Critical Discourse Analysis of Musharrafism - Term Paper Example

Dis refers to a formal discussion of debate through verbal and written or other forms of communication. Dis s are considered influential, affecting the way people think about certain topics of debate. They are considered to be linked with the aspect of power and state, as influential, specifically oral communication, inevitably relies on great responsibility and power. Critical discourse analysis, initiated by Norman Fairclough, is the study of discourse and focuses on the use of language for political and social means. In his writings, such as “Language and Power”, “Critical Language Awareness” and “Discourse and Social Change”, Fairclough develops a framework for the study of discourse. He highlights three forms of analysis and focuses on their interdependency. The analyses include the analysis of spoken or written language texts, analysis of discourse practice i.e. the distribution of discourse, and the analysis of discursive actions as occurrences of socio-cultural behaviour i.e. the text consumption. “Discourse analysis...involves as interest in properties of texts, the production, distribution, and consumption of texts, sociocognitive processes of producing and interpreting texts, social practice in various institutions, the relationship of social practice to power relations, and hegemonic projects as the social level,” (Discourse and Social Change, pg. 226). This paper will specifically focus on the relationship of social practice to power relations. Discourse analysis can lead to great insights about the relationship between discourse and power, discourse and politics, and such. According to Fairclough, “these facets of discourse impinge upon the concerns of various social sciences and humanities, including linguistics, psychology and social psychology, sociology, history and political science,” (pg. 226). When performing discourse analysis, there are three aspects to the analysis procedure i.e. the data, analysis, and the results. The main purpose of CDA (Critical Discourse Analysis) is to show the strong linkage between discourse and socio-political practices by firstly collecting data, then analyzing it, and eventually providing results of the analysis. When understanding the necessity of Critical Discourse Analysis, specifically in reference to socio-politics, it needs to be realized that depending on discourse, the power and influential authority of a person can be established. Looking at the relationship between discourse and politics, the example of former President of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, can be taken into account. Critical discourse analysis can be used to understand impartiality of Musharraf and how influential, i.e. powerful, his discourse was during his turbulent reign as President. Musharraf has been notorious in his time for having a selfish outlook towards politics, and making matters more personal than about those of social welfare. He is also renowned for his lack of respect for the law and justice, especially after his highly controversial removal of Chief Justice of Pakistan. Such lack of respect is also evident from his address in Islamabad that was in support of violence by the Mahajer Qomi Movement (MQM) in the province of Sindh. General Pervez Musharraf has been known to constantly be in support of the MQM. The continual backing, however, can be understood, as he was the originator in bringing the MQM to form a government in Sindh. The controversy lies when considering the allegations of terrorism on MQM. Major criticisms arose during the political violence on May 12, 2007 and April 9, 2008 in Karachi. In 2007, riots blocked roads, burned down cars, and injured hundreds of people. Many people were arrested as well, including many political workers. These riots were apparently led by pro-Musharraf MQM to show their support for Musharraf on the removal of Chief Justice. Later, those acts of violence were titled as a “massacre”. Considering the pressure on instating MQM to Sindh, if Musharraf had not supported MQM at that time and had done otherwise, the blame for the massacre would have befallen them. Human Rights Watch (New York) stated in a following report that, “This [violence] can either be due to the incompetence of the government, or its complicity. … The sequence of events leading up to this violence, including statements from the provincial authorities and the arrest of hundreds of opposition activists in the last few days, indicates that the government, acting through its coalition partners, has deliberately sought to foment violence in Karachi.” The government, whether publicly direct or indirect, played a key role in the riots that took place, which only show lack of impartiality on the part of General Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf also showed a lack of tact when dealing with the issue of Chief Justice of Pakistan. In March of 2009, Musharraf dismissed the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Iftikhar Chaudhry, based on abuse of authority. The decision to publicly undermine the Chief Justice showed a lack of diplomacy on the part of Musharraf. Such actions could have possibly taken place behind closed doors, but Musharraf chose to make such a strong statement publicly. This entire process was a result of the Chief Justice’s rulings against government corruption, specifically in the case of Pakistan Steel Mills. However, Musharraf’s reaction to such rulings depicted partiality and selfishness on his part. His angle of self-interest on every political movement has shown him to be an incompetent President. Pakistan is notorious for its continual fallback on martial law. The army has always proven to be a stronger and more powerful institution than the judiciary in Pakistan, which can be seen through events prior to the instatement of Musharraf. Thus, there was somewhat of a historical precedence set for Musharraf to suspend or disregard the Chief Justice. Because of the rallies in Karachi, Musharraf was quick in justifying government actions and criticizing the Chief Justice for not abiding by government suggestions. By publicly blaming the Chief Justice for the violence in Karachi and stopping him from conducting his rightful activities, Musharraf showed a lack of control over the military apparatus which would have disposed off the Chief Justice. Overall, Musharraf’s discourse showed weakness on his part. The judiciary and civilians of Pakistan realized this and capitalized upon it. Musharraf was unable to handle the situation with tact, and in the analysis of his discourse, it can be established that the essence of power was missing from his means of communication. Musharraf and his government were unable to cope with the economic and political crises. Most of the weaknesses of the government were lead on by bad policies, especially in reference of power shortages and wheat shortages. Therefore, combined with a lack of military control, his weak position could not be sustained. When looking at all three aspects of the Critical Discourse Analysis, we see that in all three ways, Musharraf has shown only frailty. When analysing Musharraf’s spoken or written texts, it is seen that an underlying self-interest behind all of those and a lack of concern for the greater well-being of society exists. Musharraf first thought about what he preferred, then