Language And Politics
BELKACEM BEN RABAH REBHI
Interpreter at Daewoo Engineering & Construction Co.,Ltd.
LANGUAGE AND POLITICS
1. What is the Language of Politics?.
2. What is Political in Language.
II. Linguistic Features in Political Speeches.
1. Characteristics of Political Language.
2. Types of Political Discourse.
III. Who Writes Political Speeches.
IV. The Power of Political Language..
1. The Manipulation of the Public Opinion.
A. Hitler’s Persuasive Methods.
B. Barak Obama’s Powerful Speech Techniques.
2. Algerian Political Language.
A. The Most Powerful Speeches in the History of the Algerian Politics.
C. Overview on the Structure of the Algerian Government
D. Historical Background on Language Conflict in Algeria.
I. Language and Politics
1. What is the Language of Politics?
Language and politics are inevitably overlapped notions, simply because any political activity requires a language whether be it in an oral or written form to successfully obtain the attention of citizens under which the power is exercised (Gelabert, 2004, p.1). This function of language as used in politics has been studied and discussed across history by numerous scholars of many fields. That is to say, it is highly important that it attracted the attention of philosophers, political scientists, linguists to sociologists and anthropologists for hundreds of years.
Despite the fact that political language is a multidisciplinary field of study, the large number of the philosophical approaches as well as the angles from which the analysis of this study takes place, there still though one conformity on the value or the importance of language in politics. Based on that supposition, in Gelabert (2004, p.2) it is mentioned that each of (Beard 2000; Bell 1988; Brockway 1965, Fairclough 1989, 2000; Gastil 1992; Lakoff 1990, 2000; Wilson 1990) have stressed on the inextricable relationship between language and politics. In addition to that, language should not be seen as a decoration to the political behaviour, but instead, it falls directly in its essence, and it is obviously inseparable from politics. Hall (1972, p.51) in Gelabert (2004, p.2) argues that “The basic element of politics is quite simply - talk –”, the same as Lakoff (1990, p.13), in other words claims that “Language drives politics and determines the success of political machination. Language is the initiator and interpreter of power relations. Politics is language”.
Taking a good care of the linguistic behaviour and the right choices of words became the main interest of politicians especially during the electoral campaigns as noticed by Geis (1987) in Gelabert (2004, p.2). Even long time after being elected, language will still be preoccupying an exceptionally large importance simply because the citizens and the media as well, examine and criticize any luck of successfulness to the electoral promises which are put together verbally. Politicians are admired and thanked for their mastery of their skills or ridiculed for the unsuccessfulness of their linguistic command; decades after both Winston Churchill in Great Britain and John. F. Kennedy in the United States passed away; they are still remembered for the art of their public speaking skills.
It is mentioned according to Gelabert (2004, p.3) that the ancient Greece was the first place to be noticed in it this one-to-one relationship. For Aristotle, there are two major actions in order for the “political being” (zoon politikon) to take place, and these two are to be found in the (bios politicos) which is the “political way of life”. The first one is activity (praxis), and the second one is word (lexis). Aristotle underlined that political language and thought are inseparable.
According to Paine (1981, p.10) in Gelabert (2004, p.3), politics basically is comprehended, executed and consumed in the form of text. Deviating from the general supposition that politics is nothing else but talk (like an empty language). The recent approaches to the political discourse analysis assert that performing politics is, in fact, talking politics. In certain specific political contexts like the electoral campaigns, Geis (1987, p.13) claims that “the challenger for a political office can do very little but talk”, in meanwhile, some linguistic studies which are relevant to the political language, such as metaphors, proposed from the seminal work of Lakoff and Johnson (1980) that speech and action can possibly have a more powerful relationship than previously thought.
