Let's reserve the title 'president' to one person in the country

________________

OPINION

By Abbey K. Semuwemba

Friends,

I know it isn’t against the Ugandan constitution, but I find it pretentious or some kind of self-aggrandisement when a leader of a political party or some business calls himself ‘president’. I think we should leave this title to the head of state. To address someone who isn’t president as “President” is technically disrespectful to the person who’s currently “President.”

Generally speaking, some party supporters are toadying cowards, grovelling at the feet of someone so egotistical that he requires all of the people kissing his ass to refer to him as “president” even when he is not the president. Of course, for someone like Kyagulanyi aka Bobi Wine, who has always misunderstood the role of a party president, it's more than just personal respect. To him, it's a title like king or emperor. Even though he has no real power, other than that given to him by supporters, he continues to call himself ‘president’.

He once told the press after the 2021 elections,’’ yenze president ebyadala,’ meaning, ‘I am the real president’. He sees himself as the legitimate president after the alleged rigging in the 2021 elections. Giving him the title of President is stroking his ego, it certainly does not need to get any bigger, but the more people call him President, the worse he becomes (if that is possible).

MPs should designate a title for party leaders, but they shouldn't be called presidents - it weighs down the national office.  If one is president but you don't agree with their presidency, atleast address them as 'Mr' - the respected Kiiza Besigye, now in prison, often does it with Museveni.

I also think that former presidents shouldn’t be called ‘president’ – we should call them ‘Mr’ or whatever. “President” is a position, not a title. Once you are no longer a President, you don’t keep on being referred to as the President since someone else now holds that position. The standard convention is that if you acquire an honorific, you use it until it is replaced with another one. For example, imagine the former and present president in the same room at the same time. Only one of them has the power of executive order. Only one of them is a chief commander. Only one of them is a president.

In a proper democracy, one would disdain to allow anyone to call them by a title to an office they did not currently hold. But I don't think a lot of Ugandans ever got over getting rid of the aristocracy. I think there's a certain level of boot licking most of the population seems to like.

The American Custom, not their constitution, has it that a president has earned the title ‘Mr. President’ for life and is usually referred to as such long after he leaves office, but I disagree with it. That form of address is wrong because there is only one holder of that office at a time, and the title goes with the office. Former presidents are just private citizens, just like me, only with a much cooler resume. It is officially proper to address them by name. Unofficially, protocol isn’t really a big deal to most people in the US, given that they’re technically and officially a classless society where all persons are created equal.

Some compare it with military ranks; if you leave the military as a colonel or a lieutenant-colonel, you are a colonel for the rest of your life, but that is not quite the correct way when it comes to the presidency.

Titles are usually kept, even after losing the position (and you aren’t stripped of the title). For example, the king of England is “His Majesty, King of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms”. If he abdicates from the throne while living, he retains the title of “Her Majesty” but no longer has the qualifier “King”.

Therefore, the ‘title’ that has been instilled to go with the position is the generic title of “Mr”/”Ms” as a nod that anyone could potentially be a President. It is correct to address them as simply ‘Mr.’ or ‘Mrs’ or ‘Ms’ - and then their surname. I have heard people refer to an Attorney or Engineer and then the surname - It is silliness in my opinion. I have never heard of anyone referred to as ‘parking attendant so and so or ‘grocery shelf stacker so and so. We should really stop this, please.

Origin of the term

The term ‘president’ has a history. It was first used in academic and scientific organisations in the 1660s. There was no other national president before the United States (US) created this office in 1787. It was, however, a title that was used for the man who presided over Congress, beginning in 1774 with a man called Peyton Randolph, from Virginia. The word itself means, from Latin, to sit before. That idea was transferred to the elective office that we call the presidency.

There was a lot of discussion as to the correct form of address during the first US administration. The Founding Fathers had some lengthy discussions about whether the President should have a title like "His Majesty," “Presidential Majesty,” “Highness,” and so on, and decided that such titles would be too reminiscent of the monarchy they were leaving behind, but that he should have some title of respect. So, he is called ‘Mr. President’. George Washington insisted on the title "Your Excellency" while he was in office.

In official settings, such as during speeches, meetings, or congressional sessions, the title "Mr President" is commonly used. However, in more casual or personal interactions, the president may be addressed by their first name or other titles, depending on the context and the relationship between the individuals. Oddly enough, it was President Truman who was a big stickler for “Mr President” even among old friends.

The US does not use formal titles for its governmental officials. Judges are formally addressed as Your Honour, but only as a courtesy, not law. It’s often the same with retired generals or other high-ranking military officers, or retired judges, etc. — referring to them by their former titles as a sign of continued respect.

The press agents for some former US presidents have negotiated that the term will be used to refer to the person during interviews or events. Such an item was negotiated for the Trump/Clinton debates, where she would be referred to as Madame Secretary even though she was not entitled to that honorific, which went with the office holder.

The press also likes to use this as a dig against ex-office holders that they like versus the ones which they do not. Example: during the 1976 presidential campaign, some elements of the press continually referred to Jimmy Carter's opponent as “Governor Reagan,” a post he no longer held.

The bottom line is that the president is an individual. He or she, when that happens, comes to the office with their own personality, beliefs, and wishes for the country. These things are what got them elected, hopefully, and not that they were the lesser of two evils, as has happened in recent elections.

The presidency, on the other hand, transcends the person. It is the highest office to be held by any citizen. As such, though we sometimes disagree with the president, we should strive not to disgrace the presidency.

I cannot stress enough how I believe that even if the man is flawed, it does not make the appearance of the office of the president tarnished. Presidents come and go, but the office will remain and should remain conceptually incorruptible.

The writer is a Ugandan living in UK