Prime Minister Mark Carney looks on as Governor-General Louise Arbour reads her statement in Ottawa on June 8. Canada continues to use formal honorific titles for certain elected officials and officeholders, such as the prime minister and the governor-general.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
Trygve Ugland is a professor in the Department of Politics and International Studies at Bishop’s University and author of the forthcoming book Politics of Adaptability: The Nordic Model and North America.
Canada is often compared to the Scandinavian countries, and for good reason. The similarities are striking, including stable democracies, strong welfare states and a shared commitment to international law and multilateral cooperation. Yet there is one important difference between Canada and Scandinavia that may have greater consequences for democratic life than we often realize: the continued use of honorific titles for politicians.
Canada continues to use formal honorific titles such as “The Right Honourable” and “The Honourable” for certain elected officials and officeholders. According to the Government of Canada’s protocol guidelines, these titles are granted based on the office a person holds. In some cases they are retained for life; in others, they are used only while serving in office. The rules vary, but the broader point remains: a large number of Canadian politicians are publicly referred to as “The Honourable” – a word associated with qualities such as honesty, integrity, nobility, respectability, principled conduct, uncorrupted and even being blameless. You get my point.
The justification for using honorific titles for politicians in Canada has traditionally been both historical and practical. The historical reasons are understandable, but what are the practical justifications, and are they still valid today?
Is the idea that such titles depersonalize politics and encourage civility among politicians, or between politicians and the people they represent? Is it that referring to elected officials as “The Honourable” strengthens the legitimacy of both the politicians and the institutions they represent?
I question whether these honorific prefixes still, if they ever did, serve those practical purposes in Canadian politics. My reservation is therefore not ideological, but practical. And this is where the Scandinavian comparison becomes interesting.
In Scandinavia, political culture is characterized by a striking degree of informality. Politicians are commonly addressed by their first names – even by journalists and ordinary citizens. While this informality is partly rooted in broader Scandinavian traditions of egalitarianism and social equality, its practical implications may be even more important. After all, Scandinavian politics is pragmatic and practical.
Statistical data demonstrate that Canada consistently ranks lower than the Scandinavian countries on measures of public trust in government. According to 2026 data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 51 per cent of respondents in Canada reported that they trust government, which is well below the corresponding figures for Denmark (60 per cent), Norway (61 per cent), and Sweden (58 per cent). Similarly, the Pew Research Center found in 2025 that 36 per cent of Swedes believed all or most politicians are honest, compared to 27 per cent in Canada, although both rank well above the 25-country median of 14 per cent.
There is no crisis of democracy in Canada. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that a less formal relationship between political leaders and citizens may strengthen trust by reducing the perceived distance between representatives and those they represent. In turn, this can make politicians appear more accessible, relatable and human. As a Norwegian-born political scientist who has taught Scandinavian politics in Canada for nearly 25 years, I have increasingly come to believe that this shorter social and linguistic distance benefits both democratic representatives and the broader public.
Norway's Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre speaks during a press conference in Oslo, Norway, on June 19. In Scandinavia, politicians are commonly addressed by their first names.Javad Parsa/The Associated Press
The logic is relatively simple. Citizens are generally more willing to forgive mistakes when political leaders are perceived as fellow human beings rather than elevated moral figures. Voters may react differently to errors committed by “Jonas,” the first name of the Norwegian Prime Minister, than to those committed by “The Right Honourable Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada.” Words shape expectations, and expectations shape political trust.
Honorific prefixes may unintentionally place Canadian politicians on a moral pedestal that no democratic leader or representative can consistently inhabit. When politicians inevitably disappoint, the contrast between the elevated title and ordinary political behaviour may contribute to cynicism and declining trust in democratic institutions themselves.
If Canada were to revisit its protocol guidelines – last comprehensively revised in 1993, more than 30 years ago – the central question should not simply be whether these traditions are historically justified. Rather, it should be whether they continue to serve a practical democratic purpose in contemporary Canada. Do they achieve their intended objectives? Or might a less hierarchical and more accessible political culture ultimately strengthen democratic trust?