2. What is Political in Language
First of all, in order for better understanding to what shapes political language, it is very important to clarify the meaning of the adjective (political) in political discourse. Even though one may think at first that this kind of question brings justly a direct answer, the latest orientations in research as stated by Gelabert (2004, p.4) have challenged the traditional scope of the term. Generally, critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis (CDA in short) in particular have enlarged its range. Certainly the new Marxist theories have influenced it, also, language is considered within this academic setting as the essential means by which processes and states of power imbalance are preserved and formulated such as immigration, racism and class struggles. Consequently, any kind of interaction at the level of any society is in fact indivisible from the political feature of language.
Scholars such as (Wodak and Ludwig 1999, Fairclough) according to Gelabert (2004, p.5) claim that practically the notion of text as considered in its broad sense includes political elements. In this sense, Chilton (2002) has stressed on how “political” in critical discourse analysis CDA is connected to the Greek model of “Polis”; here, it is not actually linked to the professional politics, instead, it involves life in society which strongly includes fights of power. Moreover, Lakoff (1990) talked about the political quality of language as put into practice by big companies and the judicial framework as well, whereas Van Dijk (1993) refers to it as the ideological stances (the ones which are related to racism particularly) in a set of discourses (education, media, academia).
Vividly, not all the views are with the conclusion that says all talk is political, however, in opposition to the first category of researchers, in Gelabert (2004, p.5) Nimmo and Swanson (1990) indicate that “It would be problematic to maintain that a cookbook, a tip on fishing or lectures are all political”. As they notify, a compromise has been suggested: according to that “Politics is all talk, not all talk is politics”. Even the practitioners of CDA as Van Dijk (1999) have been careful in taking a general view on the framework of the political nature of language.
Despite the fact that the presence of a political element to numerous social connections is certain, the current plan is much into language in professional politics. Indeed, even within this specific range, it covers an amazingly broad reach, which involves, as Ensink (1997) drafts, many types of registers: press briefings, meetings and press interviews, etc. Nowadays study is interested with one type of discourse which is the Political discourse that deals with professional political matters.
II. Linguistic Features in Political Speeches
Political speeches, like all other types of discourse, are characterised by a unique jargon and specific use of language that make it distinguishable from the different variants of language use. And for better understanding, a light will be shed on its characteristics and types in the following subtitles:
1. Characteristics of Political Language
An approval has been made upon the understanding of political language and it became known as “Professional political discourse” which is the purpose of the matter, then, an explication to its characteristics is to be exposed henceforward. Generally speaking, political discourse can be clarified by its undertaken issues, the channels through which it is expressed and realized in addition to its grammatical features.
It is noted by Van Dijk (1999, p.39) in Gelabert (2004, p.7) that even though it can be about any topic, professional political discourse in other words deals with its proper actors, ideologies and events as well, it is seen according to Van Dijk as metadiscursive. So, from the perspective of Gelabert (2004, p.7) it is considered quite true at the level of the delivered speeches by the members of the parliament where references to the former speeches, policies and other members are occurring continuously. Yet, Van Dijk stresses on that politicians usually insert some off topics with formulaic phrases which indicate that the text is not basically political. So, this code points out a proposition that politicians present some signals to their audiences to set up the limits to what professional talk is and what shapes private talk; which is referred to by Gelabert (2004, p.7) as the “off-topic” talk strategy, where politicians often escape to, in order to take the edge off the tension in the parliamentary interactions by telling a joke or merely by introducing a current event that may be regarded as relevant to the political discussion. This strategy has also been remarked by Muntigel (2002) and partington (2003).
In the first hand, the political language as identified by Gelabert (2004, p.8) can also be examined or studied right away from its sources; analyzing the way in which the speech is voiced out in its professional place like in a parliamentary meeting or an electoral one or in an indirect way through its demonstration in the media. In this regard, many scholars whom are interested in the field like (Fairclough 1998, Shook and Lattimore 1982, Porter 1976) have studied how political language is described by both the written-press and the audiovisual. Also, all kinds of media through which people consume the political texts are of a serious value to the study of political language and influence straightforwardly the manners in which politicians place their messages.
