Political rhetoric used by the main parties in the final debate before the 1999 election

Abstract

In order to identify the rhetorical characteristics of the participants, this study aimedto describe, interpret and evaluate the verbal strategies and tactics used by the fivedebaters who participated. The Eclectic Approach within the experiential perspectivewas used.Pahad revealed an idiosyncratic rhetorical style. Leon lived up to his party's overallstrategy: "To Fight Back". He mostly used the strategy of attack and pinpointed thecauses of identified problems in no uncertain terms. Van Schalkwyk appeared to be theman with the facts. Of all the debaters, he made the most use of substantial evidenceand proof. Ngobane interacted very Little with his fellow debaters. This is in Line withhis view that opposition parties should rather "move towards consensus politics, ... butnot come and attack the government". Viljoen did not once identify himself with hisparty. 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 politicaland moral truth should be at the core of the rhetoric of a democracy to improve thequality of debating and argumentation, in order to enrich democracy and to allowcitizens to make well-informed decisions.