THE USE OF DISCURSIVE PRACTICES FOR THE PROMOTION OF POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES: A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
By: Mazhar Iqbal I.D. No. 1300-8237-003 Ph. D. Linguistics
Supervisor: Dr Muhammad Islam
------Department of Linguistics and Communications (DLC) Institute of Liberal Arts (ILA) University of the Management and Technology (UMT), Lahore
2020 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES
DEDICATED
TO
DR SANDI MICHELE de OLIVEIRA
v
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES
Acknowledgement
First of all, I am thankful to ALLAH Almighty for blessing me with the strength and patience to complete this arduous work. I owe special thanks to my respected teachers for their kind guidance and my parents for their invaluable prayers. I would like to thank my family which has suffered a lot but kept on extending its cooperation. I am also thankful to my friends and class fellows who have always supported and encouraged me. Special thanks to my supervisor, Dr Muhammad Islam, a wonderful human being, who has always supported and guided me like a friend and had more confidence in my capabilities than I (do). I am greatly indebted to Dr Muhammad Shaban, Dr Nadia Anwar and Dr Maria Isabel Maldonado for their guidance and support.
I owe successful completion of my dissertation to HEC Pakistan for funding me through
IRSIP scholarship for research at the University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Demark. I don‟t think it would have been possible to complete my dissertation without this financial support. I am unable to find suitable words to express my gratitude and appreciation to my respected supervisor, Dr Sandi Michele de Oliveira, Associate Professor, Faculty of Humanities,
University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, for her guidance, cooperation and encouragement. This project would never have been realized without her help.
vi
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES
Abstract
A language is a primary source of expressing and reshaping ideology (Fowler, 1985) and politicians use it as a power to put certain ideas into practice (Bayram, 2010). This study aims to highlight political ideology propagated through political language, especially, in the parliamentary discourse. Speeches of the fourteen parliamentarians representing four leading political parties from the third joint session of 2013-2018 tenure, were selected for the analysis.
The study used CDA approach for analyzing the underlying ideology in the speeches and seeing the partisan effects in the selected speeches. To investigate an us-them strategy for in-group positive and out-group negative presentation, the study employed three discursive practices i.e. in-group positive presentation vs out-group negative presentation, proximization and clusivity.
The results reveal that the discursive practices may be used to win the support and sympathy of the people by presenting the in-group positively and out-group negatively. These may also be used to show a sense of responsibility, loyalty and sincerity. Pakistani politicians have used the practices to show unity, political involvement, shared responsibilities and to create political harmony. The study further reveals that the discursive practices may simultaneously serve as reproaching, aggressiveness, defence, persuasive and image building strategies. The practices may be used to express the feelings of desperation, suppression, association and disassociation as well. The study concludes that (by showing how political discourse reflects the ideologies of the certain political groups and how it is used to construct and reconstruct them) political discourse is used not only to reflect but also to construct and re-construct the political ideologies of certain groups. The methodological framework used for this study may be applied to analyse other political discourses to unveil their embedded ideologies.
