The United States of America (USA) is globally regarded as a beacon of meritocracy, where justice is impartial and the rule of law reigns supreme. However, a recent presidential pardon has sparked a heated debate about partiality and its impact on judicial independence.
President Joe Biden’s decision to pardon his son, Hunter Biden, who faced federal gun charges and tax evasion allegations, has raised serious concerns. In his statement, the President justified his actions:
"Today, I signed a pardon for my son, Hunter. From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making, and I kept my word even as I have watched my son being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted. Without aggravating factors like use in a crime, multiple purchases, or buying a weapon as a straw purchaser, people are almost never brought to trial on felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form. Those who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions, but paid them back subsequently with interest and penalties, are typically given non-criminal resolutions. It is clear that Hunter was treated differently…”
While Biden emphasised unfair treatment in his son’s case, critics argue this move undermines the judiciary’s authority and sends a troubling message: presidential power can overrule the judicial system, especially when personal interests are involved.
This situation is similar to the one Pakistan faces today, where a fraudulent government installed by a powerful military establishment has altered the structure and powers of the country’s Supreme Court. The passage of the 26th constitutional amendment, done through an unlawful democratic process in parliament, has led to the restructuring of Pakistan’s judiciary, ultimately undermining its fairness and independence. This shift has resulted in the erosion of judicial independence, signaling a dangerous precedent where the head of the government holds more power than the judiciary itself—an issue that reflects the broader consequences of unchecked executive power.
Similarly, this act of Joe Biden will also encourage heads of state in countries where family members of the head of state occupy top positions in the government and are involved in corruption, unlawful activities, and criminal acts, with the belief that they will be shielded from legal consequences if the courts rule against them.
Hunter Biden had been scheduled for sentencing in two separate cases: one for gun-related charges on December 12, 2024, and another for tax evasion on December 16, 2024, where he had pleaded guilty. These charges were the culmination of extensive investigations and court proceedings. Despite this, the pardon ensured Hunter Biden avoided prison time, prompting outrage and allegations of nepotism.
This incident stirs concerns about the balance of power in the US government. Historically, political turbulence has been a recurring theme, with instances like the assassination of President John F. Kennedy reminding us of the fragility of leadership. Yet, the Hunter Biden pardon presents a new kind of disruption—one rooted in the unchecked authority of the presidency.
Countries like Pakistan, where political and military elites are increasingly seen as above the law, may view the Hunter Biden pardon as an endorsement of the idea that heads of state can override legal outcomes
Critics fear this sets a dangerous precedent. If a sitting president can pardon a family member, future leaders may feel emboldened to do the same. Hypothetically, if President-elect Donald Trump’s children are to face legal challenges during his presidency, this act could justify similar interventions.
Beyond personal preferential treatment, this decision challenges the perception of the USA as a corruption-free society. While nations like Syria, South Sudan, Venezuela, the Philippines, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and son are often spotlighted for systemic corruption, the USA is not immune. Transparency International’s 2023 Corruption Perceptions Index scores the USA at 69 out of 100, ranking it 24th among 180 countries. While this ranking reflects relative integrity, it also reveals vulnerabilities where bias can undermine governance.
Partiality, a subtle yet pervasive form of corruption, erodes public trust and compromises justice and equality. The unchecked use of a presidential pardon risks diminishing faith in the judiciary and reinforcing the perception that the law favours the powerful.
This act of preferential treatment could serve as a dangerous example for corrupt nations, especially those where leaders already control the judiciary and manipulate the legal system for personal gain. Countries like Pakistan, where political and military elites are increasingly seen as above the law, may view the Hunter Biden pardon as an endorsement of the idea that heads of state can override legal outcomes, thereby further consolidating their power and diminishing the rule of law. This creates a precedent where government leaders can leverage their positions to protect their families and allies from the legal system, fostering greater corruption and eroding democratic institutions.
To sustain a corruption-free society, the independence and integrity of the judiciary must remain inviolable. This controversy serves as a stark reminder of the delicate balance between compassion and accountability in governance. It also underscores the critical need for safeguards against the misuse of executive power, ensuring that justice remains impartial and accessible to all.
President Joe Biden’s decision to pardon his son Hunter Biden has reignited debates over bias and the balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary. While Biden defended his decision as addressing unfair prosecution, critics see it as an alarming precedent that risks undermining judicial independence. The incident also highlights broader concerns about corruption and preferential treatment in the USA, challenging its global reputation as a defender of justice. Moreover, it could provide a dangerous example to corrupt nations, reinforcing the idea that the head of state can wield power over the judiciary. Upholding the supremacy of the judiciary is essential to maintaining trust and equality in democratic governance.