Van Dijk (1999) proposed that the above-mentioned points affect not only the vocabulary of this branch of knowledge (lexicon) but also the grammatical features of the political texts. Therefore, Gelabert (2004, p.8) said that “A media interview with a politician will contain a higher frequency of first person pronouns as well as backchannelling expressions (you know, of course, that’s right) than pre-scripted parliamentary speeches”. Big electoral campaigns include more first person pronouns and dynamic verbs than the well-structured parliamentary speeches.
Political discourse is of a proper distinction from those other types of discourse. Garcia and Zoppi (1992) in Gelabert (2004, p.9) point out its multi destination. That is to say, the political message talks directly the interlocutor in addition to the listeners that receive it indirectly through the media. Pitkins (1990, p.71) emphasizes, in this case, that the popular quality of political discourse, underlining that it is actually always public, with relation to its actors and to its topic, and sums up that there cannot be “private politics”. Furthermore, in the parliamentary debates, the deliverer of a message should possess in mind the way in which his/her speech will be received by parties and equally tries to tell in advance how it is going to be interpreted by the other political competitors. Consequently, politicians are completely conscious of the fact that anything they utter will be scrutinized by their rivals, who attempt to counterattack and downplay their messages.
2. Types of Political Discourse
Sauer (1997) in Gelabert (2004, p.9) indicated that the press conferences, press briefings, speeches and conferences are the contexts in which political discourse takes place. Gelabert (p10) also mentioned that Schaffner distinguished between two types of PD which are “the internal” and “the external”. The first one is all about the speeches that take place within political atmospheres (institutions) as in the senate, the parliament or even political parties. However, the other type is actually concerned with the communications that are delivered to a large number of people and channelled through the media.
The media in general and technology specifically during this globalized epoch of time play a very important role in the allowance for politicians to speak on behalf of their governments world widely. This privilege vividly was inconceivable boon to the worldwide dissemination that is provided by the media nowadays, especially if we compare it to the ancient times where the speaker’s accessibility was limited to the power of his/her voice. Though, the present time circumstances seem to be much favourable to create the chances of success, it may also be risky in terms of bringing undesirable effects. In Gelabert (2014, p.10) stated that Ensink (1997) exemplified the former with the diplomatic crises in 1986 between the Soviet Union and the German Federal Republic when the German Chancellor at that time Helmut Kohl made a comparison between Mikhail Gorbachov to the Former Nazi propaganda minister, Josef Goebbels. This late was produced in the course of an interview with an American magazine; it nonetheless generated a huge misinterpretation that, if not settled the appropriate timing, could have increased into an undesirable unfriendliness between those two governments.
The concept of “Register” also from the perspective of the functional varieties of language defines the nature of text determined in which it is used. This notion has been of a serious interest by many scholars in functional linguistics such as Halliday (1977, 1978) who is the pioneer of the Systemic Functional Linguistics who devoted his life to the development of this field of knowledge. Gelabert (p.10) mentioned that Lemke (1995, p.26) quoting Halliday’s postulates, asserted that:
The language of a sports report, a sales transaction, and a newspaper editorial differ not simply in their vocabulary, and not simply because these uses of language are more likely for people in some social positions than others, but because the frequencies of occurrence of many grammatical and semantic features in these texts were skewed by the nature of the different activities in which language was being used
As a result, political language, indeed, can be studied from many perspectives. First of all, from the angle of Functional linguistics and according to Eggins (1994, p.10), it is a genre visualized as “The staged, structured way in which people go about achieving goals using language”. Political language varies from that of medical staff meetings, for example, because the objectives basically are not the same. Yet, talking about the register of political language (the instant context of situation in which texts are produced: Senate, press briefings, parliamentary debates), also its mode (the function that language plays in a particular exchange), then, its tenor which is the relationship between the participants, and finally its field, which is its topic (a talk about financial laws, legislation, etc.). Deictic expressions denote the way how words are dependent on the context under which they are used, the same happens with political language, simply because it is a different genre than any other speech not only at the lexical level, but also at the grammatical one as well.
