WoPaLP, Vol.

11, 2017 Vadai 96

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS FOR LANGUAGE EDUCATION:

UNVEILING POWER, IDEOLOGY AND MANIPULATION IN
POLITICAL DISCOURSE

Kata Vadai
Language Pedagogy PhD Program,
Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest
vadaikata@gmail.com

Abstract: The present paper focuses on the introduction of a new integrative problem-oriented analytical tool, the
Power, Ideology and Manipulation Identification (PIMI) instrument, which was created for the analysis of political
discourse, through adapting the most recent theories and methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. The study defines
the meaning of power, ideology and manipulation, and attempts to trace their characteristic features in political
discourse. These three concepts are of notable importance in the latest Critical Discourse Analysis literature, though
the relations between them have not yet been entirely clarified. The present paper discusses the three concepts in
parallel, whilst also introducing the new instrument, which has been built on the basis of two existing critical
discourse analytical models (Chilton & Schäffner, 1997; van Dijk, 2006). Through presenting the results of the pilot
analysis of a relevant piece of political discourse conducted using the new analytical instrument, the study also draws
conclusions regarding the interconnected relationship between the three concepts examined. The data gained during
the analysis indicate that inequality and polarization are significant elements in the case of each construct, and the
results of the analysis also show that despite several overlaps, each concept has its own characteristic profile.

Keywords: Critical Discourse Analysis, power, ideology, manipulation, PIMI analytical instrument

1 Introduction
Power, ideology and manipulation are key concepts in recent Critical Discourse Analysis
(CDA) literature. However, their complex mechanisms and the relationships between them have
not yet been fully explained. Several authors (Chartesis-Black, 2014; Chilton & Schäffner, 1997;
Dahl, 1957; Foucault, 1980; Fowler, 1985; Gramsci, 1980; Kress, 1985; van Dijk, 1996, 1998,
2006; Wodak, 1989) investigated the meanings and properties of these phenomena, without
highlighting the exact relationship between them. Based on the main theories of CDA, the present
paper focuses on the elusive concepts of power, ideology and manipulation, their relationship to
one other, and the possible modes of operationalizing them.

One of the aims of this paper is to introduce a new integrative, problem-oriented analytic
tool, the so-called ‘Power, Ideology and Manipulation Identification’ (PIMI) instrument, created
on the basis of various theories and methods of CDA. The new instrument was established by
merging together two existing analytical models (Chilton & Schäffner, 1997; van Dijk, 2006). The
parent frameworks have been further developed to be able to provide a complex, theory- and data-
based analytical tool that is capable of identifying the signs of power, ideologies and manipulation
in political discourse. The instrument has also been enriched through the recommendations and
insight of other linguistic and CDA theories and methods (Chilton, 2004; Clark, 1996; Fairclough
& Fairclough, 2012; Fairclough & Wodak, 1997; Foucault, 1980; Gramsci, 1980; Guiraud et al.,
2011; Hamilton, 2012; Hoey, 2001; Norrick, 1978; Searle, 1976, 1979; Seidel, 1985; van Dijk,
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 97

1996, 1998, 2001, 2008, 2011; Vanderveken, 1990; Weiss & Wodak, 2003; White, 1992; Wodak,
1989, 2007; Wodak & Meyer, 2009).

Another aim of the paper is to provide an in-depth analysis of a well-known manipulative

political speech (Blair, 2003), through the application of the aforementioned analytical instrument.
The speech is worthy of exploration as it has up-to-date political consequences worldwide,
including the Iraqi war, international terrorism, the rise of ISIS, and the following humanitarian
catastrophes (Hussain, 2015). The present study hopes to provide an aid to understanding the
meaning of the speech, its context, and the hidden linguistic mechanisms below the surface. Last
but not least, the study also aims to discover the most important underlying factors of the
persuasive strength of the text.

CDA investigates the way power, ideology and manipulation appear in discourse, and the
procedures by which they create and maintain social and political inequality, power abuse and
domination, through language. Fairclough and Wodak (1997) stress that ideological functions, as
well as the relations of power in discourse, are usually invisible to the audience, therefore CDA
aims to make these invisible aspects apparent. Chilton and Schäffner (1997), Fowler (1985),
Fairclough and Wodak (1997), Kress (1985), Seidel (1985), van Dijk (1996, 1998, 2001, 2006,
2011), Wodak (1989, 2007) and others offer several linguistic analytical methods to decipher
hidden signs of power, ideologies and manipulation in political discourse. The present study also
intends to highlight the significance and main characteristics of these concepts, by stepping further
into the search and also by examining the relationship between them. In the following sections of
the introduction, the meanings of the three examined concepts are clarified and the parent
frameworks are described.

1.1 Theoretical background

1.1.1 Key concepts: power, ideology, manipulation

Power

Power has had various interpretations over time. Dahl (1957) lists words such as
‘influence’, ‘control’ and ‘authority’, and claims that although these concepts are different, there
may be one single notion which seems to lie behind all of them. However, as believed by Dahl, it
is not likely to be able to produce a single, consistent, coherent theory of power. We are more
likely to create a variety of theories of limited scope, each of which uses some definition of power
that is helpful in the context of that particular piece of research. Therefore, the definitions of
power may be distinct in important respects, for different studies (Dahl, 1957, p.202).

Amongst the diverse definitions, it is important to note Foucault (1980), who claims that
power is everywhere, and therefore defines power relations as complex mechanisms of society.
Gramsci (1980) also focuses on the complexity of the concept of power, and highlights the
relations of force, when talking about power. He believes that power is exercised through
ideologies; moreover, he proposes that power and ideology are inseparable. According to recent
CDA theory, power is a transitive concept entailing an asymmetrical relationship, and these power
relationships are not natural and objective, but rather artificial and socially-constructed realities
(Fowler, 1985). Fowler declares that “power is the ability of people and institutions to control the
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 98

behaviour and material lives of others” (1985, p.61). Van Dijk (1996) theorises that power is a
fundamental notion in the examination of group relations in society. He claims that social power is
a kind of control which one group has over another. Those in power may define the overall aims
or goals of an event or schedule, provide the agenda, and control other circumstances of text and
talk. Gramsci (1980), Fowler (1985) and van Dijk (1996) define the essence of power as a kind of
relation, in which asymmetry and control are inevitably present. Fowler (1985) and van Dijk
(1996) claim that this asymmetry becomes powerful through the use of language. Language is an
instrument for enforcing and exploiting existing positions of authority and privilege in certain
ways, such as regulations or commands, and the use of language constitutes the statuses and roles
which serve as a basis for people to exercise power.

On the basis of these definitions, power might be considered by distinguishing at least two
levels. In a broad sense, power encompasses everything connected to a certain asymmetry in the
relationship between people. If political power is interpreted more precisely, it can be associated
strictly with outright force. This paper focuses on social and political power, which entails the
ability to control the behaviour of other people through language, therefore the emphasis is placed
on the stricter definition, where power is connected to overt force.

Ideology

Definitions of ideology are also multifarious, seemingly with none being able to capture all
of the complexities of the phenomenon. Classical definitions convey negative, critical concepts
such as ‘wrong’, ‘false’, ‘distorted’ or ‘misguided beliefs’, mainly related to our social or political
opponents (van Dijk, 1998). Representatives of recent CDA provide more elaborate explanations.
Kress (1985, p.29), claims that the term ‘ideology’ is used in literature to refer to various concepts,
ranging from the notions of a ‘system of ideas’, ‘beliefs’ or a ‘worldview’ to more contested ones
such as, ‘false consciousness’ or ‘ideas of the dominant ruling class.’ Kress (1985) posits that
ideologies find their clearest articulation in language, therefore a powerful way of examining
ideological structure is through the examination of language. According to van Dijk (1996, 1998),
the notion of ideology denotes complex sets of phenomena. He claims that ideologies control how
language users take part in distinct discourse as members of different groups, sometimes in
dominant positions, other times in dominated positions. He adds that ideologies also establish
links between discourse and society, and that at the same time discourse is necessary to reproduce
ideologies of different groups. Fairclough and Wodak (1997) stress that discourse does ideological
work, and that ideologies are often unjustifiable or ungrounded constructions of society. Moreover
they claim that, “ideologies are particular ways of representing and constructing society which
reproduce unequal relations of power, relations of domination and exploitation” (1997, p.275).
Van Dijk (1998) emphasizes the vagueness of this notion, highlighting the resulting theoretical
confusion of its analysis, although, on the basis of the various interpretations, the emphasis seems
to be placed on the relationship between power and language in all definitions of ideology. The
considerations suggest that ideology unfurls in discourse and is strongly reliant on power.

Manipulation

Manipulation is defined by van Dijk (2006, p.359) as a complex phenomenon which

involves social power abuse, cognitive mind control, and discursive interaction. Van Dijk claims
that manipulation is a “communicative and interactional practice, in which a manipulator exercises
control over other people, usually against their will or against their best interest” (2006, p.360). He
goes on to add that manipulation incorporates power, generally the abuse of power, which is a
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 99

kind of domination, and entails the practice of an illegitimate influence by means of discourse.
Van Dijk (2006, p.361) asserts that the boundary between manipulation and legitimate persuasion
is fuzzy and context-dependent. In the case of legitimate persuasion, the interlocutors have the
necessary information and knowledge, and are free to believe and act as they choose. Thus, they
can either accept or refuse the arguments of the persuader. Contrarily, manipulated interlocutors
have a more passive role, and they do not have sufficient information to resist manipulation, thus
they generally become victims of it. Therefore, manipulation is negatively stigmatised, whereas
persuasion is a socially accepted and promoted action in societies. For the differences between
manipulation and legitimate persuasion, see Table 1 below.

Manipulation Persuasion
Illegitimate influence, negative stigma
Legitimate influence, socially accepted
The truth is distorted to make the True argument is used to make the
interlocutors change opinion interlocutors change their opinion
Abuse of power No use of power
The interlocutors are deceived The interlocutors are presented with and
perhaps convinced by reasonable
arguments
It serves the best interest of the It serves a clear purpose
manipulator
Table 1. Differences between manipulation and legitimate persuasion

Van Dijk stresses that in the case of manipulation, “the crucial criteria are that people are
being acted upon against their fully conscious will and interests, and that manipulation is in the
best interests of the manipulator” (2006, p.361). He adds that the recipients may be more or less
manipulatable in different circumstances, and in some cases even ethically legitimate persuasion
may be manipulative.

1.1.2 Approaches to the linguistic analysis of political discourse

This section reviews two important methodologies which provide the starting points in the
creation of the PIMI instrument. From the wide range of CDA methods, Chilton and Schäffner’s
(1997) bottom-up and van Dijk’s (2006) top-down analytical models have been selected for the
purposes of the present research, as they are sufficiently complex and informative, and were
created for the analysis of political speeches. The systematic comparison of these two models, by
performing analyses of a selected political speech, has yielded sufficient data for the evaluation of
the theoretical and empirical merits and drawbacks of both models.

1.1.2.1 Chilton and Schäffner’s bottom-up method

Chilton and Schäffner’s (1997) method builds up the process of the analysis in a
meticulous way, from the bottom to the top, firstly identifying the fundamental linguistic
phenomena and then reaching the complex conclusions, step by step. As it is displayed in Figure
1, Chilton and Schäffner link strategic functions to a linguistic analysis of the text. The overlap
between the two circles signifies the linkage between strategic functions and their linguistic
realizations.
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 100

Strategic Linguistic
functions: analysis:
coercion, pragmatics,
resistance,
semantics,
dissimulation,
legitimization syntax

Figure 1. Strategic functions and the linguistic analysis of the text (based on Chilton & Schäffner, 1997)

The main strategic functions in political speeches are coercion, resistance, dissimulation and
legitimization/de-legitimization (Table 2). The strategic functions are discussed in line with a
linguistic analysis of the text, in which Chilton and Schäffner refer to pragmatics regarding speech
acts, semantics and syntax.