looked at the greater opinion of the people, which only resulted in lack of support regardless of his endless rounds of supposedly powerful addresses to the nation. When looking at the aspect of discourse practice, it can be noted that Musharraf tended to prefer staying behind the scenes up until the last minute, which also showed some form of cowardly behaviour on his part. A truly powerful leader would be portrayed through discourse if indeed he/she stepped up to the plate the minute it was required and dealt with the issue at hand immediately. Musharraf handled issues in the opposite way, which was to wait continually until something dramatic occurred at the end of which he had no choice but to take action. After such chaos had formed any leader would not be in a position to coherently express power and social influence in his speeches. Fairclough, in his book “Discourse and Social Change”, in reference to Potter and Wetherell’s 1987 use of discourse analysis as a method in social psychology, discusses a theory called “speech accommodation theory”, which suggests that “people modify their speech according to who they are talking to, and thus with the variability of linguistic form according to context and function...” (pg. 24). When critically analyzing discourse, such factors must be kept in mind, and it must be realized that variability does in fact reflect upon the discourse strength of the speaker. The analysis of discursive actions also appears to be week as Musharraf had a tendency to shift from one viewpoint to the next quite frequently. Whereas he would support the MQM, he would also simultaneously condemn them for their violent behaviour in Karachi and even resorted to referring to the events as a “massacre”. In amalgamation, it is evident that Musharraf, through his discourse, showed lack of power and the ability to stand his ground. Fairclough also refers to the works of Pecheux in “Discourse and Social Change”, the theories of whom are derived from the events of political changes in France. His “ideology works through constituting persons as social subjects, fixing them in subject ‘positions’ while at the same time giving them the illusion of being free agents,” (pg. 30). Musharraf lacked this tact in his discourse. His speeches portrayed his as more of a facist than a democratic leader who gave power to his people. This can be seen through his open threats to abolish those responsible for the Karachi riots, somewhat presenting himself as the only power than controls the way things are run in the country. When analyzing discourse, especially in the field of political science, there are many factors of a speech that must be present in order to have a positive influence on society. For example, according to Fairclough, an address needs to be cohesive, and it should show politeness and a strong reference to ethos. Correct grammar and wording, and the choice of appropriate key words also greatly influence the way a leader’s discourse can be assessed. The overall theme of the speech, the use of metaphors, along with the order in which the speech progresses also can be of great importance. However, all of Musharraf’s speech fell short in all of the above mentioned factors, only adding to the weakness portrayed through his discourse. Along with the judiciary, the news also noticed Musharraf’s weakness portrayed through discourse. Many news channels, such as Aaj TV and GEO specifically made it an objective to show the world the “other side” of Musharraf by continually airing documentaries and public opinion shows highlighting Musharraf’s negative role in the afore-mentioned events. Extreme biasness against Musharraf could be seen in the papers and on news channels airing nationwide. Some news channels were slightly more outspoken in their biasness than others were, but almost all were determined to depict Musharraf’s continual self-interested efforts as opposed to efforts to increase national welfare. Most news channels provided larger-than-life criticisms against Musharraf on his suspension of Chief Justice, Ifitkhar Chaudhry. During the events of May 2007, Aaj TV offices were specifically attacked by the MQM because of their criticisms against the removal of the CJ. The eminent event of media ban by a furious Pervez Musharraf can specifically be noted in this case. On May 9, 2007, the Musharraf government issued a ban on the discussion of the suspension of the CJ on the media. Journalists were outraged and protested, but the ban remained for quite some time. Geo News, one of the leading news networks in Pakistan, despite various allegations and accusations, continued their criticizing attitude towards the Musharraf government, and the network as a whole was eventually banned on the basis of promoting negativism. Specific shows that focused on politics in Pakistan, highlighting Musharraf’s negative role in Pakistan, were specifically banned from other countries such as Dubai as well, regardless of extensive efforts by Geo News to keep their broadcast going, including via live streaming online. The airing of ARY in Dubai was also banned on the request of the former Pakistani President. Musharraf even resorted to creating a media regulatory staff that was allowed to shut down any cable networks via verbal threats. Musharraf’s weakness in discourse was also apparent at international levels. Renowned university Stanford Daily, in reference to a speech on global counter-terrorism and India-Pakistan relations, picks upon Musharraf’s lack of value in discourse during the question-and-answer session that followed the speech. The Editorial Board stated: “Enraged Indian nationalists and other emotionally charged students questioned everything from the legitimacy of Musharraf’s rule to the inherent corruption of the Pakistani government. The end result was ultimately a back-and-forth between strong-willed, would-be inquisitors and an equally defiant, finger-wagging Musharraf.” Musharraf was unable to sustain a comfortable and diplomatic position amongst the Stanford students. The student body picked upon the controversial role of Musharraf in the global society, his inability to express himself strongly and powerfully in discourse, and attacked him directly. Musharraf’s weakness was not only caught within the nation, but also around the world. Bearing all of this in mind, it would, nonetheless be presumptuous to label Musharraf’s handling of the situation as tactless. Musharraf’s discourse and his actions have to be judged through a contextual lens, one which takes into account his military background and his position at the forefront of the War on Terror. Being a soldier, he lacked the nous of a skilled politician and was thus prone to bluntness. The fact that he made no scruples about disposing off a troublesome cog of the government suggests this forthright attitude. A preliminary view of that was made evident in the manner with which he imprisoned and then exiled the former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Furthermore, his banning of TV channels which, in his mind were promoting dissent among the nation, is proof of his desire to act with a clear orientation. His inability to disguise his actions like politicians left him open to attacks from within and outside, which eventually led to a situation of almost “forced” resignation in a position where he had no other choice but to do so. Read More