1schaffner_christina_editor_analysing_political_speeches

Page 31

and Prime Minister Begin here in the Knesset. The Camp David agreements and the IsraeliEgyptian peace treaty that followed were further signs of hope. The more recent handshake on the lawn of the White House and the agreements with Jordan and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation are new and important steps along the right road. We hope that your other neighbour-countries will also join these developments in the delicate but necessary peaceprocess. The wish of your predecessors, who in the Declaration of Independence already held out 'the hand of peace and good-neighbourliness', can in this way at last be fulfilled. Once peace is concluded reconciliation must follow. The latter is perhaps even more difficult than the former. Reconciliation demands a change in attitude and spirit among people who have opposed each other in bitterness and hate. It also demands that mistrust which has grown between them be overcome. All the more reason why we should praise the courage of the statesmen and leaders who persist in their endeavours for the peace-process and in their striving for reconciliation, because they realise that the alternative of terror and violence offers no future and is unacceptable. They are confronted with a difficult task. In Europe too, however, in 1945, the reconciliation of countries that had fought out two world wars also seemed an impossible task. Yet inspiring statesmen then showed the way and found a form for the necessary reconciliation. The European Union, after decades of wars and conflicts, now unites the countries of Europe that waged those wars. This gives us hope that what could be achieved in Western Europe is also possible here. In three years your country celebrates its fiftieth anniversary. It would be the crown of your work if on your country's birthday peace could also be celebrated.

Members of the Knesset,

(12)What has been achieved here in the technical and economic fields, under very difficult circumstances, is impressive. To many people in the world your country has therefore become a shining example of what pioneer spirit and enterprise can accomplish. All this has been brought about in spite of extremely menacing conditions. Unremitting concern for the safety of the state and its citizens has made heavy demands on your vigilance and on your thrift. When all these hindrances that have existed for so long have disappeared, closer cooperation between you and your neighbours, and also with the European Union, can ring in a new period of economic growth and prosperity. For the entire region the words of the Psalmist will then become true: 'Hine ma tov oema na'iem shevet achiem gam yachad'. 2

(13)Your obligations are among the heaviest politicians and people in public office, have to bear, your responsibilities among the greatest. As members of the Knesset you embody democracy and the delicate process of decision-making it involves, to which, even under the most difficult circumstances Israel remains true. This chamber calls to mind that the only solutions for your country are democratic solutions. This realisation makes our presence in your midst today a special experience. For this my husband and I thank you sincerely. We believe that this solemn reception in the

Page 32

Knesset is renewed evidence of the special relationship between our peoples, which has held firm now for four centuries. Thank you.

Text as issued by the Netherland's Information Service; numbers of paragraphs, and footnotes added by Titus Ensink.

Notes to Appendix

1.The Israel National Holocaust Memorial.

2.Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! (Psalm 133:1).

Page 33

Echoes from AbroadSpeeches for the Domestic Audience: Queen Beatrix' Address to the Israeli Parliament

Christoph Sauer

Department of Language and Communication, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 716, NL-9700 AS Groningen, Holland

The paper discusses the development of rhetorical analyses of political addresses from classical antiquity to modern political communication. A specific genre, the 'epideictic address', is described in detail. It concerns addresses by representative persons. Most epideictic addresses turn out to be 'hybrid' texts because they combine an orientation towards (rhetorical-political) persuasion with an impetus to new 'expressions' which henceforward may be used in order to link socio-cultural practices with personal-political experiences. Therefore, the analytical framework has to be completed by a (critical) discourse analytical approach. Both approaches, the rhetorical and the discourse analytical, are applied to an analysis of (parts of) Dutch Queen Beatrix' speech to the Israeli Parliament. The 'hybrid' character of her speech is discussed in detail as far as perspectivisation devices are concerned. Finally, attention is drawn to the philoSemitic 'texture' of the Knesset address.

Introduction: The Ambiguity of Rhetoric and the Analysis of Political Speeches

In this section I would like to discuss what could be called the implicit rhetoric articulated in the media coverage of political events. This comes to the fore especially when public speeches are evaluated in terms of their political success or failure. Terms such as 'grand' public address (e.g. von Weizsäcker, cf. Sauer, forthcoming (a)) or 'plain' failure (e.g. Jenninger, 1988, cf. Ensink, 1992) are used. Another evaluation which is regularly made is that of the rectitude of rhetoric. In the case, for example, of Hitler or Goebbels, or more recently of Le Pen, what is usually acknowledged is their great skill as orators. They are not described as being honourable orators; they are rather called demagogues.By this we mean that they have 'corrupted' the instrument of rhetoric. Other public speeches have not been evaluated as plainly demagogic but are still regarded as ambivalent as far as the real motivation of the address is concerned, e.g. speeches by Churchill, Khrushchev, Reagan, Gorbachev and Thatcher.