vii
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES
Table of Contents List of Figures ...... x List of Tables ...... xi Abbreviations ...... xiii Chapter I Introduction ...... 1 Background of the Study ...... 1 Statement of the Problem ...... 5 Research Questions ...... 6 The Organization of the Thesis ...... 6 Chapter II The Context of the Study ...... 9 Pakistan and its Ideology: An Overview of the Political System of Pakistan and Critical Events in 2013-2014 ...... 9 Pakistani Parliamentary System ...... 12 Leading Pakistani Parliamentary Parties ...... 13 The General Election of 2013 and its Political Impact ...... 22 Important Events from August 14, 2014, to September 2, 2014 ...... 26 Ch. Nisar Ali Khan and Mr Aitzaz Ahsan's Clash ...... 37 Chapter III Literature Review ...... 41 Critical Discourse Analysis...... 41 Ideology and its Centrality in CDA ...... 43 Political Discourse as Ideological Discourse ...... 49 Major Approaches witfhin CDA ...... 56 Political Discourse Analysis: A Sub-branch of CDA ...... 63 In-group Positive Presentation and Out-group Negative Presentation: A Key Feature of Political Discourse...... 65 Studies of Political Discourse in Pakistan ...... 71 Chapter IV Research Methodology ...... 75 Selection of Parliamentarians and Debates for the Analysis ...... 75 Selection of the Discursive Practices for the Analysis ...... 80 Chapter V Ideology through In-group and Out-group Polarization ...... 87 In-group Positive Presentation and Out-group Negative Presentation ...... 87 Emphasizing Out-group Negative Actions ...... 123
viii
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES
Emphasizing Out-group Negative Actions as a Party...... 123 Negative Portrayal of the Individual Politicians ...... 145 Chapter VI Proximization in the Parliamentary Speeches ...... 155 Proximization ...... 155 Proximization by the PML-N Parliamentarians ...... 156 Proximization by the PPP Parliamentarians ...... 171 Proximization by the PTI Parliamentarians ...... 179 Chapter VII Ideology through Clusivity - Association and Disassociation ...... 188 Clusivity ...... 188 Ideology through the Use of the First-person Plural Inclusive/Exclusive Pronouns ...... 189 Ideology through the Use of Plural Exclusive Pronouns Ham/Hamain (we/us) ...... 191 Ideology through the Use of Plural Inclusive Pronouns ham/hamain (we/us) ...... 218 The use of inclusive pronouns ham/hamain for the nation by the MQM ...... 235 Chapter VIII Discussion ...... 242 In-group Positive vs Out-group Negative Presentation ...... 243 Proximization: ODCs as a Threat to IDCs ...... 246 The Use of Inclusive vs Exclusive Pronouns ...... 249 Reflection of the Parties‟ Ideologies in the Speeches of the Selected Parliamentarians ...... 254 Chapter IX Conclusion ...... 261 Limitations of the Study...... 265 Implications of the Study ...... 266 References ...... 269 Appendices ...... 291
Appendix A Sources of the speeches
Appendix B The Right of Access ti Information Act 2017
ix
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES
List of Figures
Figure 1. Fairclough 3D Model 58
Figure 2. Proximization in Discourse Space (DS) 82
Figure 3. Research Methodology 85
Figure 4. Emphasizing in-group positive actions 102
Figure 5. Ideological Square Emphasizing out-group negative actions (as a group/party) 140
Figure 6. Ideological Square Emphasizing out-group negative actions (as a person /individual) 151
Figure 7. Proximization by the Parliamentarians. 186
Figure 8. Clusivity: Exclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain (we/us) 214
Figure 9. Clusivity: inclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain (we/us) 237
x
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES
List of Tables
Table 1. Party representation in the National Assembly (NA) and the Senate in the election of 2013 (Number of seats taken from the official websites of NA and Senate) 14
Table 2. Party-wise vote bank and seats in the National Assembly in general election 2013 taken from official website of Election Commission of Pakistan 23
Table 3. Demographic details of the speeches 77
Table 4. Emphasizing in-group positive actions by the PML-N parliamentarians 89
Table 5. Emphasizing in-group positive actions by the PPP parliamentarians 99
Table 6. Emphasizing in-group positive actions by the PTI parliamentarians 109
Table 7. Emphasizing in-group positive actions by the MQM parliamentarians 114
Table 8. Emphasizing out-group (as a party) negative actions by the PML-N parliamentarians 124
Table 9. Emphasizing out-group (as a party) negative actions by the PPP parliamentarians 127
Table 10. Emphasizing out-group (as a party) negative actions by the PTI parliamentarians 135
Table 11. Emphasizing out-group (as a party) negative actions by the MQM parliamentarians 141
Table 12. Emphasizing out-group (individual) negative actions by the PML-N parliamentarians 145
Table 13. Emphasizing out-group (individual) negative actions by the PPP parliamentarians 148
Table 14. Emphasizing out-group (individual) negative actions by the PTI parliamentarians 149