Coercion speech acts backed by sanctions:

commands, requests
Legitimization/delegitimization positive self-presentation/
negative other-presentation
Dissimulation control of information: lying,
blurring, defocusing
Resistance, opposition samizdat, graffiti
Table 2. The strategic functions (based on Chilton & Schäffner, 1997)

Chilton and Schäffner (1997) claim that languages are built of discourses and meanings
which are related in various ways, therefore the nouns, verbs and adjectives and their various
syntactic combinations are analysed and interpreted in a profound way. They emphasize that by
examining semantics, where the focus is on the layer of words and meanings, much may be learnt
about the intention of the speaker. Since the opinion-related connotations of a word might differ
greatly from its original denotation, politicians can express their opinion by using certain
connotations in order to carry out their political objectives (Hunston & Thompson, 1999). At the
level of syntax, agency and focus are the most relevant notions. By examining syntax, it is
possible to detect concepts and communicative functions that are difficult to recognize at the first
reading of a text. Chilton and Schäffner underline that an event may be syntactically encoded in
special ways in accordance with the purpose of the speaker, which can enable the receiver to
decode what the actual message is. All of the above mentioned positionings, word order,
intonation and stress, together with pragmatic, semantic and syntactic tools, enable orators to
achieve what they want through powerful political speeches (Table 3).
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 101

Pragmatics Language as • representatives (truth claims)

interaction 1 • directives (commands, requests)
• commissives (promises, threats)
• declaratives (proclamations, announcements)
• expressives (attitudes, judgements)
Semantics Meanings, structure nouns, verbs, adjectives: synonyms, antonyms,
of lexicon metaphors
Syntax The internal agency, focus, thematic roles, agent, patient,
organization of location, transitivity
senteces
Table 3. The linguistic levels of analysis (based on Chilton & Schäffner, 1997)

Chilton and Schäffner’s inductive method focuses on specific observations of the

individual elements of the whole system step-by-step, from the beginning to the end of the
analysis. Therefore, this analysis does not reveal manifest results immediately, as it only gradually
reaches completeness. Despite the drawbacks of the seemingly isolated steps during the analysis, a
merit of the bottom-up method is the lack of predefined categories and thus it is of an open-ended
nature, which allows more freedom of interpretation.
1.1.2.2 Van Dijk’s top-down method 2
Van Dijk (2006) explores the properties of political manipulation within his triangulated
approach linking discourse, cognition and society. This approach regards manipulation as a form
of social power abuse, cognitive mind control and discursive interaction. According to van Dijk
(2006, p.372), manipulation takes place in a broad sense at the discursive level, including non-
verbal characteristics such as gestures, pictures, sound, music and other social or cultural features.
Moreover, he highlights that manipulation is a social practice of power abuse. Thus the ‘same’
discourse may be manipulative in one situation but not in another. He concludes that discourse
may be defined as manipulative primarily in terms of the context models of the participants.
Consequently, discourse structures are not manipulative by definition; however, they may be more
efficient in certain contexts than in others – such as, argues van Dijk, in the process of influencing
the minds of recipients. Figure 2 shows the interconnectedness of discourse, cognition and society
in the processes of manipulation.

Discursive
interaction

Cognitive Social power

mind control abuse

Figure 2. Van Dijk’s triangulated approach to manipulation

1
Interaction refers to verbal meaning-making as a social practice, in this paper.
2
Van Dijk considers the discourse-cognition-society triangle in the process of manipulation. However, due to space
limits, the psychological aspects of the framework are not discussed in this paper.
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 102

Despite his concerns regarding the feasibility of capturing the linguistic signs of
manipulation, van Dijk attempts to provide a detailed framework for the identification of
manipulation in political speeches. He inspects overall interaction strategies, macro speech acts,
semantic macrostructures, local speech acts and meanings, the lexicon, local syntax, and the
rhetorical figures such as hyperboles or metonymies and metaphors. His analytical tool provides
predefined criteria for the analysis, starting with the more general ideas, leading to the more
specific. He highlights the ideological polarization between “Us” and “Them”, scrutinizing
various strategies, semantic and syntactic aspects and different speech acts in texts. His top-down
method narrows down the focus from the general to the particular, presenting several manipulative
moves in the discourse. Van Dijk’s top-down method is represented by an inverted pyramid in
Figure 3.

Overall interaction strategies: positive self-presentation/negative

other-presentation

Macro speech acts: Our good acts/Their bad acts,

accusation, defence

Semantic macrostructures: topic selection:

(De)emphasize negative/positive topics

Local speech acts: statements that prove

accusations
Local meanings: Our/Their
positive/negative actions: many/few
details, general/specific,
vague/precise, explicit/implicit

Lexicon: positive words for

Us/negative words for Them

Local syntax: active

vs. passive ,
nominalizations

Rhetorical
figures

Visuals

Figure 3. The visual representation of Van Dijk’s (2006) top-down method

Van Dijk’s deductive approach operates from general information to the specific. The
analysis begins with macro-levels through an overview of the ‘overall interaction strategies’,
including the examination of the context. This top-down method pre-defines the categories, and
each layer of the analysis is refined in greater detail heading towards local levels. As the
categories are ready-made, the method allows less space for free explanation. Due to the ready-
made categories of the deductive method, the application of the method can result in losing
important data. In addition, without sufficient knowledge concerning the context, the application
of the top-down method can easily distort the results of the analysis. Despite its weaknesses, van
Dijk’s model is fairly dynamic, providing results quickly at the beginning of the analysis.
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 103

1.2 Research Questions

In view of the results of previous research and the goals of the inquiry, the following
theoretical and empirical questions guide the current research:
1) Which features of power, ideology and manipulation can be identified in Tony Blair’s speech
on the war against Iraq (2003) by using the Power, Ideology and Manipulation Identification
instrument as an analytical tool?
2) What kind of relationship can be identified between the concepts of power, ideology and
manipulation in Tony Blair’s speech on the war against Iraq (2003)?
3) What conclusions may be drawn regarding the reliability and validity of the Power, Ideology
and Manipulation Identification instrument as an analytical tool?

2 Method

In order to answer the research questions, a set of research methods had to be selected. The
following sections provide a detailed description of how the different steps of the analysis
conducted by the PIMI instrument were applied to demonstrate features of context, power,
ideology and manipulation in Tony Blair’s speech on Iraq (Blair, 2003), henceforth referred to as
Blair’s speech. Firstly, the reasons for the selection of Blair’s speech are explained, and then the
different parts of the newly designed analytical instrument are introduced.

2.1 The text submitted to analysis

Since there is no “CDA way of gathering data” (Wodak & Meyer, 2009, p.27), some
researchers examine large corpora of texts, others focus on some or only one particular text.
Sampling is strongly bound within the theory and the questions of the given piece of research.
However, most CDA studies use texts which denote a special social problem which the researcher
wants to investigate. This research is concerned with finding the characteristic signs of power,
ideology and manipulation; therefore only one ‘special’ text is used, which is a typical text,
characterized by massive uses of power, ideological bias and manipulation. As for the genre of the
text, political speeches appear to be the most useful for the purpose of the present study. Firstly,
this is due to the fact that political speeches are delivered by political actors who directly take part
in organizational decision making and social power abuse (van Dijk, 2006). Secondly, political
speeches are premeditated therefore much less spontaneous than, for example, political debates.
Consequently they may contain various, intentionally-used elements of power, ideologies and
manipulation.

The present text is a notable manipulative speech of former UK Prime Minister, Tony
Blair. It was made in the British Parliament, in the House of Commons, on 18th March, 2003. In
the speech, Blair legitimated his government’s decision to go to war and invade Iraq. The speech
in question has been explored by several authors (Chartesis-Black, 2014; Hamilton, 2012; van
Dijk, 2006), since it implies apparent signs of discursive power abuse. Van Dijk partially analyses
and interprets the text in his study (2006, p.377) and the present research also uses this text for all
aspects of the analysis. According to van Dijk (2006), this case is important, because until the
following general elections in Britain, Blair was accused of having misled UK citizens about his
decision (van Dijk, 2006, p.376). Another major reason for the selection of the speech is due to the
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 104

access to a part of it on the YouTube video portal in a visual form, as this way this section of the
speech can be later submitted to a multimodal discourse analysis (MDA) of the speaker’s gestures,
mime and intonation, in order to gain a broader picture with more information. For the full text of
the speech see the Appendix.

2.2 The instrument

The in-depth analysis of power, ideologies and manipulation in Blair’s speech has been
conducted by the newly designed PIMI analytical instrument. The instrument combines the steps
of the bottom-up (Chilton & Schäffner, 1997), and the top-down (van Dijk, 2006) methods,
emphasizing the ‘Us/Them’ distinction throughout the systematic analysis of several linguistic
levels. Figure 4 shows the interconnectedness of the three examined concepts, and the two-way
arrows represent the combination of the top-down and the bottom-up approaches during the
analysis.

Power
Us/Them linguistic
distinction layers

Ideology Manipulation

Figure 4.The combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches in the analysis

The new analytical instrument also draws on other relevant theories and research (Carver
& Hyvärinen, 1997; Fowler, 1985; Hoey, 2001; Kress, 1985; Pang & Lee, 2008; van Dijk, 1998;
Weiss & Wodak, 2003; Wodak, 2007, 2011). The instrument has been built up of independent,
self-contained levels, where all levels can be treated separately, and can also be combined. Figure
5 illustrates the progression of sequential steps in the analysis. The figure emphasizes the
movement and the suggested direction of the process.
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 105

Macro-
pragmatics
(Context )

Pragmatics
(Speech
acts)

Semantics
and lexis
(meaning)

Syntax
(agency,
focus)

Figure 5. The basic structural process of the linguistic analysis done by the PIMI analytical instrument – The arrow
signals the suggested direction of the process.

Fairclough and Wodak (1997) warn that it is crucial to observe how texts are interpreted
and what social effects they have. The cultural, social and political background of the speech
provides data which promotes the interpretation of the linguistic characteristics of the text.
Therefore, a prerequisite for examining the features of power, ideologies and manipulation in
political discourse must be an intensive exploration of the context (Hoey, 2001; Moir, 2013; van
Dijk, 2006; Weiss & Wodak, 2003; Wodak, 2007). Van Dijk (2001) and Weiss and Wodak (2003)
stress that the topic belongs to the contextual layer, thus the topic pattern of the speech is
considered to be part of the context in the new analytical instrument.

The analysis goes along with examining the linguistic level of pragmatics, by covering
speech acts. According to Searle (1976, 1979), just by saying something, speakers simultaneously
achieve things. Searle distinguishes five illocutionary points which can be achieved by speakers:
representatives, commissives, directives, declaratives, and expressives. By using representatives,
speakers can claim how things are in the world. With directives speakers attempt to get listeners to
do something. The successful performance of declaratives brings alternation in the status or
condition of the referred things, exactly at the moment of the utterance. Commissives commit the
speaker to do something, and expressives convey the speaker’s feelings or attitudes about
themselves and the world. Over time, Searle’s five speech act categories have been researched,
improved and further specified (Bach & Harnish, 1979; Clark, 1996; Guiraud at al., 2011; Norrick,
1978; Vandeveken 1990). The present research uses Searle’s original five categories
supplemented with their further modifications. The speech act categories, their descriptions and
illocutionary acts can be seen in Table 4.
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 106

Speech act category Description Illocutionary acts

The expressed proposition reveals
Representatives • how things are in the world assertions, suggesting, putting
• the speaker’s beliefs forward, diagnoses, swearing,
• how “the speakers fit words to the notifications, concluding, predicting,
world” (Searle, 1979) confessing, denying, praising, blaming
(Clark, 1996)
Directives • attempts by the speaker to get asking, ordering, requesting, advising,
hearers to do something begging (Clark, 1996)
• how “the speakers fit the world to
the words” (Searle, 1979)
Declaratives • how the speaker brings a state of announcements, proclamations,
affairs into existence by declaring assessing, certifying, grading, ranking,
it to exist ruling (Bach & Harnish, 1979)
• that “declaratives bring about
some alternation in the status or
condition of the referred object”
(Searle, 1979)
Commissives • the commitment of the speaker to promising, planning, vowing, betting,
some future course of action opposing
• how to “fit the world to the
words” (Searle, 1979)
Expressives • the speaker’s feelings, attitudes, agreement, disagreement, offering
positive or negative evaluations thanks, condoling, deploring,
about the world apologizing, forgiving, congratulating,
• that the speaker is neither trying exclamations, boasts, accusing,
to get the world to match the expressions of sorrow, greetings and
words nor the words to match the moral satisfaction, admiration (Clark,
world (Searle, 1979) 1996; Guiraud et al., 2011; Norrick,
1978; Vanderveken, 1990)
Table 4. The five speech act categories, their descriptions, and illocutionary acts (Clark, 1996; Guiraud et al.,
2011; Norrick, 1978; Vandeveken, 1990; Searle, 1976, 1979)

Each speech act is to be considered in the case of all examined constructs, though the
emphases, functions and interpretations might be distinct. The PIMI instrument attempts to
identify characteristic ways in which speech acts either contribute to the formation of ideologies,
or overt coercion and more hidden manipulative utterances are expressed. The next level of
linguistic examination deals with semantics and lexis. The choice of nouns, verbs, adjectives; their
meanings and frequencies 3 may reveal important details about the speakers’ worldview, their
intentions and manipulative strategies. The level of syntax is the most latent element in text and
talk, and therefore it is the most difficult to make its functions and effects visible. Nevertheless,
the scrutiny of syntactic structures might bring the conceptual world constructed in the text to
conscious consideration (Chilton & Schäffner, 1997, p.226). By moving to deeper levels, the
analysis reveals more significant information, and consequently becomes more profound. The
synthesis of the levels could provide comprehensive knowledge regarding various features of
power, ideology and manipulation in political discourse.

3
The on-line software used for the analysis of word frequencies is ‘Text Analyzer’ available at:
https://www.online-utility.org/text/analyzer.jsp;
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 107

As the analysis of each level may provide complete data, all examined levels can be
discussed independently. The concepts of power, ideology and manipulation might be examined
through the lenses of the linguistic levels of pragmatics, semantics and lexis, and syntax.
Conversely, each linguistic level might be explored consecutively from the angle of power,
ideology and manipulation. As the main focus of this study is on the manifestation of power,
ideology and manipulation, the linguistic analysis is carried out from the angle of these concepts.
The following sections provide a detailed description of how the main concepts can be examined
by using the PIMI instrument.

