Political rhetoric used by the main parties in the final debate before the 1999 election
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
- Articles
- Submited: October 28, 2022
-
Published: October 31, 2022
Abstract
In order to identify the rhetorical characteristics of the participants, this study aimed
to describe, interpret and evaluate the verbal strategies and tactics used by the five
debaters who participated. The Eclectic Approach within the experiential perspective
was used.
Pahad revealed an idiosyncratic rhetorical style. Leon lived up to his party's overall
strategy: "To Fight Back". He mostly used the strategy of attack and pinpointed the
causes of identified problems in no uncertain terms. Van Schalkwyk appeared to be the
man with the facts. Of all the debaters, he made the most use of substantial evidence
and proof. Ngobane interacted very Little with his fellow debaters. This is in Line with
his view that opposition parties should rather "move towards consensus politics, ... but
not come and attack the government". Viljoen did not once identify himself with his
party. He created the image of the political advisor who stands above party politics.
Despite identified negative aspects of the debaters' style and the imperfect format,
debate should always be on the political agenda. Rigorous inquiry towards political
and moral truth should be at the core of the rhetoric of a democracy to improve the
quality of debating and argumentation, in order to enrich democracy and to allow
citizens to make well-informed decisions.
Article Metrics Graph
References
- Andrews, J. R. 1990. The Practice of Rhetorical Criticism. New York : Longman
- Auer, J. J. 1962. The conterfeit debates. (In Kraus, S., ed. The great debates: Carter vs. Ford, 1976. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. P. 142-150.)
- Bezuidenhout, N. 1999. SABC kanselleer debat tussen leiers van vier partye. Beeld: 21, Mei 2.
- Bitzer, L. F. 1981. Political Rhetoric. (In Nimmo, D. D. & Sanders, K. R., eds. Handbook of Political Communication. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. p. 225-248.)
- Bitzer, L & Rueter, T. 1980. Carter vs Ford; The Counterfeit debates of 1976. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
- Brock, B.L., Scott, R. L. & Chesebro, J. W., eds. 1990. Methods of Rhetorical Criticism; A Twentieth-century Perspective. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
- Cohen, 3. R. 1998. Communication Criticism; Developing your critical powers. London: Sage.
- https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452243719
- Denton, R. E., jr., ed. 1991. Ethical dimensions of Political Communication. New York: Praeger.
- De Wet, J. C. 1991. The art of Persuasive Communication. Kenwyn: Juta.
- Dodd, C. H. 1998. Dynamics of Intercultural Communication. Boston: McGraw Hill.
- Freeley, A. D. 1990. Argumentation and Debate, Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making. Belrnont: Wadsworth.
- Govier, T. 1992. A Practical Study of Argumentation. Belmont: Wadsworth.
- Gronbeck, B. E. 1991. Ethical Pivots and Moral Vantages in American Presidential Campaign Dramas. (In Denton, R. E., jr., ed. Ethical Dimensions of Political Communication. New York: Praeger. P. 49-68.)
- Hart, R. P. 2000. Campaign talk; Why elections are good for us. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Jamieson, K.H. & Birdsell. D. S. 1988. Presidential Debates; The challenge of creating an informed electorate. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Johannesen, R. L. 1991. Virtue Ethics, Character, and Political Communication. (In Denton, R. E., jr., ed. Ethical Dimensions of Political Communication. New York: Praeger. p. 69-90.)
- Kraus, S. 1988. Televised Presidential Debates and Public Policy. Hillsdale: Lawrence Eribaum Associates, Publishers.
- Kraus, S. & Davis, D. K. 1981. Political Debates. (In Nimmo, D. D. & Sanders, K. R., eds. Handbook of Political Communication. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. p. 273-296.)
- Larson, C. U. 1995. Persuasion: Reception and Responsibility. Belmont: Wadsworth
- Littlejohn, S. W. 1989. Theory of Human Communication. Belmont: Wadsworth.
- Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. 1995. Designing Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
- Martel, M. 1983. Political Campaign Debates: Images, Strategies and Tactics. New York: Longman.
- Nilsen, T. R. 1966. Ethics of Speech Communication. New York: Bobbs-Merrill Co Nimmo, D. 1981. Ethical issues in Political Communication. Communication (6):187-206.
- Pfau, M., Thomas, D. A. & Ulrich, W. 1987. Debate and Argument, A Systems Approach to Advocacy. Glenview: Scott, Foresman and Co.
- Rank, H. 1976. Teaching about public persuasion. (In Dieterich, H., ed. Teaching and doublespeak. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.)
- Rieke, R. D. & Sillars, M. 0. 1993. Argumentation and Critical Decision Making. New York: HarperCollins.
- Rosenfield, L.W. 1990. The Eclectic Approach; The anatomy of critical discourse. (In Brock, B.L., Scott, R.i. & Chesebro, J. W., eds. Methods of Rhetorical Criticism; A Twentieth-century Perspective. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. p. 96-116.)
- Ross, R. S. 1994. Understanding Persuasion. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
- Schellens, P. J. & Verhoeven, G. 1994. Argument en tegenargument, Analyse en beoordeling van betogende teksten. Groningen : Martinus Nijhoff Uitgevers.
- Schutte, P.J. 1999. Debate strategies and tactics: From the past (1994) to the future (1999). Communicare, 18 (1):68-89, May.
- Schuurman, E. 1996. What kind of strategies will be applicable in a Christian Political Party? (In Christian responsibility for political reflection and services: Institute for Reformational Studies, Christianity and Democracy. Potchefstroom: Potchefstroom University for CHE. p. 202-210.)
- Smith, M. J. 1988. Contemporary Communication Research methods. Belmont : Wadsworth
- Toulmin, S. E. 1969. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Venter, T. 1998. Verbal communication with the author. Potchefstroom.
- Watt, J. H. & Van den Berg, S.A. 1995. Research methods for Communication Science. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
- White, R. A. 1991. Democratization of Communication: Normative Theory and Sociopolitical Process. (In
- Greenberg, K. J., ed. Conversations on Communication Ethics. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation. p. 141-164.)
- Zhu, 3-H., Milavsky, J. R. & Biswas, R. 1994. Do televised debates affect Image perception more than issue knowledge! A study of the First Presidential Debate. Human Comn7unication Research (20):302-327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1994.tb00325.x