Table 15. Proximization by the PML-N parliamentarians 156
Table 16. Proximization by the PPP parliamentarians 171
Table 17. Proximization by the PTI parliamentarians 182
Table 18. The use of the Plural Pronouns ham/hamain (we/us) by the parliamentarians 190
Table 19. The use of Exclusive pronouns ham/hamain (we/us) by the parliamentarians 190
Table 20. Exclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain (party) by the PML-N parliamentarians 195
Table 21. Exclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain (royal) by the PML-N parliamentarians 198
Table 22. Exclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain (party) by the PPP parliamentarians 199
Table 23. Exclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain (workers) by the PPP parliamentarians 202
xi
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES
Table 24. Exclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain (lawyers) by the PPP parliamentarians 204
Table 25. Exclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain (royal) by the PPP parliamentarians 205
Table 26. Exclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain (party) by the PTI parliamentarians 206
Table 27. Exclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain (royal) by the PTI parliamentarians 207
Table 28. Exclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain (party) by the MQM parliamentarians 208
Table 29. Exclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain (workers) by the MQM parliamentarians 211
Table 30. Exclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain (multi-representation) by the MQM parliamentarians 212
Table 31. Inclusive use of Plural Pronouns ham/hamain (we/us) by the parliamentarians 219
Table 32. Inclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain by the PML-N parliamentarians 222
Table 33. Inclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain by the PPP parliamentarians 224
Table 34. Inclusive use of personal plural pronouns for the nation by the PPP parliamentarians 227
Table 35. Inclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain by the PTI parliamentarians 228
Table 36. Inclusive use of pronouns ham/hamain for the nation by the PTI parliamentarians 202
Table 37. Inclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain by the MQM parliamentarians 200
Table 38. Inclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain by the PTI parliamentarians 205
xii
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES
Abbreviations
CDA Critical Discourse Analysis
FATA Federally Administrated Tribal Area
FIR First Information Report
KPK Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
MNA Member of National Assembly
PAT Pakistan Awami Tehreek
PM Prime Minister
PML-N Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz)
PPP Pakistan Peoples Party
MQM Mutahidda Qawmi Movement
PTI Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf
PTV Pakistan Television
xiii
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 1
Chapter I
Introduction
Background of the Study
Political leaders throughout the world use different discursive practices to divert the attention of the masses from and to some critical issues, to win their sympathy and support, or to attract the strain media. They use the generative power of discourse for the discursive manipulation of reality (Carvalho, 2008) as a tool to pursue their personal gains (Laclau &
Mouffe, 2001). They use discursive strategies to influence public opinion or damage the reputation of their opponents. They also use these strategies for spreading political propaganda as it has the potential to control the feelings of people by arousing their emotions (Osgood,
2002). For this purpose, sometimes practised norms are violated, minor issues are highlighted, private activities are scandalized, and unique and emotive words, slogans or artifices are used.
The different rhetorical devices employed by various international/local leaders reflect the social practices prevalent in their particular areas, social backgrounds or political systems. The practice of using rhetoric for political gains is usually context-bound and varies from individual to individual, party to party and culture to culture.
Pakistani political leadership is no exception to the above-mentioned trends of political discourse practices. Democratic values have not taken firm roots in Pakistani society (Azam,
2008). Army has ruled the country for more than 38 years. It has also dominated the political system behind the scene for more than two decades (Riaz-ud-Din, 2018). This political instability in the country has not allowed democratic thinking to develop among the masses.
Furthermore, the literacy rate in the country is not very high and according to the Pakistan
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 2
Economic Survey (2018) literacy rate is 58%. Instead of taking practical steps to eradicate poverty illiteracy, inflation, lawlessness, extremism and social evils from the country, the political leaders have spent their energies in propagandizing and politicizing the public issues.