2.2.1 Context

Van Dijk (2001, p.108) argues that “the critical aims of CDA can only be realized if
discourse structures are related to structures of local and global contexts”. He adds that whilst
there are many theories of text and talk, there is no real theory of context. Nevertheless, van Dijk
considers the social properties of communicative events relevant, and he suggests that society may
also be analysed at the level of interaction and situations and at the level of groups, social
organizations and institutions (2001, p.115). It must be noted that political speeches may seem
unidirectional, but in fact, the speaker delivers a political message to an audience. Therefore the
audience is part of an interactive turn-taking process (Moir, 2013, p.230). Hoey (2001) also claims
that the text itself is the site for the interaction between the speaker and the audience, so the
audience of the text co-operates with the speaker in making common meaning. Therefore certain
background knowledge on behalf of the audience is often needed to construct the common
meaning.

2.2.1.1 The levels of context

Weiss and Wodak (2003, p.22) mention that “on the one hand the situational, institutional and
social settings shape and affect discourses, and, on the other, discourses influence discursive as
well as non-discursive social and political processes and actions”. Weiss and Wodak 4 (2003, p.22)
highlight that to avoid “simply politicizing, instead of accurately analysing,” it is necessary to
work on the basis of a variety of different empirical data and background information. On the
basis of Weiss and Wodak’s (2003) ideas, the PIMI model focuses on four different types of
contextual information:
1) the immediate language or text
2) the intertextual and interdiscursive relationship between discourses
3) the extra-linguistic social variables
4) the broader socio-political and historical contexts, which the discourses are embedded
in and related to.

The data could consist of related texts, images, music, video recordings and various other
written or visual sources. Moreover, the different layers of the context constitute a ‘network’, and
the analyst himself is part of this network (White, 1992). The analyst’s choices regarding the
contextual information reflect not purely the issue under investigation but his subjective
viewpoint. Thus, the overall analysis entails a thorough investigation of the various contextual
layers, including the analyst’s self-reflection (Figure 6).

4
Weiss and Wodak (2003) refer to the context definition of Discourse Historical Approach (DHA).
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 108

Related
texts
The Visuals,
analyst images

Context
Historical Social
context context

The effects of The

the speech speaker

Figure 6. Variables of contextual information

2.2.1.2 Objectivity versus inter-subjectivity

A major question regarding the collection of contextual information is whether an

objective viewpoint can be achieved. According to Neuendorf (2003), an important aim of any
systematic investigation is to provide an objective description or explanation of a phenomenon
without biases of the investigator. However, she adds, there is no such thing as true objectivity,
since knowledge and facts are phenomena based on social consensus. Therefore all human inquiry
is subjective, though the consistency among these inquiries should be ensured. Instead of asking if
something is true we should ask if we agree that it is true. Based on these ideas, Neuendorf (2003,
p.11) argues that instead of struggling for objectivity, individual interpretations should take place.
Hence, it does not seem to be reasonable to seek objectivity, as contextual information implies
conclusions that are unique, non-generalizable, rich and well grounded.

2.2.1.3 The topic pattern

Several attempts have been made to define the aspects which influence the topic structure
of a text. McCarthy (1991, p.78) claims that by identifying the topic of a speech, the gist of the
text is disclosed. In order to identify the gist, the reader has to explore larger textual patterns of the
text. According to McCarthy, it is worth beginning to see how important certain vocabulary items
are in the discourse, since patterns in text are generated by vocabulary relations. Goutsos (1997,
p.156) adds that schematic structure, genre, choice of subject matter may all influence relations
and strategies in the text. As mentioned, Hoey (2001) and Moir (2013) claim that every discourse
can be seen as a kind of social interaction between the producer and the receiver. Hoey5 (2001,
p.13) adds that this interaction always has a purpose, for example, political texts always aim to
persuade the audience, though the purpose of the speaker and the audience do not necessarily
match. Hoey emphasizes that political texts are basically problem-solution type texts, since they
typically raise a problem which must be solved. He suggests a problem-solution pattern, projecting
the text into a dialogue in a way that the questions highlight the relationship between the
sentences. The questions which have to be asked are:

5
Hoey (2001) mainly focuses on written discourse, however, he extends his theory to speech as well.
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 109

• What problem arose for you?

• What did you do about this?
• What was the result?

The answers to the questions of the problem-solution pattern define four stages (Figure 7).

1. Situation 2. Problem 3. Response 4. Positive Result

Figure 7. Hoey’s problem-solution pattern

Hoey (2001, p.124) claims that “in authentic text the answers to the questions may vary
greatly in length.” Therefore this research proposes the application of the model to identify the
situation, the problem, the response and the positive result for the surface structure of the speech.
This implies bigger units than mere sentences or paragraphs.

2.2.2 Power

2.2.2.1 Pragmatics

As Dahl remarks, “operational equivalents of the formal definition, designed to meet the
needs of a particular research problem, are likely to diverge from one another in important ways”
(1957, p.202). In the present study, power is defined both in a broad and a narrow sense, though
the narrow sense definition is the basis of the interpretations. In a narrow sense, power as a type
of control might be captured in the processes of coercion.

Directives are the most power-dependent and the most obvious linguistic realization of the
coercion function (Chilton & Schäffner 1997, p.219). Declaratives also convey power, since only
powerful speakers are in the position to make announcements which influence the lives of others.
Table 5 displays the most apparent power-dependent pragmatic features in political speeches.

Power: Coercion
Directives begs, requests, commands
Declaratives announcements, proclamations

Table 5. Explicit signs of power in political texts at the level of pragmatics

In a broad sense, any type of asymmetrical relationship might be considered as one where
power is present. Therefore power can also be traced by examining the use of representatives,
expressives and commissives (for more details see Table 6).

Power: Inequality
Representatives assertions, truth claims: owner of the information,
omnipotent character
Expressives positive self / negative other presentation
Commissives promises, threats

Table 6. Implicit signs of power in political texts, at the level of pragmatics

WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 110

Since coercion overtly makes the addressee perform an action, the present analysis treats
coercion as the explicit manifestation of power. It is important to note that in case of coercion, the
presence of authority is necessary. Whereas, the implicit signs of power are more hidden, and they
do not cause immediate action, rather they make changes in the recipients’ minds. These forms of
implicit power are considered to take part rather in the more covert processes of manipulation in
the present study (for details see 2.2.4.1).

2.2.2.2 Semantics and lexis

Semantic analyses primarily focus on the content of the speech, attempting to make valid
inferences from it. According to the results of previous pilot analyses, coercion cannot be fully
derivable from the meanings of the parts that it is composed of. In other words, power as coercion
is not likely to be traced only by examining the lexical choices and meanings in a text, since
lexical meaning is modulated in context. Syntactic structures, contexts, lexical preferences, and
meanings together create coercive utterances (Pustejovsky & Jezek, 2008). Therefore, power as a
coercive force might be interpreted rather as a combination of semantics and syntax. However,
power in a broad sense, when contributing to the formation of unequal relations and manipulation,
can be examined at the semantic level too (for details see 2.2.4.2).

2.2.2.3 Syntax

Power can be explored at the syntactic level of the analysis, in several ways. First of all,
the predominance of agent-action structures may signal a world of controlled activity (Fowler,
1985). The speaker might express coercion by using imperatives or active voice when he is in a
subject position. Aside from the important role of agency, modal verbs also contribute to
conveying significant information in political discourse. Modal verbs might often transmit
meanings related to power. The modal verbs ‘may, shall, must, need, should…’ are often used
coercively by the speakers since there is a strong connection of the meanings of obligation and
permission with power. Some of the characteristic signs of power at the pragmatic and syntactic
levels are listed in Table 7.

Power (coercion)
Pragmatics - Directives: goals of the speaker, obligations of the audience
- Declaratives: regulations, rules
Semantics and - unable to fully explain coercion
lexis - lexical meaning is modified by syntax and context
Syntax - Imperatives, agent-action structures, modals (need, must, have to,
shall, should)

Table 7. Power as a coercive force

2.2.3 Ideology

2.2.3.1 Pragmatics

Ideologies are considered as the basic representations of social groups (van Dijk, 2001,
p.115) in this paper. According to van Dijk (2001), ideologies are at the basis of the knowledge
and attitudes of groups, and they have a schematic structure that represents the self-image of each
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 111

group. Ideologies feature membership devices, aims, activities, norms and resources of each
group, and convey the basic principles that organize the group members’ attitudes.

Based on the experience gained by the previous pilot analyses, ideologies seem to unfurl
partly in the form of representatives, as assertions. Assertions are simple statements or truth
claims, which represent the speaker’s beliefs. Political actors speak safely in the knowledge that
their beliefs are true or at least seem to be true for the audience. Yet, these beliefs are not
necessarily accurate. In many cases they are rather biased propositions, bald assertions, boasts, or
over-general claims. Other acts might appear in the form of expressives, which convey the
speaker’s emotions and unique standpoint about reality. Ideological polarization by the
legitimization of ‘Our’ good acts and the delegitimization of ‘Their’ bad acts are common features
of political discourse. Directives, commissives and declaratives reveal information about the
speaker’s beliefs regarding his own, and his audience’s duties, as well about the desired future
directions. Table 8 shows the pragmatic features of ideologies in political texts.

Ideology → The speaker’s beliefs (bias)

Representatives Praising, blaming, over-general claims, bald assertions, facts
Expressives Legitimization → ‘Our good acts’ / Delegitimization → ‘Their bad acts’
Directives Goals
Commissives Desires and fears
Declaratives Rules defined by the speaker, beneficial future directions
Table 8. Signs of ideologies in political texts at the level of pragmatics

2.2.3.2 Semantics and lexis

Vocabulary can be considered a kind of lexical map of the preoccupations of a speaker.

Whatever is important for a speaker is richly lexicalized (Fowler 1985, p.65). Relevant topics and
ideological principles might be detected by scrutinizing the patterns of semantic choices in the
text. By focusing on certain topics and iterating certain words, or by using some words more often
than others, the speaker can signal the importance of these topics. The frequency of using
particular words or synonyms can assign the rate of importance. Besides the semantic choices, for
instance the use of antonyms, the speaker might create opposition and draw boundaries, giving
rise to ideologically biased utterances. Metaphors can also be useful devices to communicate
conceptualizations of reality which enable speakers to avoid direct face-threatening references.

2.2.3.3 Syntax

Speakers might place important notions in subject positions, underlining general norms,
values and ideological principles. The foci of the sentences reveal the ideologically significant
topics in the text. Passive voice allows a different ordering of participant nouns than active, and
the focus of the topics change. By the application of nominalizations or passive constructions, the
subject might be emphasized. In contrast, the repeated usage of passive structures to hide agents
occurs in an attempt to conceal vital information. Ideological discourse usually applies the
“Us/Them” distinction de-emphasizing “Our” agency in negative acts, and emphasizing it in
positive acts. Passives and nominalizations seem to be frequent in political language that practices
an ideology of impersonality.

Modality may also indicate the speakers’ attitudes to the propositions they utter. In some
cases the validity of these attitudes is questionable, especially in strongly ideological speeches.
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 112

Most importantly, the modal auxiliary verbs may, shall, must and need might express the
speaker’s attitudes and beliefs. Sentence adverbs such as probably, certainly, regrettably,
adjectives such as necessary, unfortunate, certain, and some verbs, permit, predict, prove, etc.,
can also have meanings of modality. Predictability, desirability, validity, obligation, permission
can all be emphasized by the use of these modal verbs. For the characteristic signs of ideology, see
Table 9.

Ideology (beliefs)
Pragmatics - Representatives: self-serving constructions, truth and falsity
- Expressives: bias, US/THEM, emotionally loaded
- Commissives: promises – desires, threats – fears
- Directives: goals
- Declaratives: rules, values, norms
Semantics - Patterns of lexical choices, iterations, prominence, importance,
and lexis relevance, implication, coherence, levels of description
Syntax - Focus – ideologically significant topics in focal position,
US/THEM distinction, modals (necessity, probability: may, shall,
need), sentence adverbs: probably, certainly, regrettably…
Table 9. Signs of ideologies in political texts

2.2.4 Manipulation
2.2.4.1 Pragmatics
Manipulation is taken to be a kind of power abuse and illegitimate influence in the frames
of this study. As mentioned earlier, the aim of the manipulator is to make the audience believe or
act in a way that serves the best interests of the manipulator (van Dijk, 2006). Power and
manipulation seem to be overlapping in many respects, thus the present study intends to make
clear distinctions between them. Power is associated with coercive force, which is overtly used to
get somebody to do something. In manipulative processes, the audience is not influenced overtly,
rather in disguised ways, in accord with the speaker’s intentions. Thus, manipulation is treated
here as hidden influence by unfair control. For the differences between power and manipulation,
see Table 10.
Power Manipulation
Authority’s force causes changes in other No overt force, but hidden ability to make
people’s behaviour changes in other people’s behaviour
Entails force; people obey the commands of People act on the basis of their own beliefs
someone who is stronger
It does not contain emotions; only the Manipulated people act against their best interest
presence of the authority causes action based on the basis of their own beliefs, even
without the presence of an authority
Positional; connected to high position Personal; high position is not necessary, rather
personal traits
It forces people to do things It changes people’s beliefs
It is imposed by authoritative figures It does not necessarily require authority, rather
emotions
Table 10. Differences between power and manipulation
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 113

According to this approach, manipulation does not happen through the speaker’s direct
orders, begs, or announcements. Rather, politicians try to change the way listeners respond to their
political messages. Therefore, the manipulative effect of political messages seems to depend on
whether a message appeals to the listeners’ emotions, especially their enthusiasm or fear.
Emotional appeals also require rational ‘facts’ to justify the choices and increase the emotional
response of recipients (Brader, 2006)6. Based on this, manipulative utterances might be best
expressed by a type of language which can cause changes in the recipients’ minds.
Representatives, expressives, and commissives do not force the audience openly, rather they may
influence the audience’s mind-set in hidden ways. A common manipulative strategy in political
talk is dissimulation, most commonly expressed by representatives. Lying, defocusing, or blurring
the information are well-known tricks of manipulative speakers. Moreover, representatives might
influence the recipients’ views in more subtle ways. The politician is in a privileged status
regarding his access to information. By his assertions, he takes the role of an omnipotent
character, the knower of the information, the seer of the future, who has an influential position.
This superior position might even be escalated further by the use of expressive speech acts.
Expressives convey the speaker’s attitude or emotions towards an idea. By constraining the
conflicting meanings of the actions of ‘Us’ and ‘Them’, the speaker may further expand the
inequality between himself and others, in this way increasing his own influence. Manipulation
might also happen by using commissives. Commissives, in the forms of fake promises or
ungrounded threats, can be efficient manipulative devices. In this way they are able to
manufacture consent by abusing the recipients’ emotional vulnerability; their fears and desires.
Since usually no evidence is given, the hearers cannot check the truth value of the speaker’s
expressives, representatives, and commissives. Consequently, the flouting of the Gricean maxims
of quality and quantity are recurrent fallacies. The main pragmatic manifestations of manipulation
can be seen in Table 11.

