Abstract

This paper analyzes the image repair rhetoric used in Zimbabwean President Robert Gabriel Mugabe’s speeches against sanctions. It focuses on part of his speeches at international forums (2002 to 2007) in his capacity as the president of Zimbabwe. The analysis relies on Benoit’s image restoration theory as a methodological impetus. It is concluded in this paper that Mugabe mostly uses attack the accuser rhetoric to repair his image following accusations of misgovernance and the political sanctions by USA, Australia and the European Union on Zimbabwe. President Mugabe mainly focuses his attack on Tony Blair and George W. Bush whom he accuses of being the chief architects of the sanctions on Zimbabwe. Attack the accuser rhetoric is used to counter the accusations proffered by President Mugabe’s accusers to justify the existence of sanctions. There is also the use of denial of wrong doing, expression of good intentions and offer of corrective action in the speeches. In addition, President Mugabe questions the sincerity of his accusers as champions of democracy themselves. This study concludes that Mugabe, using image repair rhetoric as a strategy, is successful in denying wrong doing and in attacking his accusers. It is also concluded that the rhetoric strategy is a vital persuasive device seen in the manner in which Mugabe’s speeches managed to compel the African Union to maintain its support for the Zimbabwean government.

Highlights

  • Political rhetoric can be traced back to such Greek philosophers as Aristotle, Sophocles and Plato (Brent and Stuart, 1998; Parrish, 1993; Zafefsky, 2004)

  • It is concluded in this paper that Mugabe mostly uses attack the accuser rhetoric to repair his image following accusations of misgovernance and the political sanctions by USA, Australia and the European Union on Zimbabwe

  • This paper focuses on President Robert Gabriel Mugabe’s “attack the accuser” rhetoric in response to United States of America, European Union and Australia sanctions on Zimbabwe

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Political rhetoric can be traced back to such Greek philosophers as Aristotle, Sophocles and Plato (Brent and Stuart, 1998; Parrish, 1993; Zafefsky, 2004). The rhetoric surrounding sanctions is worthy of study because it has courted much controversy with some arguing that rhetoric on sanctions has been used to obfuscate real motives It is only when statements on sanctions are subjected to an analysis that the various rhetorical purposes can be unraveled. The USA, EU and Australian sanctions on Zimbabwe take different forms: economic restrictions, arms embargo and prohibition of individuals seen as working closely with Mugabe from entering European countries (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe_DemocracyandEconomicRecovery_Act_of_2001). These countries and the regional block accuse Mugabe and his party of stifling democracy in Zimbabwe through the use of violence. The analysis is guided by the following questions: How has President Mugabe utilized Benoit’s “attack the accuser” rhetoric and what is the intended communicative effect of the strategy? To what extend has Mugabe’s rhetoric been successful?

Theoretical Framework
Methodology
Literature Review
Attack the Accuser
Denial
Good Intentions
Corrective Action
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.