They use flowery, fiery, emotional and exciting words to stir up the emotions of the public and achieve personal goals. During the general elections, the public is beguiled with shallow promises, fascinating slogans and a variety of discursive practices (Faruqi, 2018) and ignored by the politicians altogether during their tenure of government (Kumar, 2018).
As the result of general election 2013, Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) emerged as the largest political party and succeeded in forming its government in Pakistan at the federal level as well as in Punjab, the most populated province. Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf
(PTI), one of the leading opposition parties, alleged that the general election was rigged and demanded an investigation into the election process and results. It also demanded the Prime
Minister (PM), Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif's, resignation. In the all previously held elections, voices against poll rigging at either individual, party or third party level had been raised. This was the first time that such strong resistance from any political party while remaining within the existing system, was noticed. PTI announced an Azadi March (Freedom
March) 2014 and held a Dharna (sit-in) in the federal capital, Islamabad which continued from
August 15, 2014, to December 17, 2014.
The situation became more critical when Dr Tahir-ul-Qadri (Dr Qadri), known for the art of oration, the leader of another religious-cum-political party i.e. Pakistan Awami Tehreek
(PAT) announced an Inqilab March (Revolution March) against the provincial as well as federal governments. He had earlier boycotted the general election 2013 announcing that the
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 3 prevailing electoral system was not suitable for the country. He intended to overthrow the government through Inqilab (revolution). Earlier, on June 17, 2014, an unfortunate incident of
Model Town took place where many innocent people lost their lives as a result of a clash between PAT workers and Punjab Police. The PAT‟s chief held the provincial and federal governments responsible for the incident and announced to hold a Dharna (sit-in) in the capital.
For more than half of its existence, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has remained under either the rule of military dictators or their sponsored governments (Riaz-ud-Din, 2018). PPP government (2008-2013) was the first civilian and democratic government which completed its constitutional tenure of five years and handed over the government to the next elected government. In 2013, the PML-N government had hardly completed a year when again the shadow of martial law started hovering at the democratic state. PTI and PAT held Dharnas (sit- ins) in the capital of Pakistan at Abpara Chowk and Kashmir Highway which were later on shifted to D-Chowk in the Red Zone opposite to the Parliament House and blocked the way to the Supreme Court. These were the longest dharnas (67 days by PAT i.e. August 14, 2014, to
October 21, 2014, and 126 days by PTI i.e. August 14, 2014, to December 17, 2014) in the history of Pakistan. All national television news channels broadcasted special transmissions and for the first time, such prolonged airtime was given to the leaders or representatives of all political parties. In this situation, an unprecedented critical debate engulfed people from every walk of life. For almost four months, Islamabad remained the focus not only of local and international media but also of the public across the globe.
Each day, from the start of the long marches from Lahore on August 14, 2014, brought the rumours, ambiguous signs and assumptions of a Coup d'état. It was also for the first time in
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 4 the history of Pakistan that almost all ruling and opposition political parties united against the alleged imminent military intervention. On the requisition of the Opposition, three weeks long
(from September 2, 2014, to September 19, 2014) joint session of National Assembly and the
Senate was called to discuss the issue and adopt a unanimous policy to deal with the situation.
The parliamentarians, belonging to the treasury and opposition benches, tried to interpret and exploit the prevailing political situation in the country according to their political objectives.
Objectives of the Study
The researcher realized that the discourse generated during this extraordinary phase of
Pakistan's political history needed an in-depth and detailed investigation so that people can understand its important aspects thoroughly. In addition, this might also be helpful for the contemporary and future researchers who wish to understand and analyze Pakistani political discourse, especially, parliamentary discourse. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to analyze the selected speeches of the Pakistani parliamentarians delivered during the 3rd joint parliamentary session of 2014 and investigate the discursive practices used by them in order to see how these politicians used different linguistic practices for the propagation of their political ideology/ies. The study also aimed to see whether the speeches of the parliamentarians reflect any partisan effects. The researcher also intended to reveal the ideology of the political parties on the basis of the selected speeches of the parliamentarians of the leading political parties made during the said session.