Manipulation
Representatives Fact or opinion / Dissimulation: lying, blurring,
defocusing / Omnipotent speaker
Expressives Emotional utterances, Polarization: ‘Their bad acts’ /
‘Our good acts’
Commissives Dissimulation: fake promises, irrational threats –
manufacturing consent or fear

Table 11. Signs of manipulation in political texts at the level of pragmatics

As for the lies, it is often difficult for the analyst to decide if the speaker is aware of the
fact that his propositions flout the Gricean maxims, since only the speaker knows if he is lying
(Bolinger, 1980). As Meibauer (2007, p.80) argues, “…lies display no special devices that indicate
illocutionary force.” A possible solution for the problem of identifying lies is offered by Urchs
(2007, p.43), who stresses “the role of background knowledge”. Urchs adds that “it may be the
poverty of knowledge that makes you fall victim to liars” (2007, p.43). Therefore, in the process
of deciding if something is a lie or not, context is crucial. Consequently, knowledge about context
might take on a pivotal role in the examination of manipulation.

6
Brader (2006) focuses on the role of emotional appeals in political ads, however he remarks that the nature of impact
should be the same for emotions evoked by ads, speeches, news coverage, debates, or direct mailings.
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 114

2.2.4.2 Semantics and lexis

Manipulation at the semantic level can be best revealed by polarization, and biased
utterances. Generally, the lexical choices referring to ‘Us’ represent positive content, while
referring to ‘Them’ conveys negative content. The lexicalization of a text; the polarization at the
level of nouns, verbs and adjectives, metaphors, hyperboles and euphemisms encode differences
between the classes of participants. Abstract nouns signal more formal categories with more
prestige. Dynamic verbs, especially in the active form, mediate agent controlled actions. Potent
actors in the political world are possessors of knowledge, dynamism and good qualities.
Therefore, the semantic structure of a text might indicate the role of the speaker as an oracular, the
guardian of truth, and the creator of good things (Chilton & Schäffner, 1997, p.220). In contrast,
the words might downplay the opposition’s actual potency (Kress, 1985, p.38). These dichotomies
could be traced at the level of nouns, verbs and adjectives:

Nouns: abstract ↔ concrete

Verbs: dynamic ↔ stative
Adjectives: positive ↔ negative

The meanings of nouns, verbs and adjectives might underscore the distinctive position of
the speaker. For example, by using antonyms, the speaker can make great distinctions between
‘Us’ and ‘Them’, enhancing the difference between ‘Our’ good qualities and ‘Their’ bad qualities
(van Dijk, 2006). This systematic semantic dissymmetry might increase the influence of the
speaker.

2.2.4.3 Syntax

According to van Dijk (1996), no basic linguistic structures of manipulation have yet been
found. Nevertheless, polarization at the syntactic level seems to be able to form manipulative
structures in political discourse. Therefore, certain syntactic organizations could well assist the
politician to assign how people feel or how they should act. Syntactic choices enable the speaker
to stress dynamism. Active voice indicates the dynamism, responsibility and capability of ‘Us’. On
the contrary, passive voice could denote a kind of inability of ‘Them’. When the opponents are in
the subject position, the speaker might use passive constructions to imply their inability. This
contrast increases the power of the speaker showing him as an active, competent character whilst
his opponent is placed in a passive, submissive position (Figure 8).

Active voice
dynamism, capability/
responsibility

Passive voice
controlled position,
incapability/
avoidance of responsibility

Figure 8. Syntactic polarization

WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 115

Passive structures help the speaker blur responsibility when speaking about ‘Us’. When
verbs appear in passive voice, it permits agent-deletion, but not the deletion of modality, therefore
only the cause of an event is blurred. Nominalizations are also helpful devices to disguise the
agent, so the speaker can obscure responsibility when speaking about displeasing themes.
Nominalizations are perfect tools for the speaker to claim credit, in this case self-legitimization is
combined with dissimulation. With these tools the manipulative polarization of ‘Our’ acts and
‘Their’ acts can be efficiently administered by the speaker. For the signs of manipulation, see
Table 12.

Manipulation
Pragmatics - Representatives: deception, lies, omnipotent speaker, knower of information
- Expressives: employing emotional vulnerability, polarization
- Commissives: pressuring, playing with the audience’s desires and fears by
imposing promises or threats
Semantics - Inequality – verbs (active/stative), nouns (abstract/concrete), adjectives
and lexis (positive/negative)
Syntax - Agency, Active/Passive constructions (responsibility, potency, control,
powerless/powerful position), nominalization (blurring responsibility), focus
Table 12. Signs of manipulation in political texts

3 Results and discussion

3.1 The context

Following Weiss and Wodak’s (2003) ideas, contextual information has an important role
in the analysis. However, due to space limitations, the context is only briefly outlined here, though
contextual information is infinite. The list of variables is presented in Table 13.
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 116

Extra linguistic social The speaker: Tony Blair, Labour party leader, Prime Minister of Britain 1997-
variable 2007; after the invasion of Iraq, Blair was given the nickname ‘Bliar’ and ‘Prime
Monster’; Blair resigned as Prime Minister on 27th June 2007.
The audience: the House of Commons; the people of Britain; the people of the
international community
The effects of the speech: Iraq war 19th March 2003; riots in Britain; music: Muse;
film: Fair Game 2010; conflicts in the Middle-East, international terrorism, ISIS
Broader socio- The international political environment: G. W. Bush; UN; Europe
political context
Intertextual Lyrics: Muse’s song, Take a bow (2006) 7 “promises a fiery doom for the architects
relationship of the Iraq war” (Lynskey, 2007)
News articles: published as an immediate critical response to Blair’s speech → The
Independent (Blair tells MPs, 2003); The New York Times (Hodge, 2003)
The position of the The analyst’s subjective opinion about the issue
analyst who is part of The analyst’s general attitude regarding the speaker
the contextual
‘network’
Immediate text Date: 18th March 2003; location: The British Parliament, The House of Commons
Written version of the speech, numbered sentences (see the Appendix), and the
speech on You Tube 8
Topic pattern (Hoey, 2001) :

Situation:
• The house of commons is asked to pass judgement and attack Iraq, since
Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
• lines 1-17
Problem:
• Iraq's arsenal of WMD is a threat/ The cruelty of Saddam's regime causes
suffering to Iraq's people
• lines 18-23
Response:
• Inspectors probed.
• Iraq was forced to comply with the inspectors.
• Saddam is playing the same old game, he hides WMD.
• lines 24-268
Positive result:
• Britain should confront the tyrannies dictatorships and terrorists
• lines 269-326
Table 13. Contextual variables related to Blair’s (2003) speech

7
The source of the music video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQXit0vly2I retrieved December 21, 2017.
The source of the lyrics: http://www.metrolyrics.com/take-a-bow-lyrics-muse.html retrieved December 21, 2017.
8
The source of the video containing a section from Tony Blair’s speech, made on the 18th March, 2003:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPCTBXse80c
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 117

3.2 Power

The analysis of the pragmatic level entails the detailed scrutiny of the speech acts. The
speech consists of 326 sentences. To ensure the conduct of a meticulous analysis, all the
sentences, one after another, were examined and classified according to their speech act category.
Although a sentence is a well definable grammatical unit, it does not always contain one type of
speech act only. Therefore, in the case of complex sentences, where the clauses comprised distinct
illocutions, the clauses were evaluated separately. Besides this, some utterances could not be
related to any speech act categories, hence they were left out. Since the examined sentences or
clauses generally cannot be isolated from context, the communicative function of each speech act
was considered by relating it to its context constituents. Altogether 282 utterances were
categorized, as a certain number of utterances could not be related to any speech acts. The
majority of the speech acts, approximately 80 per cent, are representatives, signalling that the
speaker places emphasis on sharing information. However, a major part of Blair’s representatives
are not true facts, rather they are subjective judgements. A smaller part, approximately 10 per cent
of the speech acts are directives. Emotionally loaded expressives are rarely presented in the
speech; there are even fewer commissives, and no declaratives at all. Figure 9 shows the division
of speech acts in Blair’s speech.

Expressives
Directives
Commissives

Directives
Commissives
Representatives
Expressives

Representatives

Figure 9. The distribution of speech acts in Blair’s (2003) speech

Blair overtly displays his power through his coercive acts. By way of his requests,
suggestions and advice, he urges his audience to act: (1; 326) 9 I beg to move the motion…; (7)
...we must demand he disarm…; (136) The world has to learn the lesson…; (226)...the world
should unite…; (156) … this indulgence has to stop…; (277)…We have to act within the terms set
out in resolution 1441…; (299)…we must face the consequences…; (324)…This is not the time to
falter… By these directives, the audience is pushed to accept Blair’s arguments to act. There are
no declaratives in the text, signalling that the speaker does not take the responsibility to make
decisions about the issue independently. Rather, Blair intends to make his audience come to a
resolution. The lack of declaratives, the relatively small number of directives, and the great
number of representatives suggest that the speaker restricts his own role to inform the recipients
about the danger caused by Hussein, and to advise them to act.

9
The numbers in brackets indicate the line numbers in the text of the speech.
The full text of the speech can be seen in the Appendix.
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 118

At the syntactic level, coercive force is strongly signalled by the modality in the speech.
There is a notable predominance of the use of the modal verbs should, have to and must. They
appear many times throughout the speech, mainly when Blair speaks about the responsibility of
the House to control Hussein’s actions: (3) … we must hold firm … (116)… we must demand…,
(152)… our patience should have been exhausted, we should have acted…. (277)… we have to
act… (299) … we must face the consequences… The connection of the modal verbs of obligation
with power is spectacular; Blair employs his power by using these devices to order or advise the
House of Commons.

3.3 Ideology

At the pragmatic level, ideologies mostly unfurl through various representatives. The
division of the speech acts indicates that Blair primarily relies on spreading information via his
representatives, by several propositions connected to the issue. Truth claims might represent
Blair’s beliefs, although these beliefs are not necessarily accurate in each case. It can be inferred
that the concept of representatives used by Searle (1976, 1979) blurs the distinction between fact
and subjective judgement. Therefore, when examining representatives, a differentiation between
true facts and opinion seems to be necessary. A major part of Blair’s representatives convey
opinion instead of fact. Blair shares his evaluations several times: (3) …That is the democracy that
is our right but that others struggle for in vain. (151) … Our fault has not been impatience. In
addition, there is a great deal of speculation and predictions connected to Hussein's intentions with
WMDs. These are introduced as undoubtedly true statements about the facts: (22)…It became
clear after the Gulf war that the WMD ambitions of Iraq were far more extensive; (162)… Iraq is
not the only regime with WMD…; (199) I know that there are some countries or groups within
countries that are proliferating and trading in WMD, especially nuclear weapons technology.
Blair asserts his speculations as unquestionable truth claims, although they are biased
propositions, whose validity was refuted after the attack on Iraq. However, many of Blair’s claims
appear to be legitimate, especially when he speaks about proven facts or data: (19) In April, 1991,
after the Gulf war, Iraq was given 15 days to provide a full and final declaration of all its WMD;
(20) Saddam had used the weapons against Iran, against his own people, causing thousands of
deaths. The expressives convey Blair’s attitudes about the issue, sometimes in the form of overtly
biased utterances. Blair praises ‘Us’ several times throughout the speech: (2) …it is right that this
house debate this issue…; (318) Of our armed forces - brave men and women of whom we can feel
proud, whose morale is high and whose purpose is clear. Blair legitimizes ‘Our’ actions by
praising ‘Us’ consistently throughout the speech. These expressives create a subjective version of
reality, displaying the speaker’s evaluations about the situation. Through some commissives, Blair
expresses his government’s commitment related to the war against Iraq, and also emphasizes his
rejection to the opposing voices: (160)…we will act..; (257) … we pass and will back it with action
if Saddam fails to disarm voluntarily; (323) I will not be party to such a course. The directives
show Blair’s convictions regarding the necessary attitude of the world towards Hussein’s regime,
and the possible resolutions: (7) …we must hold firm; (136) …the world has to learn the lesson;
(156) …this indulgence has to stop; (226)…the world should unite; (263)… that should be part of
a larger global agenda.