III. Who Writes Political Speeches
Delivering a speech at any level and at any place, require inevitably a well-prepared draft through which the intentions of the speaker can be conveyed accordingly. So, in order for better outcomes, the task of the speechwriter who is employed by high-levelled executives and elected officials at the government or any other private sector is unquestionably needed nowadays.
The speechwriter’s job is, in fact, linked directly with the senior leaders to define the messages, themes and the exact points to be raised by the executive. In this context, Rachel (2016) mentioned that if illustrating with an electoral campaign speeches, they are not that easy to get right. Because, they as a rule require working on many things such as: to generate support, attack opponents, attract the undecided and share information with most importantly producing the suitable tone to all of that by quoting Frank Luntz “It is not what you say, it is what people hear”. Furthermore, during the process of political speech writing and according to Rachel (2016) there are several steps to be followed:
The executive accompanied with his/her stuff has to arrange a meeting with the speechwriter in order to set the essential points and messages that are needed to be covered in the speech.
The speechwriter, apparently, does his own researches concerning the offered topic in order to support it with some examples and anecdotes.
It is as well, highly important for the political speechwriter to put in consideration the setting under which the speech will take place taking into account the audience, simply because it differs from a town-hall community meeting to an international leaders’ forum.
The political speech writer mixes all of the themes, messages, points and positions together in addition to his proper research so as to create an authentic, informative and originated text for the executive.
Jon Favreau (Obama’s speechwriter) at Duke University in Rachel’s article (2016) identified five crucial lessons he learned through his experience as a white house speechwriter:
The story is more important than the words, avoid chasing slogans, and focus on the overall argument.
The importance of humour.
To talk like a normal human being and leave out shorthand and jargon.
The need for honesty and authenticity; be personal and courageous.
To maintain idealism.
When finishing with all the mentioned points above. Rachel (2016) in her article noted that the political speechwriter then submits a draft copy to the executive (or his/her staff) with indicating any kind of requested revisions that are recommended, but if the person is familiar with the executives style and status, then only few changes are to be made. Otherwise, if it may feel like the speech does not have the exact or the needed tone, it has to be entirely redrafted again.
Barack Obama’s speechwriter in person Jon Favreau in an interview with an American radio station as stated by Rachel (2016) said that “I think from the very beginning, I learned that speeches are not a collection of applause lines and sound bites. Speeches are a story that you tell, they have a beginning, middle and an end, and they have structure”. In brief, Favreau has underlined on the fact that writing political speeches is an art that requires a lot of efforts in terms of determining the right structure and the steps to be followed along all the stages of the speech because it is going to be delivered to those eight years old, those who are eighteen and those who are eighty as well without patronizing no one.
Finally, when it comes to the training, Anthony (2017) said that usually professional political speechwriters do not have a kind of specific training in the field they are writing about i.e. a speechwriter who writes about a health policy does not necessarily have a master of Public Health degree. In fact, they mostly have a general understanding of basic policy issues, politics, and literature of the given language…etc. Then, they combine all these together in addition to their work experience (administration, politics, literary works, and journalism) or any associated scopes.
I. The Power of Political Language
The political reality is constituted by a language in addition to the fact that words are highly important when it comes to the political analysis. The position of language in politics is not in a neutral place recently, but in fact, far from its description to the world around us, words become the power that helps in making it.
According to the discovery of linguists and anthropologists, Jackson (2014, p.2) has mentioned in his article “Language power and politics” that languages are characterized by a binary structure that nearly each verb, adjective or noun has its specific opposite. This feature has been criticized because that kind of opposition between words generally diminishes the value of one term and favouring the other inasmuch as the problem lies behind the fact that one term lacks something covered by the opposite. As an illustration to the binary system, there are: Modern/ primitive, strong/weak, foreigner/ native. As stated by Jackson, it is almost impossible to talk about civilisation as in “Terrorism threatens our civilisation” without mentioning the notion of “Barbarism” as a negative opposite to it.
