What’s in a former name

I felt it necessary therefore to delve into the difference between the ‘Office’ vs the ‘Office holder’ simply because our institutions and public offices are based upon a number of essential parameters and protocols that must be respected, even if we may have less respect for the individual holding such office. We must be reminded that personalities change with change of Governments, retirement, removal, etc. However, the dignity of the office remains. For example, we have grown quite accustomed to treating our political representatives with a measure of scant courtesy, particularly if they are not representative of our particular political organisation, and further, if they may have been removed from office, either by an election defeat, or by a reshuffle. The fact remains, such persons who offer themselves for political office, do so at great risk to themselves and their families. Perhaps, I agree, some do so for their own selfish aggrandisement; however, those are usually quickly identified and ‘made out’ as we say colloquially. Further, I also agree that quite a few of these personalities present themselves in a less than dignified manner, as such, attracting the response they receive. In some instances, we tend to begrudge the ‘trappings associated with high office’ based on our personal opinions of the office holder, which in essence is not the correct thing to do, as we must always be cognisant that the office holder is transient, whereas the office remains.

Those aside, many of you have reached out to me seeking confirmation of the form of address for former office holders. We have grown quite familiar with the media in the United States referring to former office holders as ‘President Clinton,’ ‘Secretary of State Clinton,’ ‘Mayor Guiliani,’ etc., with the former holders claiming the continuity of the title. As a result of this, it has become common place for this practice to be recognised as being the norm, from a media perspective. In Trinidad and Tobago, however, we do not refer to the former office holder by their former titles, unless the office holder possessed a honourific title previously [Major General John Doe], that they hold with them.

The aforementioned practice of former office holders in the United States being addressed with their former titles is debatable, as one school of thought, coming from Mr Robert Hickey, of the Washington School of Protocol states:

Former officials who hold a position of which there is more than one at a time – retired judges, retired ambassadors, retired generals, retired senators, retired bishops etc – use their “title” in every situation for the rest of their lives. But officials of which there is only one at a time (The Governor, The President of the United States, The Speaker of the House, The Secretary of State, The Surgeon General...) don’t continue use of their former title.

In Trinidad and Tobago, former Senators and Parliamentarians revert to being addressed as ‘Mr, Ms, Dr or Mrs.’ In media circumstances, the title is attached with the term ‘Former’. All of this, of course, is based on whether the office holder does not have another title attached to their names previous to entering public office. The guiding principle states that the current office holder is afforded the full range of courtesies and precedence, and the former office holder is no longer afforded the full range. Whilst understanding this formula, we must also take into cognisance, the contribution made by the former office holder.

I would suggest, to assist and support our office holders both past, present and future, to always operate with the levels of decorum representative of your office. You must respect your office, just as much as you would wish to be respected.