Examining the level of semantics and lexis, iterations might reveal important features
related to ideologies. The lexical density of the text is 27.2506, meaning that the proportion of
content words compared to the total number of words is very low. It signifies that the speaker
reiterates certain words, and focuses on few topics. Such texts with low lexical density can be
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 119

easily understood. Thus, highly ideological speeches operate with low lexical density, in order that
the audience might easily comprehend the frequently repeated messages. Regarding the
frequencies, the most often used words10 are we (66x); our (34x); Iraq (33x); I (32x); Saddam
(25x); he (24x); they (23x); now (21x); WMD (20x); should (18x); people (18x); inspector (17x);
do (17x); resolution (15x); action (15x); threat (14x); full (12x); final (11x); declaration (10x);
weapons (10x).

The most frequent nouns in the text are: various types of weapons (53x); Iraq (33x);
Saddam (25x); WMD (20x); people (18x); inspectors (17x); world (7x); resolution (15x); action
(15x); threat (14x); declaration (10x); weapons (10x); ultimatum (9x). For visual representation of
the most recurrent nouns in the speech see Figure 10. The circles of nouns referring to ‘Them’ are
marked in dark grey, whereas the ones connected to ‘Us’ and his allies are represented by light
grey. The differing sizes of the circles indicate the distinct emphases of the most common words,
based on the frequency of their occurrences in the text.

Saddam, Iraq Weapons 53x

Action
(WMD,
58x 15x
biological,
chemical...)
Inspectors
Resolution
Threat 17x
14x 15x

Figure 10. The most frequent nouns related to the ‘Them’ (blue) and ‘Us’ (grey) division in Blair’s (2003)
speech

By exploring the subjects of the sentences, an obvious difference might be detected

between the lexical choices regarding ‘Us’ and ‘Them’. Blair focuses on the problems and the
threat caused by Iraq; many parts of the speech revolve around various types of weapons
recursively. Blair iterates the theme, stressing the seriousness of the issue. He gives many details
about Iraq's weapons: WMD 11 (20x), VX 12 (5x), mustard (5x), anthrax (5x), BW 13 (3x), VX nerve
agent production equipment, Scud missile programme.... In light of the outcome of the issue, viz.,
that in fact there was no evidence concerning the presence of WMD in Iraq, this abundance of
nouns related to WMD in the speech mediates a rather prejudiced judgement. As for the nouns
connected to Blair, Britain and the US, the following appear most frequently: inspectors (17x),
resolution (15x) and action (15x). The nouns related to Hussein emphasize the threat caused by
weapons. Consequently, Britain might be associated with the control over the problem, by

10
The most frequently used words are mentioned without taking into account the different forms of be, and the
articles.
11
Weapons of mass desctruction
12
Nerve agent (O-Ethyl S-Di-IsopropylAminoethylMethylPhosphonoThiolate)
13
Biological weapon
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 120

inspection and action. Meanwhile, Blair does not say a word about the arsenal owned and used by
the US or the UK.

As for the verbs, three are used significantly more frequently in the speech than others:
know (13x); act (7x); and disarm (7x). The verb know usually refers to Blair, act mainly stands
with ‘We’, and disarm refers to Hussein. Blair emphasizes his own knowledge about the issue and
his demand for the House to act, whilst stressing that Iraq should disarm, implying that Hussein
does own WMD (Figure 11).

know 13x
disarm
7x
act 7x

Figure 11. The most frequently used verbs related to the ‘Them’ (blue) and ‘Us’ (grey) division in Blair’s (2003)
speech

Blair’s adjectives highlight his message. Many of the adjectives are densely repeated: clear
(12x); full (12x); final (11x); Iraqi (10x); right (6x); false (6x); different (6x); dangerous (5x);
nuclear (5x); unaccounted (5x); new (5x). Most adjectives describe different types of weapons
(nuclear, biological, chemical, deadly, radiological), unsurprisingly, as weapons are at the centre
of the speech. Besides this, Blair seems to concentrate on the negative portrayal of Hussein and his
regime. The adjectives describing Hussein and Iraq paint a strongly negative picture: dangerous
(5x); tyrannical (2x); barbaric; evil; perverted; violent; grim; devastating. The most frequent
adjectives referring to ‘Us’, are right (6x) and clear (6x), both denoting positive qualities. The
description of “Us” is also negative in some cases, especially when Blair criticizes ‘Our’ hesitation
to attack Iraq. The overall focus on ‘Their’ negative attributes instead of ‘Our’ positive ones
creates a gloomy atmosphere throughout the whole speech (Figure 12).

nuclear 5x,
biological 3x,
chemical 2x,
lethal, deadly,
radiological full and clear
final 12x
11x
dangerous 5x,
tyrannycal 2x,
right
barbaric, evil,
perverted, absurd, 6x
grim, devastating false
6x

Figure 12. The most frequent adjectives related to the ‘Them’ (blue) and ‘Us’ (grey) division in Blair’s (2003) speech
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 121

A major ideological device at the syntactic level is the placement of important topics in
subject positions. Blair draws the audience’s attention to important topics in focal positions. He
uses the pronoun ‘We’ most often in a subject position, which may well signal his intention to
involve the audience in the case. On the other hand, Blair, by using ‘We’ instead of ‘I’, might blur
his unique personal responsibility regarding the issue. It must be noted, that in Blair’s speech there
are no unique and homogenous ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ categories. The speaker constructs two ‘Us’
categories; one refers to the British government and the parliament. The other ‘Us’ reflects a wider
category; the UN, the Security Council, the inspectors, the USA, the whole world, and everyone
who is against Hussein. However, some elements of the second ‘Us’ are represented as ‘Them’ in
some cases. Those who are originally part of the ‘Us’ category become ‘Them’ when mentioned in
connection with their hesitation to support the war against Iraq. In these cases, this second ‘Us’ is
constructed, containing only the speaker and the participants who support the attack of Iraq.
Therefore there is a ‘Them’, which represents each participant who does not support the second
‘Us’ in its intention to attack Iraq; the UN, France, and the world. Nonetheless, the most important
‘Them’ is Saddam, Iraq, the terrorists and other dictatorships or groups who have, or are in
production of WMDs. A third ‘Them’ implies the Iraqi people who suffer from Saddam’s cruelty.
The synonyms used for the subject ‘we’ (people, the country and the parliament, Britain and the
world, inspectors…) are of concepts which show some kind of ‘togetherness’ or close bonds.
Meanwhile, the subjects associated with Hussein (WMD, Hitler, danger, problem, darkness, threat)
convey negative, troublesome meanings. With these antagonistic meanings in focal positions Blair
expresses his own beliefs, and creates an ‘ideological conflict’ between ‘Us’ and the ‘enemy’
(Figure 13).

people, the country WMD, Hitler, danger,

and the parliament, problem, darkness,
Britain and the world,
inspectors... threat...

Figure 13. Contrasting concepts in subject positions signalling ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ in Blair’s (2003) speech

The subjects of the sentences and their relation to their predicates reveal further important
features of the speech. ‘We’ as a subject appears 66 times in the text, emphasizing Blair’s unity
with his government and his allies as well as with the nation. Besides this, Blair in a subject
position is portrayed as a participant who has allies and friends, who is integrated into the system,
a potent actor in his friendly political world. In contrast, the pronoun ‘they’ occurs 23 times.
Saddam Hussein is mostly described in line with his weapons, alienated even from his own
people. He is syntactically and textually encoded as an isolated individual.
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 122

3.4 Manipulation

At the pragmatic level, Blair’s speech acts realise manipulation in several ways. On the
one hand, the speaker’s privileged position in terms of possessing information is highlighted by an
abundant use of representatives. Blair has special access to information: (22) 14… It became clear
after the Gulf war that the WMD ambitions of Iraq were far more extensive than hitherto thought;
(200) I know there are companies, individuals, some former scientists on nuclear weapons
programmes, selling their equipment or expertise. Obviously, the majority of these propositions
are exclusively owned by the speaker. The audience take part in the communicative event as
passive recipients, whereas Blair’s role is active and informative. On the other hand, as mentioned
in 3.3, representatives are capable of manipulating the audience through transmitting the speaker’s
subjective opinion. The majority, approximately 52 per cent of Blair’s representatives relay
judgement, rather than fact. Since facts, such as (20)… Saddam had used the weapons against
Iran, against his own people, causing thousands of deaths…, and subjective opinions (21)… He
had had plans to use them against allied forces…, are shuffled in the speech, it is easier for the
speaker to share his biased propositions as truth. With his representatives, Blair extends the
opposition between ‘Us’ and ‘Them’, mentioning Britain, the US and the rest of the world as a
unit facing major security threats coming from Iraq. Blair’s prestige is therefore increased, as
opposed to Hussein’s. ‘Our’ actions are positively evaluated whilst Blair highlights the difference
between ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ by praising ‘Us’ while blaming ‘Them’: (3) …That is our democracy
that is our right but that others struggle for in vain. ↔ (197)… Tyrannical regimes with WMD and
extreme terrorist groups who profess a perverted and false view of Islam … The inequality entails
not only the increase of ‘Our’ value in general, but it also gives strength to the speaker himself,
who is himself one of ‘Us’. Moreover, representatives can be various forms of dissimulation;
lying, blurring and defocusing. In a major part of the speech, Blair reveals ‘facts’ about Iraq, its
WMDs and some connected topics, though the truth value of the allegations cannot be checked by
the audience. In such cases, the speaker does not have any evidence underlying his allegations, he
is lying about the presence of WMD in Iraq, flouting the Gricean maxim of quality: (22) …the
WMD ambitions of Iraq were fare more extensive than hitherto thought; (162) Iraq is not the only
regime with WMD. ; (164) … any fair observer does not really dispute that Iraq is in breach and
that 1441 implies action in such circumstances…; (199) I know that there are some countries or
groups within countries that are proliferating and trading in WMD, especially nuclear weapons
technology… With some representatives Blair threatens his audience, though these threats are
ungrounded in some cases: (15)…the outcome of this issue will now determine more than the fate
of the Iraqi regime and more than the future of the Iraqi people…; (16)…It will determine the way
Britain and the world confront the central security threat of the 21st century… .

As mentioned earlier, it is often difficult to decide if the speaker’s proposition is a lie, and
in this case Blair may have also been misled about the presence of WMDs in Iraq. Nevertheless, it
has already been proven that Blair had no real evidence about the existence of WMDs in Iraq
when delivering his speech. Consequently, he may have consciously misled his audience. At the
time of the speech, the recipients were not able to obtain sufficient background information in
connection with Blair’s propositions; therefore they easily became victims of the manipulative
language.

Through the use of a great number of representatives, and very few commissives, Blair
employs a third manipulative device and avoids taking on any real responsibility regarding the

14
The figures in brackets indicate the number of the sentence within the text presented in the Appendix.
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 123

issue. As the decision is seemingly in the hands of the Members of the Parliament, Blair does not
have to commit himself to any action, nor has to face the consequences of his own decision alone.
He diminishes his own responsibility by sharing information with his audience. At the same time,
he offers the decision to the members of House of Commons, who do not have any other choice
but to accept Blair’s serious allegations.

The expressives manipulate the audience in disguised ways. Firstly, the use of emotionally
loaded expressives might lead to the involvement of the audience in the case. Secondly, the
expressives increase the distance between ‘Us’ and ‘Them’, and create inequality by legitimizing
‘Our’ actions and delegitimizing ‘Their’ actions. Blair introduces his speech with the strategy of
positive self-presentation, and by speaking respectfully about the House of Commons: (2) I say
that is right that the House debate this issue and pass judgement. Blair continues his positive self-
presentation throughout the whole text by emphasizing his democratic values (van Dijk, 2006,
p.377). Meanwhile, Hussein’s regime is never described positively.

Besides the fact that Blair, as the Prime Minister of the UK, solely by his powerful political
position might be able to influence his audience, he as the knower of the truth, the seer of the
future, the actor who does positive things, contrary to ‘others’, has undeniable potential to advise
and urge his audience to act. In addition, the strong polarization between ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ creates
a dissonance, which might induce the audience to accept Blair’s viewpoint. As a result, after
learning the ‘facts’ about the dangerous situation, the House has to say yes to the war. The
manipulative force of the speech seems stronger if we consider the context. The House of
Commons had to make a decision about going to war on the day of the speech, and the following
day, 19th March 2003, Britain joined the U.S., and attacked Iraq.

Examining semantics and lexis, ideological polarization seems to take part in manipulative
processes. Most nouns representing the ‘Us’ categories have a sense of abstraction. The mostly
general and abstract nouns (friends, democracy, choice, debate, matter, country) mentioned in
connection with Blair, the British and the allies have mainly positive, 'democratic' or neutral
associations. The concrete nouns in connection with Iraq (WMD, anthrax, VX, terror) have
negative and frightening associations. The nouns (phrases) when mentioned in connection with
Iraq are, in many cases, names of various types of weapons, or are related to terrorism and/or
danger (Figure 14).