Political language plays a remarkable and exceptional role in generating and changing the perceptions, cognitions as well as the emotions of citizens. Richard Jackson (2014, p.3) in his article, he stressed on the idea that political language shapes how we perceive the world and the concrete reality. This late manipulates the way we think, how our strategic choices are made, privileges one point of view of the other one, naturalizes some comprehensions as a reasonable and others as a nonsensical and most importantly it affects our emotions. Jackson (2014, p.3) noted that some words or a set of words are able to make us feel frightened, worried, furious or cheerful. This generates a huge power for those who master them like politicians and propagandists who have known this for a quite long time and we remark it daily in people’s reactions to the particular usage of giving words in media as: Murder, terrorism etc.
Another reason behind the power of political language as stated by Jackson (2014, p.3) is the historical background of words, because the meaning of them is not deeply-rooted but acquired by their own discursive settings. The series of the actions taken in order for the words to obtain meaning are a long-lasting and happen through repetition and their accurate and selective use in particular contexts. For instance, when a political leader uses the terms “Civilised” and “Barbarous”, here, citing or invoking the historical background of these two notions is inevitably required; their application in the middle ages by Christian Europe as well as in the nineteenth century by colonists and imperialists. That is to say, there is a huge history in their meanings and that of which affects their usage in the modern time contexts. Similarly, in other conditions, Jackson (2014, p.3) mentioned that “Words can take on new meanings through specific forms of usage. Because words have histories, the act of naming things is always a highly-charged process that can have serious political and social consequences”.
This kind of naming effect is so powerful essentially when it comes to the political violence, for instance, to name a political incident ‘’Terrorist‘’ is not simply to describe it, but in other words to judge it. To conclude, the different names to the same act possess completely contrastive meanings and would accordingly elicit so many divergent responses and interpretations from both sides: the public opinion and the authorities.
1. The Manipulation of the Public Opinion
The public opinion is defined by Edward (2003) as the thought of a given society at a particular time and about a specific matter. And for a better understanding to the ways through which people can be manipulated, it is highly recommended to understand what truly motivates them as well as to recognize what special interests and limitations are declared by the population. Hence, as an illustration to what have been said, a light will be shed on the both well-known public figures that had an influence on their nations and the world; Adolf Hitler and Barack Obama.
A. Hitler’s Persuasive Methods
The Nazi Hitler is said to be the most ruthless manipulator that the world has ever seen, and in fact, his name became synonymous with evil and besides his cruel deeds, Hitler also was an exceptionally talented and clever persuader of men who supervised the murder of millions, especially the near extermination of the Jews, yet still having the backup of the German people who were unquestionably not as heartless and solid as he was. So, logically speaking, Hitler must have been a very skilful and powerful propagandist so as to convince the Germans that his policies were just and indispensable.
Hitler’s persuasiveness manifested itself after unleashing his dictatorship that helped him to further himself to the farthest point in the Nazi party and earn supports (Josh wilmoth, 2014). Adolf Hitler’s methods were constructed as follow:
The basis of handling all his population as a group because the acceptance of ideas to great masses is very restricted, their intellectual capacity as a whole is so poor, while their power to forget is tremendous.
His propaganda was directed into few points that were presented in slogans, till the last person of his people starts to get what they wanted him/her to do just by using slogans.
The Nazis held many events that were in need to the involvement of every single person of the population, and those who do not attend and share the emotions of the masses will be easily selected and be dealt with either by security or the crowd.
Hitler’s speeches were the most powerful ways to convey his strength and ideology. During which he used to shout and wave his arms in a violent manner.
The “Heil Hitler” salute that is made by the Nazis added a powerful feature to his image in addition to his title ‘’Der Führer‘’ which means the leader.
Figure 02: Hitler’s famous salute.
The excessive use of trigger words such as: sword, fire, blood. These words helped him so much in terms of getting the support and attention of his audiences and permitted him to be extremely excited, edgy and emotional about his speeches.
