Whilst it is perceived as the compulsory uniform of politicians to wear a suit, he always wears a monochromatic set of dark colored trousers paired with dark coloured long sleeves shirt. Asked when he would wear a suit, he answered that when his country's war with a much bigger country is over, he will wear a costume. His answer conveys a truism easy to miss. In hard times, clothes have sometimes been a bridge between believers (in say, victory) and unbelievers. In all other times, sometimes in our clothing, we are minded to juxtapose the clergy and the laity and to differentiate between the sacred and the worldly. Consider this: the leaders of some of the world's largest religions (Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism), ordinarily wear a cassock, or robe or gown, or unstitched cloth that typically features loose styles and long hemlines. They dress like this against how their flock, who during religious services, wear anything deemed modest, but which is not a cassock or robe or gown or unstitched cloth. I have often wondered if the point of this differentiation is to get us to reckon with the possibilities of our own uniqueness even during worship services.
Now that we dispensed with suits for some of the believers who wage peace and faith, can we find suits somewhere else interesting? It appears to me that we can't. In a secular context, the “black tie” requirement in a party invitation means that the event is the most formal of functions. Here again, a suit, even one which is black or is a three piece is unacceptable. At a minimum, a black tie ensemble must consist of the following: a tuxedo, which is a black, single breasted, single button jacket, with lapels that point upward, and black pants that have a silk stripe on the outside seam of each leg. Mark that, the jacket and trousers are not a suit.