In these evaluations, mostly contained in news reports, the issue is the untruthfulness of rhetoric in general or of political rhetoric in particular. This issue seems to inspire the evaluative formulations used: on the one hand, the skilful orator is met with antipathy because he probably acts upon a hidden agenda or demonstrates a certain arrogance or even presumptuousness; the stumbling orator, on the other hand, is met with sympathy regarding the obvious struggle he must have had, or taking into account the popular expectation of being 'normal' and demonstrably unexaggerated. However, the problem with evaluations like these is the fact that the concept of rhetoric on which these evaluations are based has not been made explicit nor is it

consistent because of overlapping or even mutually exclusive claims within its conceptualisation.

Page 34

Let us first go back to classical rhetoric, since political speeches are prime examples of rhetorical performance. Communicative goals are at stake, a certain audience is presupposed. The topoi (Greek) or loci communes (Latin) have been more or less determined and do not vary significantly within the same political culture. Certain effects are accomplished or not. Orators aim for approval and build their speeches around certain propositions easily picked up by the media.

The notion of rhetoric,hence, is an iridescent concept with normative implications in several dimensions (cf. Klein, 1995; Ottmers, 1996). It may be useful to reconstruct, briefly, its roots in order to develop some distinctions which we will later be able to relate to modern political communication. In this way, I want to follow by and large the proposals put forward by Klein (1995) in an inspiring article on political rhetoric. The aim of this section, then, is to work out some criteria for the rhetoric of political speeches which can be applied to the genre of public address delivered by politicians in general and heads of state in particular.

In classical antiquity, the definition of rhetoric was ars bene dicendi,the art of speaking well in public (Quintilian). However, the semantic domain of this art was not at all clear. It varied according to different contexts:

·in legal and political contextsespecially in the Greek Polis and the Roman Republicit primarily stood for the art of persuasion;

·in poetry and educational/ instructional contexts, it primarily meant the art of brilliant style.

What is common in these definitionsor discursive practicesis a general tendency to increase oppositions. 1 This is more or less obvious with respect to 'the art of persuasion'; in the judicial lawsuit or political debate, for example, one party can only be successful at the cost of another. But also concerning 'the art of brilliant style', the poor text is defeated by the excellent one. We are all familiar with institutionalised awards for works of art. Here too, one text 'defeating' the other is accomplished by the amplification of (real or presupposed) oppositions.

Moreover, the ars bene dicendi has a third dimension which also stems from its adversarial tendency. In this dimension the orator's ethos is addressed:

· in philosophical thinking, beginning with Aristotle, it signified the quality of the vir bonus (Quintilian) or perfectus orator (Cicero), the morally good person.

An ideal orator had to be (politically and morally) virtuous; he could master the art of persuasive and brilliant speech only if he were truthful and just. Hence, the scope of rhetorics was extended to include the art of good behaviour.The attribution of moral quality to the orator is based on the correspondence between the orator's viewpoints, as perceived by the audience on the one hand, and the values and norms familiar to and/or accepted by them on the other. An orator can acquire credibility by his perfect use of the instruments of rhetoric and also by his irreproachable character (ethos)and his expressed affection (pathos).Thus, rhetoric can be even

considered a form of social engineering (e.g. Ottmers, 1996: 12).

Only by ontologically connecting the art of good behaviour to the stylistic

analysed partly according to these three dimensions, the criteria do not appear adequate in modern democratic, constitutional circum-

Page 36

stances. More sophisticated situational factors have made the context of political speeches and their analyses increasingly complex so that a more broadened approach ought to be developed.

Rhetoric Versus Modern Political Communication

From persuasion to communication planning

Classical rhetoric is typically manifested in the public speech genre genus deliberativum.This is a speech of a certain length, and it is relatively autonomous. The orator is speaking face to face with his audience, and he deals with a controversial issue (quaestio)in a pro-con debate, which is immediately decided. The purpose of such a speech is to convince all present in the audience of the correctness of the orator's opinions and of the plausibility of his decision or advice, or, at least, to persuade the audience to decide according to the proposal the orator has outlined.

However, this ideal-typical situation does not fit the circumstances of political speeches in parliamentary democracies, because the speeches' preconditions no longer correspond to those of antiquity. Nowadays, electoral success has become a primary objective. An orator no longer speaks on personal title; instead, he is a representative of a political group or party or has another representative function. A public speech, therefore, is part of a larger, more extensive communicative process. The singular speech is a small part in a large mosaic. It can be characterised as a strategic move in an overarching communicative plan, and it can be assessed properly only if the larger context is taken into account.

According to Klein (1995), who has compared classical with modem political speeches, the characteristics shown in Table 1 are constitutive for contemporary political speechesin contrast to antiquity.

Let me elaborate on these binary concepts, following Klein's argumentation, butin contrast with Klein's worktaking into account those elements in Dutch political culture determining rhetoric's place in society (see, e.g. Witteveen,

Table 1 Comparison between classical rhetoric and modern political communication