Hitler, in his speeches, had a tactic of persuasive words that when he wanted to refer to Germany, he used words that address (intensity, power and strength). While, when talking about his opponents, he used words that hint at (feebleness, fragility and weakness). His favourite word for anything that contradicts with him was “pacifism”, because for him, it represents the definitive sign of weakness.
Another effective technique that was used in Hitler’s speeches is the fallacy of “either-or”. The audience, then, will be in front of a false dilemma, that they can be manipulated and convinced to do the immoral thing and being shown that it was the only option. For instance, Hitler’s quote that is provided by (Josh, 2014) in his article “either the German people annihilate the Jews or the Jews will enslave them”.
The last used tactic by Hitler in his speeches is to convince his volk (people) that the rest of the world thinks of their country (Germany) as a lower in status and second class citizens. This wrong fact outraged the Germans who were brainwashed to have an idea that they were considered as an upper-class and nobles.
To conclude, Josh (2014) underlined on the fact that Hitler was undoubtedly an extraordinary orator and persuader of men, and no matter how unpleasant his policies were, he succeeded in keeping possession of the supports of his race in addition to the manipulation of the public opinion the way he wanted so as to ruin their lives willingly.
B. Barak Obama’s Powerful Speech Techniques
It is agreed upon the fact that the 44th president of the United States of America “Barack Obama” is effectively an excellent orator and a speaking phenomenon. Sohrab (2016, p3) argued that the power of Obama’s rhetorical art is the major reason that lays behind his entrance into the white house. Alimand Geneva (2012) noted that people did not pay attention to how many times Obama said that he is not a Muslim or how many times he presented his birth certificate as long as they were eager to know how he could do it. Also, Loh (2012) stated that Obama always back his speeches up with gratitude, personal anecdotes, stories, rallies for solidarity, overflowing humility, inspirational words and shows a great sense of intimacy as well as he urges on the empathy for diversity.
Benjamin Loh (2012) stated that after a long political fight with Governor Mitt Romney, the former president of the USA in his presidential acceptance speech 2012 was without exaggeration an “electrifying” one. In every part of his speech, Obama, in persuading his audience, insisted on the fact of instilling the idea of “yes we can” in their minds in addition to him challenging his cynics that his role is purely represented in making the United States the greatest ever. So, in order for a better understanding to the mechanics that made Obama’s acceptance speech an effective one, Benjamin (2012) has cited eight powerful speech techniques that made all the difference for him:
The first one is “Obama’s sense of humility”, that is to say, even though he won the elections and all the lights were spotted on him, Obama showed a great sense of humbleness, embraced his political rivals and said with a pride of belonging to his nation ‘’in the weeks ahead, I also look forward to sitting down with Governor Romney to talk about where we can work together to move this country forward.” (Benjamin, 2012).
The second is “Winning the cynics over”, as any place in the world, the sceptics and cynics inevitably exist to downplay the importance of the campaign efforts, but president Obama did not deny his vulnerabilities and knew, as well, that there have been quite much of people who viewed the campaign as a contest of egos and self-interests. Yet, he replied by saying “People don’t care about how much you know, until they know how much you care about them”.
The third technique is “Falling in love with Michelle too”. As the nation’s first lady, Obama declared publicly his faithfulness and love to her when he said ‘’Michelle, I have never loved you more. I have never been prouder to watch the rest of America fall in love with you, too, as our nation’s first lady”. Here, through this romantic declaration, Obama has won over the hearts of millions of sentimentalists in his country and across the world due to his appreciation to the symbolic role of Michelle Obama. (Benjamin, 2012)
The fourth technique is “The humour”. The quality of being amusing in a public political speech breaks the bordures between the speaker and his audience as what Herbert Gardner said in (Benjamin, 2012) ‘’once you get people laughing, they’re listening and you can tell them almost everything”.
