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities; against his generals’ advice, he suddenly withdrew a sizable number of U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan indirectly providing an incentive for an ISIS surge; and he continues to seem reluctant to come down hard on his die-hard supporters when they make violent threats such as calling for the murder of the Republican governor and the secretary of state in Georgia for calling the election in that state fair and interference-free.
With all of that behavior President Trump revealed a vulnerable part of our democratic process that needs a cure. There is nothing in place during this period of transition to restrain a soon-to-depart president from deliberately hurting U.S. interests or carrying out acts of sabotage. The situation could turn far worse: A mentally unstable president determined not to leave office may, God forbid, attempt to stage a military coup or collude with a rival foreign power to invade the U.S. Trump recently pardoned Michael Flynn, his former national security adviser, whothen went on all the talk shows calling for a national emergency declaration and a new election.
Since our guards are down during this transition period, do we have a prompt recourse to such an act of sabotage? The country needs an appropriate leash under the binds of law to tame such a madness if such a situation ever surfaces. No other country in the developed world goes through such a long period of transition of power glorifying the honor system. It is noteworthy that the 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951 limiting the number of terms of elected presidents to only two. Simply put, we legally abolished the honor system begun by George Washington.
Very much the same way, it is imperative that we find a legally binding strategy to contain the threat of a sitting president refusing to leave office and putting the country, if not the world, in turmoil. After assuming office, President Biden, with bipartisan support and advice from legal scholars, must strive to enforce such legislation to limit the presidential power during the period of transition. A constitutional amendment, after sanity and a sense of accountability have returned to the Washington D.C., is also quite plausible and appropriate.
A century later or as early as next decade, if a self-serving, me-all, out-of-control White House occupant shows clear signs of insanity in accepting the outcome of a fair election, our nation will be thankful for imposing such a legal restraint.