Why democracy needs peaceful power transfers to survive

Not long ago, the most potentially controversial thing about a presidential inauguration was what the incoming first lady would wear.

For most of recent history, we counted on pundits to parse the president’s speech, record the promises and listen for anything as memorable as “Ask not what your country can do for you…” There was the time a cowboy lassoed Dwight Eisenhower at his swearing-in. And while it may have seemed exciting, even that was all planned. Otherwise, in the United States, the transfer from one president to the next had been a matter of pomp, ceremony and unwavering routine.

That changed in 2021, when the phrase “peaceful transfer of power” emerged from dusty civics books to become a tension-fraught talking point.

Americans are right to cherish that peaceful transfer and to take seriously any threat to it, said Robert Preuhs, Ph.D., Metropolitan State University of Denver professor and chair of the Political Science Department.

“Peaceful transition of power is really a fundamental element of democracy,” Preuhs said. “It’s fundamental to the notion that government responds to the people, and when the people want a new direction for the country, that needs to take precedence over the individual and over partisan positions.”

When that doesn’t happen, he said, “there is an immediate decline in trust in government.” Without that trust, the country risks “a lack of adherence to norms that allow our society to function.”

RELATED: Are presidential elections bad for your health?

Civil since the Civil War

The United States has endured tense transfers of power, messy ones and what Preuhs called a “lack of cordiality” between incoming and outgoing White House occupants. But violently attempting to interfere with election results, as in the aftermath of the 2020 election, was a first in our country’s history, Preuhs said. “There has been nothing remotely close since the Civil War,” he said.

Abraham Lincoln’s 1860 election triggered Southern outrage — seven states seceded between his election and inauguration — and generated countless death threats. As trains carried Lincoln to Washington, assassination plots were thwarted in Cincinnati and Baltimore; U.S. Army General Winfield Scott, who was in charge of inauguration security, called the day “the most critical and hazardous event with which I have ever been connected.”

Our history of relatively smooth transfers of power is no thanks to the Founding Fathers. James Monroe, Thomas Jefferson and company neglected to include in the Constitution any instructions for handing over the reins of the executive branch.

Originally, ballots didn’t differentiate between presidential and vice-presidential candidates; voters simply marked the box for the two men they preferred. The predictable result was that in the 1800 election, Thomas Jefferson and his “running mate” Aaron Burr tied for first place. This left the decision of who got the top job to the House of Representatives. Acrimony ensued, and it took 36 ballots for Jefferson to finally win.

The 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, fixed that problem by mandating that electors vote separately for president and vice president.

Although the ceremony on the Capitol steps gets all of our attention, a lot of important things happen behind the scenes, Preuhs said, as one administration instructs the next in the nuts and bolts of running the vast federal government.

RELATED: What can history teach us about Jan. 6?

Ensuring a smooth transfer of power

The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 finally proscribed procedures for a smooth handoff because, as Congress noted in passing the act, disruption in the process “could produce results detrimental to the safety and well-being of the United States and its people.”

The act requires the General Services Administration to provide support services to incoming presidents. After the 2020-21 controversy, the act was amended so that if a candidate has not conceded, the transition process can begin anyway, with both sides considered an “apparent successful candidate” until the winner is determined.

The 2020 election wasn’t the first time a winner wasn’t immediately clear. In 2000, the election came down to fewer than 400 votes in Florida. Recounts and court challenges kept the outcome uncertain until Dec. 12, when the U.S. Supreme Court halted the counting, and Al Gore conceded to George W. Bush.

“That left only a month for that formal process of transmission of administrative powers,” Preuhs said. “That’s not a lot of time, when you think about the power the federal government has.”

The resulting transition was hectic, “but messy is distinct from violent” and doesn’t tend to erode public trust, Preuhs said.

Outgoing President Joe Biden has promised a peaceful transfer of power. As president of the U.S. Senate, Vice President Kamala Harris, who lost the 2024 election to Donald Trump, was responsible for certifying the election results. She did that Jan. 6.

So far, signs point to a peaceful transfer of power this time around. And that’s good, Preuhs said, because not having one “is the first sign of the fall of democracy.”