Politics is a struggle of power and dominance between two groups (in-group and out- group). Almost every political discourse has us vs them polarization. The rationale for choosing in-group and out-group strategy is to study the Pakistani parliamentary speeches and see how the
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 5 parliamentarians divide themselves into in-groups and out-groups depending on their ideology and interest. The study uses critical discourse analysis (CDA) approach for the investigation of the linguistic practice used by the selected parliamentary leaders in their speeches. CDA is an approach based on a systematic analysis that not only uncovers the underlined ideologies
(Jackson, 2007) but also explores the relationship between discursive practices, events and texts and the way power abuse, dominance and inequality are enacted, reproduced and resisted (Sarfo
& Krampa, 2013). CDA reveals the power relations lying in the discourse, makes them explicit, links them to the social, cultural and political contexts and unmasks the hidden agenda behind ideologies and apparently transparent and natural use of language (Fairclough, 2001). It also highlights the way power relations are shaped by the prevailing ideologies in a society (Sarfo &
Krampa, 2013).
Statement of the Problem
Our words are never neutral (Fiske, 1994) and every word is said in a response to or in an anticipation of something (Maybin, 2001). Words reflect the ideology of the speakers or writers. Political leaders express their policies and political strategies through their speeches, interviews or press conferences. The speakers in the public gathering usually use the language to stir the feelings of the public, attract their attention and propagate their personal or political agenda. Whereas parliamentarians, being representatives of the people of their constituencies, are expected to be more responsible as they hold the authority to plan, think, and legislate, etc. for the people of their country. In Pakistan, political scientists and linguists have conducted limited research on the discourse of Pakistani politicians; however, there has been no significant research on the parliamentary discourse in the Pakistani context. The language used by
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 6
Pakistani leaders has been criticized and evaluated by analysts, thinkers and philosophers but to date, only a few studies have taken a critical approach to the analysis of the discourse. The previous studies have merely focused on political and contextual aspects, whereas linguistic aspects of the parliamentary discourse, in details, have seldom been investigated. Therefore, this study aims to fill the gap by analyzing the parliamentary discourse of Pakistani parliamentarians.
Research Questions
How do the discursive practices used in the selected parliamentary debate from the 3rd
joint session (September 2, 2014, to September 19, 2014) reveal the underlying
ideologies of participating parties?
How do the discursive practices used by the leaders of different Pakistani political
parties differ from one another and reflect the ideologies of their parties?
The Organization of the Thesis
The research report has been structured as follows:
Chapter II provides a background of the context of the study focusing on an overview of the Pakistani political system, leading parliamentary parties and the party position in the
Parliament after the general election 2013. It also reviews the political situation in the country along with some salient incidents occurred from August 14, 214 (when the protest was started) until the joint session was called.
Chapter III reviews CDA and the different approaches used in it. The chapter also
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 7 reviews political discourse and its genres, particularly parliamentary debates, their format and their structure, the concept of ideologies, their functions, their effects on one's cognition, relation ideologies and political discourse along with a short review of some of the linguistic tools employed for ideological analysis. In the end, it also reviews the studies done on the political discourses of Pakistani political leaders.
Chapter IV is about the data collection, sampling and research methodology used for the analysis of the parliamentary debates/discussions, an introduction of the selected speeches of the Pakistani parliamentarians along with their short political introduction and theoretical underpinning of the research.
