Of protocol and precedence

The trend today is for protocol and ceremonial to be simplified as much as possible. This is perhaps inevitable. And yet in the words of a former Chief of Protocol of the US, protocol still represents "a body of social discipline without which the encounter of princes and presidents would have little relevance. For protocol brings to the meetings of world leaders a mixture of good manners and common sense which make effective communication possible".

A dear friend of mine, who is very well-versed in such things, once went to great lengths to explain to me the importance of protocol and ceremonial. These were, he said, the lubricants that were so essential for facilitating government-to-government and person-to-person relations. Within a country also, it simplifies and clarifies certain aspects of governance and interaction with the public. His contention: protocol far transcends the trimmings and trappings of high office, that it is necessary for contacts between nations to be made according to widely accepted rules and norms and some form of planned organisation. He did animate a somewhat dry and formal subject with interesting bits of information -- the personal element -- that made it easier to grasp its essence and purpose.

Ceremonial is the "close observance of certain formalities" -- often in the nature of grandiose ceremonies publicised in the media -- while protocol is a "form of hierarchical order, the expression of good manners among nations". There is invariably a Table or Warrant of Precedence in protocol, some form of pecking order; who outranks who, and this is not as simple as it seems. Obviously a secretary to the government would precede a joint secretary and a deputy commissioner a TNO. How should one however relate military officers to their civilian counterparts? Where does the judiciary fit in? And the diplomatic corps? For such details there is some variation from nation to nation, as there are no immutable first principles. Rather the practice followed in a country, whether detailed or flexible, is based more on usage, tradition or expediency. Protocol or ceremonial can or sometimes is relaxed and this is often an expression of a desire to please or show a special courtesy. The story has been told that when the then First Lady of the US, Mrs John F. Kennedy visited the Vatican, Pope John XXIII was advised to address her as Madame la Presidente or madam or Mrs Kennedy. When receiving the First Lady, the Pope, however, spontaneously exclaimed "O Jacqueline".

The first Warrant of Precedence in Pakistan was issued sometime in the 1950s. It showed the Governor General and later the President in first place with the Prime Minister in the second category. The Office of Prime Minister became defunct after martial law in 1958 and thus became irrelevant in the Warrant. When third constitution was adopted in the 1970s, the country changed from the presidential form to the cabinet form and the then President ZA Bhutto moved to assume the prime ministership. The Warrant of Precedence was suitably amended. The Prime Minister was placed in the same top category as the President but placed after him.

The Indian Warrant of Precedence up till the mid 1950s showed the President at the top, the Prime Minister in the second category, Governors within their jurisdiction in category no. 3 and the Vice President at no. 3a. There was a change in 1957, the Vice President was moved to category no.2 and the Prime Minister moved down to category no.3. Governors also moved down one rank. My friend told me a plausible enough story behind this change which he had read somewhere. In 1950 when the Indian constitution came into force, the Governor General was Chakravarty Rajagopalachari. Nehru thought it only natural and proper that Rajaji should move to the Office of President. There was another contender though,the President of the Constituent Assembly, Rajendra Prasad. Nehru felt that both stalwarts had much to contribute and it would be difficult to accommodate Rajaji, the serving Governor General, anywhere but as President. Rajendra Prasad could on the other hand could serve as Speaker or in the cabinet. There were problems however. Rajaji had not supported the Quit India movement and Rajendra Prasad had strong support within the party notably from Sardar Patel. Eventually Rajendra Prasad was chosen and in 1952 he went on to be elected for a full five-year term. Rajaji did not leave politics but served as Home Minister after Patel and later as Chief Minister of Madras. In 1957, when Rajendra Prasad's term drew to a close, Nehru thought of Vice President Radhakrishnan to succeed him. Prasad, however, was keen on another term. By this time Patel was dead and Nehru's position in the Congress unassailable. He did not wish to overrule the wishes of his Party, however, especially when Maulana Azad, possibly his closest colleague in the cabinet told him that while Prasad on the one hand and Nehru and Azad on the other did not always see eye to eye on all issues, all three had fought for independence and served jail sentences. There was no significant mention of Sir Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, however, in the history of the freedom movement. Nehru had already the broached the issue of the presidency with Radhakrishnan and was placed in an awkward position. He resolved matters by a generous gesture; revising the Warrant of Precedence and placing Radhakrishnan above himself in protocol. The formalities of high office would seem to have weighed less with Nehru than with Bhutto.

Steeped as he was in British tradition, Nehru was only too aware that in the UK the Prime Minister was outranked not only by Royalty, which is only natural in a constitutional monarchy but also by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and even by a member of his own cabinet, the Lord Chancellor, whose emoluments are also higher than that of the Prime Minister. The Lord Chancellor's is a unique office that predates that of the Prime Minister. Sir Thomas More and Thomas Becket had held that office in days of old. Today he is the presiding officer of the House of Lords, the law minister and also the head of the judiciary.

There is no officially established protocol precedence in the US. The President of the US determines the rank of all US officials on the Precedence List. President Kennedy for example moved the Speaker of the House ahead of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. In India the Chief Justice and the Speaker are at par. Former Presidents, as in most countries, have a high place in US protocol, but how to determine inter-se precedence among them if more than one former President happens to be present? There is the "British way" and the "French way" of looking at this issue. The British would tend to give precedence to seniority or in other words the senior-most former President would precede. The French would give precedence to the junior-most former President on the ground that he has held office more recently than others. Both points of view have much to recommend them. My friend seemed to be fairly certain of his facts.He was assuredly persuasive.

In these times of summit diplomacy, there is also frequently the problem of relative precedence among Heads of State and Government. On this there is a certain broad agreement. Heads of State precede Heads of Government, Monarchs precede other Heads of State, and among other Heads of State, precedence is on the basis of the length of time an individual has been serving in that capacity. A special gesture or departure can always be made.

The trend today is for protocol and ceremonial to be simplified as much as possible. This is perhaps inevitable. And yet in the words of a former Chief of Protocol of the US, protocol still represents "a body of social discipline without which the encounter of princes and presidents would have little relevance. For protocol brings to the meetings of world leaders a mixture of good manners and common sense which make effective communication possible"