'US':
friends, 'THEM':
democracy, choice, Saddam, WMD,
debate, country anthrax, VX, conflicts,
terrorism

Figure 14. Nouns in Blair’s (2003) speech

The distance between Blair’s democracy and Hussein’s dictatorship is increased by the use
of the antagonistic meanings. Thinking about ‘Us’ metaphorically by using abstract notions,
whereas about ‘Them’ by using specific nouns of weapons or fear, creates a strong conflict
between ‘Us’ and ‘Them’.
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 124

The verbs describe Blair as a thoughtful, active participant in the case (say, disrespect,
believe), whereas contrarily, the verbs related to Hussein (destroy, weaponize, was forced, refused,
comply, allow, deny) often designate violent physical actions or revolve around the notion of
‘obedience’. The verbs, when denoting Blair’s actions, often convey mental activity, suggesting
Blair’s mental and emotional involment in the matter. The active constructions signal the
speaker’s dynamism and ability to act. The verbs describing Hussein’s actions highlight his
dangerous, and at the same time controlled position, since the meanings are related to the use of
weapons, the refusal of cooperation, denial and failure. The picture of an unequal relationship is
outlined, wherein Blair has the power to control Hussein, whose acts are destructive and whose
only right is to refuse, hide or deny (Figure 15).

'US':
say, believe, agree,
disagree, reflect, 'THEM':
debate, find destroy ,weaponize,
refuse, comply, deny

Figure 15. Verbs in Blair’s (2003) speech

The inequality is also enhanced by emphasizing the difference between ‘Our’ good and
‘Their’ bad qualities. A significant distinction can be seen between the adjectives portraying ‘Us’
and ‘Them’. The adjectives describing ‘Us’, in many cases are positive and progressive, whereas
those in connection with Iraq are either neutral or negative. Looking at the list of adjectives, a
well-marked contradiction between ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ can be seen, creating tension in the speech.
The adjectives describing Blair and his allies mainly take positive or neutral content; honourable,
right, tough, stark, firm, serious… On the contrary, the adjectives describing Hussein are never
positive, and in best cases are neutral, but rather they convey negative meanings, mostly related to
weapons; chemical (munitions), unquantifiable (amounts), biological (weapons), withering
(indictment), final (opportunity), material (breach), nuclear (weapon)… For the adjectives, see
Figure 16.

honourable,right,
tough, stark, firm,
serious chemical, unquantifiable,
biological, withering,
final, material, nuclear

Figure 16. Adjectives in Blair’s (2003) speech

With this contrast, the distance between the democratic UK, US and the ‘dangerous’ Iraq is
emphasized. Hussein is dehumanized and encoded ambiguously in dangerous, and at the same
time powerless roles by Blair’s language. The overall lexical classification of the participants relay
an unequal relation between them.
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 125

Besides this, several metaphorical elements enhance the emotional effect of the speech:
(240)…the paralysis of the UN has been born out of the division; (241)… the heart of it has been
the concept of a world… With these, and other rhetorical devices, Blair exaggerates the
seriousness of the situation, manipulating his audience to take action (van Dijk, 2006). Blair
increases the significance of the matter further by using various rhetorical devices. Hyperbolic
devices increase the seriousness of the situation: (137) Looking back over 12 years, we have been
victims of our own desire to placate the implacable, to persuade towards reason the utterly
unreasonable, to hope that there was some genuine intent to do good in a regime whose mind is in
fact evil. With these exaggerations, Blair increases the manipulative force of his speech,
portraying the situation more seriously and ‘implacable’ as it in fact is (van Dijk, 2006, p.378).

Concerning syntax, combining active and passive sentences and nominalizations, Blair
emphasizes his own abilities, whereas he can blur his responsibility. In contrast, using passive
constructions when speaking about ‘Them’, their inability or controlled position might be
emphasized, polarizing the difference between our good and their bad qualities. When the subject
of the sentences is ‘Us’ and the verbs are in active voice, they indicate the dynamism and
capability of the speaker: (1; 326) I beg to move the motion…; (2)… I say: it is right that this
house debate this issue…; (4)… I do not disrespect the views…; (73) I won’t go through all the
events since then…. When Hussein or Iraq are in the subject position, the passive voice signals
‘Their’ controlled position: (42) Iraq was forced then to release documents…; (36) … Iraq was
forced to admit that too was false. When an active voice is used with the subject of Hussein, the
predicates denote negative actions, therefore Saddam’s responsibility is stressed: (50) … Iraq
refused to comply with the inspectors; (20) Saddam had used the weapons against Iran, against
his own people…; (76) Iraq continues to deny…; (86) … Saddam is playing the same old games…
With this, Blair draws our attention to Hussein’s harmful and dangerous activities, which activities
were not controlled at the time of the speech.

Furthermore, Blair uses the passive voice in many cases when he speaks about ‘Our’
actions: (24) Unscom, the weapons inspection team, was set up; (33) Military action was
threatened. Consequently, Blair seems to avoid openly taking the responsibility; he rather
obscures the subjects of ‘Our’ violent actions. With nominalizations Blair also blurs the
responsibility, and indirectly says that no-one is responsible for the action, however it is necessary:
(6)…to stand British troops down and turn back, or to hold firm to the course…. Blair expresses
the moral superiority, credibility and vulnerability of ‘Us’, while he vilifies and discredits ‘Them’
by using polarized structures. A focus on ‘Our’ positive acts and ‘Their’ negative acts, giving few
or many details, being general or specific in connection with certain topics, being vague or
precise, explicit or implicit, are all effective means of manipulation in Blair’s speech.

4 Conclusions

The results of the analysis performed by the PIMI instrument imply that the characteristic
signs of power, ideologies and manipulation can be detected at various linguistic levels in the
political speech at hand. Synthesizing the results of the analyses of the pragmatic, semantic and
syntactic levels, an overall discursive congruence can be traced. The results show that overt
coercion is less significant; rather Blair applies several manipulative devices to influence his
audience and to manufacture their consent. The allocation of the speech acts imply that the
speaker relies on the persuasive strength of the information provided by his representatives. The
speech acts also define the speaker as an omnipotent character - a knowledgeable orator, whilst
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 126

describing the other party as inferior. By the lexical classification of the participants, the speaker
creates opposition and draws boundaries between ‘Us’ and ‘Them’, and communicates biased
conceptualizations of reality. At the syntactic level, the concepts and communicative functions are
not directly encoded; however the meticulous analysis brings them forth to conscious
consideration. Thus, the unequal relationships and the contrast between the speaker and others
become manifest at the syntactic level as well. By exploring the context, the interpretations of the
linguistic characteristics become more significant. The rigorous analysis of the syntactic-textual
system together with the context could provide valuable information regarding some hidden
intentions of the speaker, as well as the broader cultural, social traits of the discourse.

In terms of the relationship between the concepts of power, ideology and manipulation, the
analysis reflects the existing theories (Chilton & Schäffner, 1997; Dahl, 1957; Fowler, 1985;
Gramsci, 1980; Kress, 1985; van Dijk, 1996, 1998, 2006; Weiss & Wodak, 1989, 2003). Based on
the theoretical considerations and the results of the present analysis, power, ideology and
manipulation seem to be strongly interconnected concepts with various overlaps. The data gained
during the analysis indicate that inequality and polarization are significant elements in the case of
each construct. Despite the several overlaps, each concept has its own characteristic profile. In the
frames of this study, power is treated in a narrow sense, as overt coercive force. Power in a
broader sense is taken as inequality, which is essential in the formation of manipulative utterances.
This study clarifies the main differences between power and manipulation based on the distinction
between power in a broader and narrower sense. The data also indicate that ideologies can be
distinguished from manipulation, as ideologies might convey merely the true beliefs of the speaker
without conscious intention of deception. Nevertheless, biased views and ideological polarization
undoubtedly take part in manipulative processes. The systematic analysis of the speech shows that
ideologies are necessary to produce illegitimate influence, and the process seems to be recursive.
Illegitimate influence, i.e. manipulation, might enhance the power of the speaker through
ideologically biased utterances.

As for the validity and the reliability of the instrument, it can be claimed that the analytical
procedures are in accord with a sound theoretical and methodological basis, therefore the criteria
generated for the identification of power, ideology, and manipulation truly reflect the phenomena
under investigation. The appropriateness of the methods can also be justified by the relevance of
the data and the integrity of the final conclusions. Secondly, as Wodak and Meyer (2009, p.321)
remark: “In discourse analyses, rigour can be linked on the one hand to the richness of detail both
in the data and in the analysis presented to the reader, and on the other to the explication of the
process of analysis.” Therefore the description of the analytical procedures ensures the feasibility
of conducting further research, and support further interpretations. It must be noted that, in
exploratory inquiries using qualitative data, subjectivity cannot be eliminated, though a rich
description and a thorough investigation of the available data may reduce the distorting effects of
researcher bias. The results of the analysis provide some unique data dependent on the insights of
the analyst, moreover, since other context constituents are also constantly changing, their
modifying effects on the results must also be considered. Hence, context, including the analyst’s
own viewpoint, is to be studied and described in detail in line with the linguistic analysis.

It must also be noted that political discourse is a multi-faceted phenomenon, which can be
explored in various ways and from different standpoints. Since the methods of the PIMI analytical
instrument attempt to capture only one part of reality, presumably any text might reveal
information regarding other points of view. It is also important, that power, ideology and
manipulation can only manifest themselves in language use where there is a possibility of
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 127

variation. For example, certain syntactic structures of sentences are obligatory, and independent of
the social situation of the discourse (van Dijk, 2008, p.4). Therefore, the PIMI analytical
instrument can focus only on those features of the text that might contribute to specific social
consequences of the discourse, by influencing the beliefs or actions of the audience.

The new framework provides a systematic description of how the concepts of power,
ideology and manipulation may be captured in political speeches. The detailed instructions allow a
meticulous examination, thus the chances of an impressionistic, speculative analysis can be
reduced. By using the framework, an overall picture of the actual cultural, social and historical
context of the examined speech can also be gained. The importance of context is underlined,
whereas various ways of gathering and organizing sufficient contextual data are offered. Besides
this, individual interpretations and inter-subjectivity (see 2.2.1.2) are acknowledged and promoted,
paired with the intention of increasing the researcher’s awareness regarding their own subjective
bias. As the model is built up in independent panels, further modifications are feasible, for
example simplifications for special purposes. For the aforementioned reasons, the instrument is
recommended for the use of foreign language learners interested in social and political issues, and
is intended to be able to improve EFL learners’ critical language awareness.

As the present study concentrates on an individual case, it serves only the purpose of an
introduction for the new analytical instrument created to identify power, ideologies and
manipulation in this special text, and to show how it can be applied to conduct an in-depth
analysis of a particular text. Further evaluation and validation of the instrument will require the
use of a bigger corpus, including more texts and other text types.

Proofread for the use of English by: Nicola Terry (freelance)

References

Bach, K. H., & Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Blair, T. (2003) Full text: Tony Blair's speech Retrieved October 12, 2017 from
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/18/foreignpolicy.iraq1
Blair tells MPs: Why we must hold firm. (2003, March 18). The Independent. Retrieved
December 12, 2017 from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blair-tells-
mps-why-we-must-holdfirm-111270.html
Bolinger, D. (1980). Language – the loaded weapon. London, UK: Routledge.
Brader, T. (2006). Campaigning for hearts and minds. How emotional appeals in political
ads work. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Carver, T., & Hyvärinen, M. (1997). Introduction. In T. Carver, & M. Hyvärinen (Eds.),
Interpreting the political: New methodologies (pp.1-36). New York, NY: Routledge.
Chartesis-Black, J. (2014). Analysing political speeches: Rhetoric, discourse and metaphor.
London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 128

Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London, UK:
Routledge.
Chilton, P., & Schäffner, C. (1997). Discourse and politics. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as
social interaction – Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction. Vol. 2 (pp.206-
230). London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Clark, H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dahl, R. (1957). The concept of power. Systems Research & Behavioral Science, 2(3), 201-215.
Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.),
Discourse as social interaction – Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction. Vol.
2 (pp.259-283). London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2012). Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced
students. London, UK: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/Knowledge. New York, NY:
Pantheon Books.
Fowler, R. (1985). Power. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis – Discourse in
society. Vol. 4 (pp.61-82). London, UK: Academic Press.
Goutsos, D. (1997). Modelling discourse topic: Sequential relations and strategies in expository
text. New Jersey, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Gramsci, A. (1980). Selections from the prison notebooks. London, UK: Wishart Publications.
Guiraud, N., Longin, D., Lorini, E., Pesty, S., & Riviére, J. (2011). The face of emotions: A
logical formalization of expressive speech acts. In K. Tumer, P. Yolum, L. Sonenberg, &
P. Stone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents
and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2011), May, 2-6, 2011, Taipei, Taiwan, 1031-1038.
Richland, SC: International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
Hamilton, C. (2012). Tony Blair’s cognitive rhetoric. In A. Kwiatkowska (Ed.), Texts and minds:
Papers in cognitive poetics and rhetoric (pp.201-224). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
Hodge, W. (2003, March 19). Blair survives a mutiny over joining U.S. in war. The New York
Times. Retrieved December 12, 2017 from
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/19/international/europe/19BLAI.html
Hoey, M. (2001). Textual interaction: An introduction to written discourse analysis. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (1999). Evaluation in text – Authorial stance and the construction
of discourse. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hussain, D. (2015, March 23). ISIS: The “unintended consequences” of the US-led war on Iraq.
Foreign Policy Journal. Retrieved December 12, 2017 from
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/03/23/isis-the-unintended-consequences-of-
the-us-led-war-on-iraq/
Kress, G. (1985). Ideological structures in discourse. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of
discourse analysis − Discourse analysis in society. Vol. 4 (pp.27-43). London, UK:
Academic Press.
Lynskey, D. (2007, May, 2). From Radiohead to Dizzee Rascal: Blair’s greatest hits. The
Guardian. Retrieved December 12, 2017 from
https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2007/may/02/fromradioheadtodizzeerasca
McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Meibauer, J. (2007). Lying and falsely implicating. In J. Mecke (Ed.), Cultures of lying: Theories
and practice of lying in society, literature and film (pp.79-114). Berlin, Germany: Galda +
Wilch Verlag.
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 129

