Judicial Power and Political Influence: Exploring the 2020 Election Petition
The 2020 election cycle saw one of the most divisive political moments in recent history, not just in the United States but in the world. In most nations, elections are the bedrock of democratic rule. But when there are disagreements, the judiciary is the decisive arbiter, charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the rule of law holds sway. The 2020 election petition processes shed light on both the strengths and weaknesses of judicial power under intense political pressure.
The Judiciary as the Final Arbiter
In democratic countries, courts are typically the ultimate institution for resolving election disputes. Their authority rests on public confidence in their objectivity and integrity, and hence in the fairness of their judgments. In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, multiple lawsuits were filed contesting the electoral process and outcome, particularly in key battleground states. State and federal courts, and even the U.S. Supreme Court, were called upon to consider claims that varied from voter fraud to constitutional transgressions.
Significantly, against the backdrop of the highly charged political atmosphere, the judiciary by and large abided by ideals of law rather than political leanings. Judges — many who were appointed by Democratic and Republican administrations alike — in dozens of cases denied claims on grounds of lack of sufficient evidence or for procedural flaws. This further asserted the judiciary as a defender of constitutional order as well as democratic processes.
Political Influence and Public Perception
But the 2020 election also showed the judiciary's susceptibility to political pressure, particularly the perception of the public. Regardless of working mostly independently, courts were blamed for partiality in a torrent of media accounts and political discourse. Political figures from all sides attempted to frame unfavorable choices as politically inspired, disregarding judicial objectivity.
This dynamic exposed a basic vulnerability: the judiciary's power is finally symbolic and dependent on public trust in its legitimacy. Unlike the executive or legislative branches, courts lack their own enforcement mechanisms. Their rulings are complied with primarily because the public, political leaders, and institutions defer to them.
Election Petitions in Other Contexts
Beyond the United States, election petitions in countries like Ghana, Kenya, and Malawi have demonstrated similar tensions between judicial independence and political influence. For example, Kenya’s Supreme Court annulled the 2017 presidential election due to irregularities, a bold assertion of judicial authority that was both praised and criticized. Similarly, Malawi’s judiciary overturned a disputed election in 2020, leading to a rerun that strengthened democratic norms.
In both cases, the judiciary's decision was critical to either affirming or undermining democratic legitimacy. But the two cases also demonstrated that judicial integrity comes at a price — political revenge and even threats to judicial independence.
Lessons of the 2020 Election Petition
The 2020 election petition saga serves the following lessons:
1. Judicial Independence Must Be Upheld: An independent judiciary does not materialize overnight; it relies on strong institutional assurances and a culture of deference in the legal process.
2. Transparency Enhances Legitimacy: Courts with transparent proceedings and publishing reasoned judgments openly are more resilient to political criticism.
3. Public Education is Critical: Citizens must be informed about the role of the judiciary in adjudicating election disputes in order to counter misinformation and cynical commentary.
4. Political Pressure Resilience: The courts must be resilient to outright political pressure and even more insidious influences, focusing their attention on the law and evidence.
Conclusion
The 2020 election petition procedures demonstrated the essential function of the judiciary in protecting democratic integrity. Albeit with enormous political pressures, courts generally prevailed in their role through professionalism and adherence to the law. However, the episodes also revealed vulnerabilities, most notably in terms of public trust and political narratives. In the future, we need to bolster judicial independence and educate the public regarding the judiciary's significant role in democracy so that courts continue to be bulwarks against authoritarianism and custodians of constitutional governance.
blogpay
Total Comments: 0