Chapters V, VI and VII present the findings of the study by analyzing the discursive practices of presenting in-group positively and out-group negatively. Chapter V uses van Dijk's
Ideological Square Model to see how each group of the parliamentarians have emphasized the good actions of their in-group and bad actions of out-group and vice versa. It employs one of the discursive practices used by the parliamentarians to find out the intended purposes of the speakers by emphasizing the in-group good actions and de-emphasize its bad actions and vice versa.
Chapter VI analyzes the discursive practice of presenting the out-group as a physical, temporal and ideological threat for the in-group in the selected parliamentary speeches. It uses
Cap's theory of proximization (2004, 2006, 2009 & 2016) for exploring the way the parliamentarians present the out-group negatively for the justification of their in-group action or getting the support of their colleagues particularly and the public generally.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 8
Chapter VII analyzes the practice of association and disassociation by inclusion and exclusion of group/s through the use of plural personal pronouns in the selected speeches of the
Pakistani parliamentarians to see the way they have used exclusive and inclusive pronouns ham/hamain for the representation of their parties, party workers and other ethnic groups to achieve their certain objectives.
Chapter VIII reviews the salient findings of these chapters to sees if the effects of the ideologies of their parties are reflected in the selected speeches of the parliamentarians of the four leading parties.
Chapter IX concludes the report and also includes the recommendations based on the findings of this study.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 9
Chapter II The Context of the Study
This chapter reviews the ideologies of Pakistan and Pakistani parliamentary system. The chapter also presents a short review of four leading political parties and their ideologies. It also discusses the party positions after general election 2013 and describes the political events after the election which led to the third joint parliamentary session, the longest session of 2013-2108 tenure, which was held from September 1, 2014, to September 19, 2018.
Pakistan and its Ideology: An Overview of the Political System of Pakistan and Critical
Events in 2013-2014
Pakistan came into being on the very day when the first Indian embraced Islam, said the founder and first Governor General of Pakistan, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah
(Saleem, 2014). Pakistan was demanded in the name of Islam because the Muslims of sub- continent wanted to get a laboratory where they could practice the preaching of Islam. Pakistan is an ideological state based on the Two Nations Theory. In his address at Kansas University,
USA in 1951, the first Prime Minister (PM) of Pakistan, Mr Liyaqat Ali Khan, explaining the concept of the theory said that there were two nations in the sub-continent which were opposite to each other in their fundamental outlook, thinking, religion, history, etc. As the English, after ruling over subcontinent for more than hundred years, had been leaving the sub-continent, the
Muslims had feared that their culture and identity would be compromised if they remained in the sub- continent with the Hindus. Their past experience under the rule of Hindus had taught them that their one-third minority without their separate homeland would practically mean not freedom but merely a change of rulers. All India Muslim League was the representative of
Muslims of the sub-continent. Under the leadership of Quaid-e-Azam, it demanded a
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 10 separate country, consisting of the areas where they were in the majority, for the Muslims. At last Pakistan came into being on August 14, 1947. In his speech broadcasted on Radio Pakistan
Dhaka in March 1948, Quaid-e-Azam, the founder and the first Governor General of Pakistan, said:
"With the removal of foreign domination, the people are now the final arbiters of their
destiny. They have perfect liberty to have by constitutional means any government that
they may choose. This cannot, however, mean that any group may now attempt by any
unlawful methods to impose its will on the popularly elected Government of the day.
The Government and its policy may be changed by the votes of the elected
representatives…" (Quoted Sheikh, n.d.).
Again in his another speech broadcasted to the people of USA, in 1948, he said:
"The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constitutional
Assembly. I don't know what the ultimate shape of the constitution is going to be,
but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential
principles of Islam" (quoted in Waqas, 2016).