Moir, J. (2013). Presenting politics. Persuasion and performance across genres of political
communication. In P. Cap, & U. Okulska (Eds.), Analysing genres in political
communication: Theory and practice (pp.223-236). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John
Benjamins.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2003). The content analysis guidebook. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Norrick, N. R. (1978). Expressive illocutionary acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 2(3), 277-291.
Urchs, M. (2007). The logic of lying. In J. Mecke (Ed.), Cultures of lying: Theories and practice
of lying in society, literature and film (pp. 21-46). Berlin, Germany: Galda + Wilch Verlag.
Pang, B., & Lee, L. (2008). Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends in
Information Retrieval, 2, 1-112.
Pustejovsky, J., & Jezek, E. (2008). Semantic coercion in language: Beyond distributional
analysis. Rivista di Linguistica, 20(1), 181-214.
Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5, 1-23.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Seidel, G. (1985). Political discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse
analysis – Discourse analysis in society. Vol. 4 (pp.43-55). London, UK: Academic Press.
Vanderveken, D. (1990). Principles of language use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1995). Discourse semantics and ideology. Discourse & Society, 6(2), 243-289.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1996). Discourse as interaction in society. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as
social interaction – Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction. Vol. 2 (pp.1-36).
London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. In R. Wodak, & M. Meyer
(Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp.95-121). London, UK: SAGE
Publications.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 359-383.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and power. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2011). Discourse, grammar and interaction. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse
studies: A multidisciplinary introduction 2nd ed. Vol. 1 (pp.28-57). London, UK: SAGE
Publications.
Weiss, G., & Wodak, R. (2003). Introduction: Theory, interdisciplinarity and critical discourse
analysis. In G. Weiss, & R. Wodak (Eds.), Critical discourse analysis – Theory and
interdisciplinarity (pp.1-33). London, UK: Macmillan.
White, H. C. (1992). Identity and control: A structural theory of social action. New Jersey, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Wodak, R. (1989). Language, power and ideology: Studies in political discourse. Amsterdam,
Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Wodak, R. (2007). Critical discourse analysis. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrius, & D. Silverman
(Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp.185-200). London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and
methodology. In R. Wodak, & Meyer, M. (Eds.), Methods for critical discourse analysis
(pp.1-32). London, UK: SAGE Publications.
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 130

APPENDIX
Tony Blair’s speech on the war against Iraq made on the 18th March 2003
1. I beg to move the motion standing on the order paper in my name and those of my right
honourable friends.
2. At the outset I say: it is right that this house debate this issue and pass judgment.
3. That is the democracy that is our right but that others struggle for in vain.
4. And again I say: I do not disrespect the views of those in opposition to mine.
5. This is a tough choice.
6. But it is also a stark one: to stand British troops down and turn back; or to hold firm to the course
we have set.
7. I believe we must hold firm.
8. The question most often posed is not why does it matter?
9. But why does it matter so much?
10. Here we are, the government with its most serious test, its majority at risk, the first cabinet
resignation over an issue of policy.
11. The main parties divided.
12. People who agree on everything else, disagree on this and likewise, those who never agree on
anything, finding common cause.
13. The country and parliament reflect each other, a debate that, as time has gone on has become less
bitter but not less grave.
14. So: why does it matter so much?
15. Because the outcome of this issue will now determine more than the fate of the Iraqi regime and
more than the future of the Iraqi people, for so long brutalised by Saddam.
16. It will determine the way Britain and the world confront the central security threat of the 21st
century; the development of the UN; the relationship between Europe and the US; the relations
within the EU and the way the US engages with the rest of the world.
17. It will determine the pattern of international politics for the next generation.
18. But first, Iraq and its WMD.
19. In April 1991, after the Gulf war, Iraq was given 15 days to provide a full and final declaration of
all its WMD.
20. Saddam had used the weapons against Iran, against his own people, causing thousands of deaths.
21. He had had plans to use them against allied forces.
22. It became clear after the Gulf war that the WMD ambitions of Iraq were far more extensive than
hitherto thought.
23. This issue was identified by the UN as one for urgent remedy.
24. Unscom, the weapons inspection team, was set up.
25. They were expected to complete their task following the declaration at the end of April 1991.
26. The declaration when it came was false - a blanket denial of the programme, other than in a very
tentative form.
27. So the 12-year game began.
28. The inspectors probed.
29. Finally in March 1992, Iraq admitted it had previously undeclared WMD but said it had destroyed
them.
30. It gave another full and final declaration.
31. Again the inspectors probed but found little.
32. In October 1994, Iraq stopped cooperating with Unscom altogether.
33. Military action was threatened.
34. Inspections resumed.
35. In March 1995, in an effort to rid Iraq of the inspectors, a further full and final declaration of
WMD was made.
36. By July 1995, Iraq was forced to admit that too was false.
37. In August they provided yet another full and final declaration.
38. Then, a week later, Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, defected to Jordan.
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 131

39. He disclosed a far more extensive BW (biological weapons) programme and for the first time said
Iraq had weaponised the programme; something Saddam had always strenuously denied.
40. All this had been happening whilst the inspectors were in Iraq.
41. Kamal also revealed Iraq's crash programme to produce a nuclear weapon in 1990.
42. Iraq was forced then to release documents which showed just how extensive those programmes
were.
43. In November 1995, Jordan intercepted prohibited components for missiles that could be used for
WMD.
44. In June 1996, a further full and final declaration was made.
45. That too turned out to be false.
46. In June 1997, inspectors were barred from specific sites.
47. In September 1997, another full and final declaration was made.
48. Also false.
49. Meanwhile the inspectors discovered VX nerve agent production equipment, something always
denied by the Iraqis.
50. In October 1997, the US and the UK threatened military action if Iraq refused to comply with the
inspectors.
51. But obstruction continued.
52. Finally, under threat of action, in February 1998, Kofi Annan went to Baghdad and negotiated a
memorandum with Saddam to allow inspections to continue.
53. They did.
54. For a few months.
55. In August, cooperation was suspended.
56. In December the inspectors left.
57. Their final report is a withering indictment of Saddam's lies, deception and obstruction, with large
quantities of WMD remained unaccounted for.
58. The US and the UK then, in December 1998, undertook Desert Fox, a targeted bombing campaign
to degrade as much of the Iraqi WMD facilities as we could.
59. In 1999, a new inspections team, Unmovic, was set up.
60. But Saddam refused to allow them to enter Iraq.
61. So there they stayed, in limbo, until after resolution 1441 when last November they were allowed
to return.
62. What is the claim of Saddam today?
63. Why exactly the same claim as before: that he has no WMD.
64. Indeed we are asked to believe that after seven years of obstruction and non-compliance finally
resulting in the inspectors leaving in 1998, seven years in which he hid his programme, built it up
even whilst inspection teams were in Iraq, that after they left he then voluntarily decided to do
what he had consistently refused to do under coercion.
65. When the inspectors left in 1998, they left unaccounted for: 10,000 litres of anthrax; a far reaching
VX nerve agent programme; up to 6,500 chemical munitions; at least 80 tonnes of mustard gas,
possibly more than ten times that amount; unquantifiable amounts of sarin, botulinum toxin and a
host of other biological poisons; an entire Scud missile programme.
66. We are now seriously asked to accept that in the last few years, contrary to all history, contrary to
all intelligence, he decided unilaterally to destroy the weapons.
67. Such a claim is palpably absurd.
68. 1441 is a very clear resolution.
69. It lays down a final opportunity for Saddam to disarm.
70. It rehearses the fact that he has been, for years in material breach of 17 separate UN resolutions.
71. It says that this time compliance must be full, unconditional and immediate.
72. The first step is a full and final declaration of all WMD to be given on 8 December.
73. I won't to go through all the events since then - the house is familiar with them - but this much is
accepted by all members of the UNSC: the 8 December declaration is false.
74. That in itself is a material breach.
75. Iraq has made some concessions to cooperation but no-one disputes it is not fully cooperating.
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 132

76. Iraq continues to deny it has any WMD, though no serious intelligence service anywhere in the
world believes them.
77. On 7 March, the inspectors published a remarkable document.
78. It is 173 pages long, detailing all the unanswered questions about Iraq's WMD.
79. It lists 29 different areas where they have been unable to obtain information.
80. For example, on VX it says:
81. "Documentation available to Unmovic suggests that Iraq at least had had far reaching plans to
weaponise VX …
82. "Mustard constituted an important part (about 70%) of Iraq's CW arsenal ... 550 mustard filled
shells and up to 450 mustard filled aerial bombs unaccounted for ... additional uncertainty with
respect of 6526 aerial bombs, corresponding to approximately 1000 tonnes of agent,
predominantly mustard.
83. "Based on unaccounted for growth media, Iraq's potential production of anthrax could have been in
the range of about 15,000 to 25,000 litres ...
84. Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax
was not destroyed and may still exist."
85. On this basis, had we meant what we said in resolution 1441, the security council should have
convened and condemned Iraq as in material breach.
86. What is perfectly clear is that Saddam is playing the same old games in the same old way.
87. Yes there are concessions.
88. But no fundamental change of heart or mind.
89. But the inspectors indicated there was at least some cooperation; and the world rightly hesitated
over war.
90. We therefore approached a second resolution in this way.
91. We laid down an ultimatum calling upon Saddam to come into line with resolution 1441 or be in
material breach.
92. Not an unreasonable proposition, given the history.
93. But still countries hesitated: how do we know how to judge full cooperation?
94. We then worked on a further compromise.
95. We consulted the inspectors and drew up five tests based on the document they published on 7
March.
96. Tests like interviews with 30 scientists outside of Iraq; production of the anthrax or documentation
showing its destruction.
97. The inspectors added another test: that Saddam should publicly call on Iraqis to cooperate with
them.
98. So we constructed this framework: that Saddam should be given a specified time to fulfil all six
tests to show full cooperation; that if he did so the inspectors could then set out a forward work
programme and that if he failed to do so, action would follow.
99. So clear benchmarks; plus a clear ultimatum.
100. I defy anyone to describe that as an unreasonable position.
101. Last Monday, we were getting somewhere with it.
102. We very nearly had majority agreement and I thank the Chilean President particularly for the
constructive way he approached the issue.
103. There were debates about the length of the ultimatum.
104. But the basic construct was gathering support.
105. Then, on Monday night, France said it would veto a second resolution whatever the circumstances.
106. Then France denounced the six tests.
107. Later that day, Iraq rejected them.
108. Still, we continued to negotiate.
109. Last Friday, France said they could not accept any ultimatum.
110. On Monday, we made final efforts to secure agreement.
111. But they remain utterly opposed to anything which lays down an ultimatum authorising action in
the event of non-compliance by Saddam.
112. Just consider the position we are asked to adopt.
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 133

113. Those on the security council opposed to us say they want Saddam to disarm but will not
countenance any new resolution that authorises force in the event of non-compliance.
114. That is their position.
115. No to any ultimatum; no to any resolution that stipulates that failure to comply will lead to military
action.
116. So we must demand he disarm but relinquish any concept of a threat if he doesn't.
117. From December 1998 to December 2002, no UN inspector was allowed to inspect anything in
Iraq.
118. For four years, not a thing.
119. What changed his mind?
120. The threat of force.
121. From December to January and then from January through to February, concessions were made.
122. What changed his mind?
123. The threat of force.
124. And what makes him now issue invitations to the inspectors, discover documents he said he never
had, produce evidence of weapons supposed to be non-existent, destroy missiles he said he would
keep?
125. The imminence of force.
126. The only persuasive power to which he responds is 250,000 allied troops on his doorstep.
127. And yet when that fact is so obvious that it is staring us in the face, we are told that any resolution
that authorises force will be vetoed.
128. Not just opposed.
129. Vetoed.
130. Blocked.
131. The way ahead was so clear.
132. It was for the UN to pass a second resolution setting out benchmarks for compliance; with an
ultimatum that if they were ignored, action would follow.
133. The tragedy is that had such a resolution issued, he might just have complied.
134. Because the only route to peace with someone like Saddam Hussein is diplomacy backed by force.
135. Yet the moment we proposed the benchmarks, canvassed support for an ultimatum, there was an
immediate recourse to the language of the veto.
136. And now the world has to learn the lesson all over again that weakness in the face of a threat from
a tyrant, is the surest way not to peace but to war.
137. Looking back over 12 years, we have been victims of our own desire to placate the implacable, to
persuade towards reason the utterly unreasonable, to hope that there was some genuine intent to do
good in a regime whose mind is in fact evil.
138. Now the very length of time counts against us.
139. You've waited 12 years.
140. Why not wait a little longer?
141. And indeed we have.
142. 1441 gave a final opportunity.
143. The first test was the 8th of December.
144. He failed it.
145. But still we waited.
146. Until January 27, the first inspection report that showed the absence of full cooperation.
147. Another breach.
148. And still we waited.
149. Until February 14 and then February 28 with concessions, according to the old familiar routine,
tossed to us to whet our appetite for hope and further waiting.
150. But still no-one, not the inspectors nor any member of the security council, not any half-way
rational observer, believes Saddam is cooperating fully or unconditionally or immediately.
151. Our fault has not been impatience.
152. The truth is our patience should have been exhausted weeks and months and years ago.
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 134