“Story of one, story of many”. Obama, in this sense, tried to inspire his nation by supporting the dreams of all the strata of the society, the small kid who wants to be an engineer, doctor, scientist or even a president. He wanted all the Americans -no matter how diversified their stories are- to opt for a common better future when he said ‘’ that’s the future we hope for, that’s the vision we share ‘’.
The sixth technique is illustrated in the “Me, you and we”. According to Benjamin’s (2012) article, the 21 minutes victory speech included the use of the ‘’I’’ pronoun 33 times, the “you’’ pronoun 56 times and the “we” pronoun 110 times. The latter pronoun proved that the speech included all segments of the society. Mostly great speeches have a lower I-U Ratio since the attention is generally focused on the audience that is attending for a significant reason and keep asking “what’s in it for me?”
The seventh is the “Rich usage of rhetorical devices”. Obama uses the language creatively, especially when it comes to the use of the rhetorical devices such as: anaphora, metaphor and epistrophe.
The final key element is the delivery of the speech with “Utmost conviction and progressive rhythm”.
2. Algerian Political Language
A. The Most Powerful Speeches in the History of the Algerian Politics
1) Houari Boumedien (1965-1978)
As one of the most influential public figures in the history of the Algerian politics and the Arab world, Houari Boumedien (the second president of Algeria) devoted and sacrificed his whole life to serve his nation. Also, according to Medani Ameur (2015) in Elkhabar newspaper, he is the first president from the third world who asked for an emergency session to the United Nation (UN) where he surprised the world by the delivery of his famous speech in which he raised two main issues; the first one is about the fact of suggesting and introducing a new and fair universal economic system that would go ahead with humanity into better outcomes. While the second issue is all about showing the planned mechanisms and the designed systems for this newborn in a purely Arabic language for the first time in the history of the UN. Moreover, Madani (2015) pointed out that this historical speech made the 4th secretary-general of the United Nations “Kurt Waldheim” admit in an interview with the press in the 90s that Boumedien’s speech was, at that time, the most important one in the history of the assembly in terms of content, in addition to the fact that the world has acquired a universal language as well. Kurt fetched also back the images of the world’s leaders at that time standing ovation for Boumedien’s entry. So it was absolutely a fascinating one.
2) Abdul-Aziz Bouteflika (The current president)
Bouteflika is the current president of the Algerian republic since April, 27th, 1999. During his second-term, he led a campaign for many weeks across all the national territory where he delivered many speeches about the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation before the referendum that took place in the 29th of September, 2005. Bouteflika, in his speeches, used many techniques of persuasion with taking into account the fact of him being aware of all what the Algerians have passed through from post-independence till the nineties’ civil war that ended the life of more than 150000 innocent people in all around the country. The president tried to share the emotions of his people (those who lost their parents, children and acquaintances), he also stressed on the fact that he does not tolerate anyone or any kind of activity that tries to prejudice with the dignity of Algeria and its people.
Furthermore, to put an end to the painful chapters in the history of the nation, an amnesty plan was adopted to cover all the terrorists and the persons who claimed to be Islamist fighters for justice except those who were involved in mass murders, rapes and public bombings. Despite the critics that faced the president’s sensitive decision and promises to his audiences, the electoral victory afterwards was a great proof to whoever doubted Mr. Bouteflika strengthened control over the state and the power of his rhetorical language that privileged him to convince the majority of the population to vote with “Yes” for such an issue.