153. Even now, when if the world united and gave him an ultimatum: comply or face forcible
disarmament, he might just do it, the world hesitates and in that hesitation he senses the weakness
and therefore continues to defy.
154. What would any tyrannical regime possessing WMD think viewing the history of the world's
diplomatic dance with Saddam?
155. That our capacity to pass firm resolutions is only matched by our feebleness in implementing them.
156. That is why this indulgence has to stop.
157. Because it is dangerous.
158. It is dangerous if such regimes disbelieve us.
159. Dangerous if they think they can use our weakness, our hesitation, even the natural urges of our
democracy towards peace, against us.
160. Dangerous because one day they will mistake our innate revulsion against war for permanent
incapacity; when in fact, pushed to the limit, we will act.
161. But then when we act, after years of pretence, the action will have to be harder, bigger, more total
in its impact.
162. Iraq is not the only regime with WMD.
163. But back away now from this confrontation and future conflicts will be infinitely worse and more
devastating.
164. But, of course, in a sense, any fair observer does not really dispute that Iraq is in breach and that
1441 implies action in such circumstances.
165. The real problem is that, underneath, people dispute that Iraq is a threat; dispute the link between
terrorism and WMD; dispute the whole basis of our assertion that the two together constitute a
fundamental assault on our way of life.
166. There are glib and sometimes foolish comparisons with the 1930s.
167. No one here is an appeaser.
168. But the only relevant point of analogy is that with history, we know what happened.
169. We can look back and say: there's the time; that was the moment; for example, when
Czechoslovakia was swallowed up by the Nazis - that's when we should have acted.
170. But it wasn't clear at the time.
171. In fact at the time, many people thought such a fear fanciful.
172. Worse, put forward in bad faith by warmongers.
173. Listen to this editorial - from a paper I'm pleased to say with a different position today - but
written in late 1938 after Munich when by now, you would have thought the world was tumultuous
in its desire to act.
174. "Be glad in your hearts.
175. Give thanks to your God.
176. People of Britain, your children are safe.
177. Your husbands and your sons will not march to war.
178. Peace is a victory for all mankind.
179. And now let us go back to our own affairs.
180. We have had enough of those menaces, conjured up from the continent to confuse us."
181. Naturally should Hitler appear again in the same form, we would know what to do.
182. But the point is that history doesn't declare the future to us so plainly.
183. Each time is different and the present must be judged without the benefit of hindsight.
184. So let me explain the nature of this threat as I see it.
185. The threat today is not that of the 1930s.
186. It's not big powers going to war with each other.
187. The ravages which fundamentalist political ideology inflicted on the 20th century are memories.
188. The Cold war is over.
189. Europe is at peace, if not always diplomatically.
190. But the world is ever more interdependent.
191. Stock markets and economies rise and fall together.
192. Confidence is the key to prosperity.
193. Insecurity spreads like contagion.
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 135

194. So people crave stability and order.

195. The threat is chaos.
196. And there are two begetters of chaos.
197. Tyrannical regimes with WMD and extreme terrorist groups who profess a perverted and false
view of Islam.
198. Let me tell the house what I know.
199. I know that there are some countries or groups within countries that are proliferating and trading in
WMD, especially nuclear weapons technology.
200. I know there are companies, individuals, some former scientists on nuclear weapons programmes,
selling their equipment or expertise.
201. I know there are several countries - mostly dictatorships with highly repressive regimes -
desperately trying to acquire chemical weapons, biological weapons or, in particular, nuclear
weapons capability.
202. Some of these countries are now a short time away from having a serviceable nuclear weapon.
203. This activity is not diminishing.
204. It is increasing.
205. We all know that there are terrorist cells now operating in most major countries.
206. Just as in the last two years, around 20 different nations have suffered serious terrorist outrages.
207. Thousands have died in them.
208. The purpose of terrorism lies not just in the violent act itself.
209. It is in producing terror.
210. It sets out to inflame, to divide, to produce consequences which they then use to justify further
terror.
211. Round the world it now poisons the chances of political progress: in the Middle East; in Kashmir;
in Chechnya; in Africa.
212. The removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan dealt it a blow.
213. But it has not gone away.
214. And these two threats have different motives and different origins but they share one basic
common view: they detest the freedom, democracy and tolerance that are the hallmarks of our way
of life.
215. At the moment, I accept that association between them is loose.
216. But it is hardening.
217. And the possibility of the two coming together - of terrorist groups in possession of WMD, even of
a so-called dirty radiological bomb is now, in my judgement, a real and present danger.
218. And let us recall: what was shocking about September 11 was not just the slaughter of the
innocent; but the knowledge that had the terrorists been able to, there would have been not 3,000
innocent dead, but 30,000 or 300,000 and the more the suffering, the greater the terrorists'
rejoicing.
219. Three kilograms of VX from a rocket launcher would contaminate a quarter of a square kilometre
of a city.
220. Millions of lethal doses are contained in one litre of Anthrax.
221. 10,000 litres are unaccounted for.
222. 11 September has changed the psychology of America.
223. It should have changed the psychology of the world.
224. Of course Iraq is not the only part of this threat.
225. But it is the test of whether we treat the threat seriously.
226. Faced with it, the world should unite.
227. The UN should be the focus, both of diplomacy and of action.
228. That is what 1441 said.
229. That was the deal.
230. And I say to you to break it now, to will the ends but not the means that would do more damage in
the long term to the UN than any other course.
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 136

231. To fall back into the lassitude of the last 12 years, to talk, to discuss, to debate but never act; to
declare our will but not enforce it; to combine strong language with weak intentions, a worse
outcome than never speaking at all.
232. And then, when the threat returns from Iraq or elsewhere, who will believe us?
233. What price our credibility with the next tyrant?
234. No wonder Japan and South Korea, next to North Korea, has issued such strong statements of
support.
235. I have come to the conclusion after much reluctance that the greater danger to the UN is inaction:
that to pass resolution 1441 and then refuse to enforce it would do the most deadly damage to the
UN's future strength, confirming it as an instrument of diplomacy but not of action, forcing nations
down the very unilateralist path we wish to avoid.
236. But there will be, in any event, no sound future for the UN, no guarantee against the repetition of
these events, unless we recognise the urgent need for a political agenda we can unite upon.
237. What we have witnessed is indeed the consequence of Europe and the United States dividing from
each other.
238. Not all of Europe - Spain, Italy, Holland, Denmark, Portugal - have all strongly supported us.
239. And not a majority of Europe if we include, as we should, Europe's new members who will accede
next year, all 10 of whom have been in our support.
240. But the paralysis of the UN has been born out of the division there is.
241. And at the heart of it has been the concept of a world in which there are rival poles of power.
242. The US and its allies in one corner.
243. France, Germany, Russia and its allies in the other.
244. I do not believe that all of these nations intend such an outcome.
245. But that is what now faces us.
246. I believe such a vision to be misguided and profoundly dangerous.
247. I know why it arises.
248. There is resentment of US predominance.
249. There is fear of US unilateralism.
250. People ask: do the US listen to us and our preoccupations?
251. And there is perhaps a lack of full understanding of US preoccupations after 11th September.
252. I know all of this.
253. But the way to deal with it is not rivalry but partnership.
254. Partners are not servants but neither are they rivals.
255. I tell you what Europe should have said last September to the US.
256. With one voice it should have said: we understand your strategic anxiety over terrorism and WMD
and we will help you meet it.
257. We will mean what we say in any UN resolution we pass and will back it with action if Saddam
fails to disarm voluntarily; but in return we ask two things of you: that the US should choose the
UN path and you should recognise the fundamental overriding importance of re-starting the MEPP
(Middle East Peace Process), which we will hold you to.
258. I do not believe there is any other issue with the same power to re-unite the world community than
progress on the issues of Israel and Palestine.
259. Of course there is cynicism about recent announcements.
260. But the US is now committed, and, I believe genuinely, to the roadmap for peace, designed in
consultation with the UN.
261. It will now be presented to the parties as Abu Mazen is confirmed in office, hopefully today.
262. All of us are now signed up to its vision: a state of Israel, recognised and accepted by all the world,
and a viable Palestinian state.
263. And that should be part of a larger global agenda.
264. On poverty and sustainable development.
265. On democracy and human rights.
266. On the good governance of nations.
267. That is why what happens after any conflict in Iraq is of such critical significance.
268. Here again there is a chance to unify around the UN.
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 137

269. Let me make it clear.

270. There should be a new UN resolution following any conflict providing not just for humanitarian
help but also for the administration and governance of Iraq.
271. That must now be done under proper UN authorisation.
272. It should protect totally the territorial integrity of Iraq.
273. And let the oil revenues - which people falsely claim we want to seize - be put in a trust fund for
the Iraqi people administered through the UN.
274. And let the future government of Iraq be given the chance to begin the process of uniting the
nation's disparate groups, on a democratic basis, respecting human rights, as indeed the fledgling
democracy in Northern Iraq - protected from Saddam for 12 years by British and American pilots
in the no-fly zone - has done so remarkably.
275. And the moment that a new government is in place - willing to disarm Iraq of WMD - for which
its people have no need or purpose - then let sanctions be lifted in their entirety.
276. I have never put our justification for action as regime change.
277. We have to act within the terms set out in resolution 1441.
278. That is our legal base.
279. But it is the reason, I say frankly, why if we do act we should do so with a clear conscience and
strong heart.
280. I accept fully that those opposed to this course of action share my detestation of Saddam.
281. Who could not?
282. Iraq is a wealthy country that in 1978, the year before Saddam seized power, was richer than
Portugal or Malaysia.
283. Today it is impoverished, 60% of its population dependent on food aid.
284. Thousands of children die needlessly every year from lack of food and medicine.
285. Four million people out of a population of just over 20 million are in exile.
286. The brutality of the repression - the death and torture camps, the barbaric prisons for political
opponents, the routine beatings for anyone or their families suspected of disloyalty are well
documented.
287. Just last week, someone slandering Saddam was tied to a lamp post in a street in Baghdad, his
tongue cut out, mutilated and left to bleed to death, as a warning to others.
288. I recall a few weeks ago talking to an Iraqi exile and saying to her that I understood how grim it
must be under the lash of Saddam.
289. "But you don't", she replied.
290. "You cannot.
291. You do not know what it is like to live in
perpetual fear."
292. And she is right.
293. We take our freedom for granted.
294. But imagine not to be able to speak or discuss or debate or even question the society you live in.
295. To see friends and family taken away and never daring to complain.
296. To suffer the humility of failing courage in face of pitiless terror.
297. That is how the Iraqi people live.
298. Leave Saddam in place and that is how they will continue to live.
299. We must face the consequences of the actions we advocate.
300. For me, that means all the dangers of war.
301. But for others, opposed to this course, it means - let us be clear - that the Iraqi people, whose only
true hope of liberation lies in the removal of Saddam, for them, the darkness will close back over
them again; and he will be free to take his revenge upon those he must know wish him gone.
302. And if this house now demands that at this moment, faced with this threat from this regime, that
British troops are pulled back, that we turn away at the point of reckoning, and that is what it
means - what then?
303. What will Saddam feel?
304. Strengthened beyond measure.
WoPaLP, Vol. 11, 2017 Vadai 138

305. What will the other states who tyrannise their people, the terrorists who threaten our existence,
what will they take from that?
306. That the will confronting them is decaying and feeble.
307. Who will celebrate and who will weep?
308. And if our plea is for America to work with others, to be good as well as powerful allies, will our
retreat make them multilateralist?
309. Or will it not rather be the biggest impulse to unilateralism there could ever be.
310. And what of the UN and the future of Iraq and the Middle East peace plan, devoid of our
influence, stripped of our insistence?
311. This house wanted this decision.
312. Well it has it.
313. Those are the choices.
314. And in this dilemma, no choice is perfect, no cause ideal.
315. But on this decision hangs the fate of many things:
316. Of whether we summon the strength to recognise this global challenge of the 21st century and
meet it.
317. Of the Iraqi people, groaning under years of dictatorship.
318. Of our armed forces - brave men and women of whom we can feel proud, whose morale is high
and whose purpose is clear.
319. Of the institutions and alliances that will shape our world for years to come."
320. I can think of many things, of whether we summon the strength to recognise the global challenge
of the 21st century and beat it, of the Iraqi people groaning under years of dictatorship, of our
armed forces - brave men and women of whom we can feel proud, whose morale is high and
whose purpose is clear - of the institutions and alliances that shape our world for years to come.
321. To retreat now, I believe, would put at hazard all that we hold dearest, turn the UN back into a
talking shop, stifle the first steps of progress in the Middle East; leave the Iraqi people to the
mercy of events on which we would have relinquished all power to influence for the better.
322. Tell our allies that at the very moment of action, at the very moment when they need our
determination that Britain faltered.
323. I will not be party to such a course.
324. This is not the time to falter.
325. This is the time for this house, not just this government or indeed this prime minister, but for this
house to give a lead, to show that we will stand up for what we know to be right, to show that we
will confront the tyrannies and dictatorships and terrorists who put our way of life at risk, to show
at the moment of decision that we have the courage to do the right thing.
326. I beg to move the motion.