C. Overview on the Structure of the Algerian Government
The Algerian republic is a sovereign and presidential country in which its politics is exercised within a framework of a constitutional system, whereby three branches take place: executive, legislative and the judicial. The constitution has been amended several times; the last one was in 2016 and states that Algeria, after obtaining the approval from the Ministry of Interior, supports the multiparty system. Yet, more than 40 legal political parties are exercising their activities freely in accordance to what is permitted by the law. (DPADM, United Nations, 2004). Since the focus of this research paper is on Mr. Abdelmalek Sallal. The light will be shed merely on the executive power that stands for the fact that the highest authority is represented by the head of state who is the president of the republic (elected to a 5 year term with infinite mandates). The president is, also, the Minister of National Defence and the head of the Council of Ministers as well. He appoints the Prime Minister who is the head of government, and amongst which he appoints and suggests the Council of Ministers as well
Main Office Holders
Abdelmalek Sellal
28th of April, 2014
Abdelaziz Bouteflika
27th of April, 1999
Office
President
Prime Minister
Name
Since
Figure 03: the executive power in Algeria
D. Historical Background on Language Conflict in Algeria
From colonialism to post independence, Algerians have witnessed identity crises and suffered a lot as they attempted to shake the French colonialism off. Malek Haddad (n.d, p.73) in Heather (2014, p.3) noted that this kind of identity crisis which is still taking place so far, argues which languages should be used quite often in an authentic way by the Algerians when writing, speaking in public, reading, expressing feelings, in science or even when praying. Hence, the competitors included French (the language of the colonizer), Classical Arabic (the language of Islam and Koran) and the other Barber and Arabic forms that were generally spoken by the Algerians, but they have never used them to write.
Mohamed Benrabah who devoted much of his professional life surveying approximately two centuries of language politics and linguistic culture in Algeria (Heather, 2014, p.3) from the French occupation in 1830 till 2012. In his book which is entitled ‘’the use of language as a proxy for conflicts), Benrabah investigates three periods of time in it. The first one is the French oppression to the indigenous Algerians (1830-1954) when the colonials spread their language; then the second one is about when the revolutionists worried and discussed the matters pertaining to the country’s future; and finally the post independence period (1962 to present time) when the government (regime) wanted to adjust Algeria into an Arab country by encouraging literary Arabic.
Benrabah, with a serious face, throws all his blame to the Algerian identity crisis on France (Heather, 2014, p.4) simply because when the French colonialism appeared, they initially started to use language as a weapon. In the 1897, the then French minister of education highlighted the continuing efforts to conquer Algeria ‘’Through the school’’ so as to confirm that the French language would take place over all local idioms and to replace all the preconceived ideas as well as to instil among people the idea of that France is much superior. This kind of educational philosophy has generated a bunch of francophone Algerian elites, whereas they left ninety percent of the population in an illiterate status after the independence.
After the loss of Algeria in 1962, the French language was held off by many Algerian revolutionists who were supporting the Arabization policy and assisting literary Arabic to take place (heather, 2014, p.4) in many settings such as: schools, offices and administration, in the meantime they did not pay attention and ignored the local forms of the Berber and Arabic. Benrabah named the fruit of it as (the linguistic war with diversity) because the Arabizers were fanatic and careless (p.4); for instance, when Algeria demanded Egypt to supply it with teachers in the mid 1960s in order to fulfil the gaps of the program, and the then president Abdel Nasser affirmed in his response that he could not afford the full demand. So, the Algerian delegate reportedly asked Egypt to send them even if they were (greengrocers). Consequently, and critically speaking in (heather, 2014, p.5), Benrabah confirmed that Egypt took the Algerians word by sending many culturally limited teachers of Arabic who showed compassion due to the Muslim brotherhood (organization that was at that time legally prohibited in Egypt itself). These teachers, according to him, originated Islamism among the children who were at school that time and caused the civil war in the 1990s in Algeria when the dissatisfied young Arabized stood on the line of those who urge people to rebel and protest while being on Islamic platforms.
Conclusion
From the perspective of what have been seen in this chapter, politics achieved tremendous changes all over the world due to the suitable usage of language to rule or to take control over the minds of tenth of thousands in only one political discourse. So, admittedly, language is considered to be the engine of persuasion and manipulation to any new policies that serve the intentions of any political activity. The mastery of the latter offers the good command of nations, while the opposite leads to the bottom. Yet, to understand how far the Algerian Prime Minister Mr. Abdelmalek Sallal commands the use of language, a call for a pragmatic analysis is to be done in details, in the upcoming practical chapter of this dissertation.