In the life of Quaid-e-Azam, the constitution could not be framed and his death left a great vacuum in the political leadership. In 1951, the assassination of the first PM, Liyaqat Ali
Khan broadened this vacuum further. Political and religious conflicts in the country did not allow the leaders to give a clear ideology to the nation until August 1962, when General Ayub formulated an Advisory Council on Islamic Ideology (ACII) to formulate a holistic national ideology under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1962. Here, the
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 11 term Nazria-e-Pakistan (Ideology of Pakistan) emerged (Paracha, 2015). According to the constitution of 1973, the official name of Pakistan is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which means that it is:
“… a federal parliamentary form of democratic welfare Islamic state, wherein the
Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in accordance with the teaching of
Islam, and adequate provisions shall be made for the minorities to freely profess
and practice their religions and develop their culture…. Wherein welfare laws
shall be made for all without any discrimination of creed, in the field of basic
necessities like food, shelter, education and medical relief. Wherein shall be
encouraged the development of a spirit of unity. Equality and tolerance among all
the citizens” (quoted in Iqbal, 2013).
The above-mentioned quotes of Quaid-e-Azam categorically indicate that he wanted
Pakistan to emerge as an Islamic democratic state. There is a difference in the opinions of analysts whether Mr Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be a pure Islamic State or a Modern Islamic
State because there are equally valid references, in favour or otherwise, available in his statements (see Butt, 2015; Paracha, 2015). However, there is no difference that he wanted
Pakistan to flourish as a democratic country. The democratic system got a severe setback after the death of its founder, Mr Jinnah, in 1948 and the assassination of first the PM of Pakistan,
Liyaqat Ali Khan in 1951. So far, the power had been seized by the military generals for four times, i.e. General Ayub Khan (1958), General Yahya Khan (1969), General Zia-ul-Haq (1977) and General Pervez Musharraf (1999). Almost half of Pakistan life has been under the control of the military or its backed governments (Riaz-ud-Din, 2018). The military interruptions and
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 12 discontinuity of democracy did not allow the democratic spirit to develop among the leaders as well as the public. The struggle for power between the dictators and politicians did not allow
Pakistan to emerge either as a true welfare Islamic state or as a democratic state. All the rulers, autocratic or democratic, tried to impose the ideology which safeguarded their interests the most. As the study deals with the ideology of political parties vested in the parliamentary speeches of their parliamentarians, therefore, it seems necessary to have an overview of
Pakistani parliamentary system, the top four leading political parties, their ideologies and the prevailing political situation in the country.
Pakistani Parliamentary System
In Pakistan, parliament (Majlis-e-Shoora) is bicameral and consists of the National
Assembly and the Senate with president as the head of the state and prime minister as the head of the government (executive).
National Assembly of Pakistan
The National Assembly, the lower house of the parliament is made up of the three hundred and forty-two members (including 60 special seats allocated for women). Out of these
272 are directly elected by the public from the specific constituencies for five years. These members are named as members of the national assembly (MNAs). The seats of MNAs are allocated on the basis of population, i.e. 17 from the province of Baluchistan, 43 from Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa (KPK), 75 from Sindh, 183 from Punjab, 12 from the Federally Administrated
Tribal Areas (FATA), and two from Federal Capital and 10 from the minorities.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 13
Senate of Pakistan
The Senate has equal representation from the federating units balancing the provincial inequality in the National Assembly, where the number of members is based on the population of the provinces. It consists of 104 members, 23 members (including 14 general seats, four seats specified for women, four for Technocrats and Ulamas and one for non- Muslims) from each province, four from Federal Capital (two general, one for men and one for women) and eight from FATA elected through the electoral college comprising of a National Assembly and four provincial assemblies for six years (half of the senators retire after every three years). The members of the Senate are referred as Senators.
Leading Pakistani Parliamentary Parties
Till election 2018, there were 120 political parties registered with the Election
Commission of Pakistan. Most of the parties may be called local parties as they have not shown any considerable performance at provincial or national level politics. In the general election
2013, 83 political parties contested, however, only 18 political parties succeeded in showing their presence in the National Assembly. There are also members of the National Assembly with no party affiliation referred to as Independents (see Table 1).
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 14
Table 1
Party representation in the National Assembly and the Senate in the election of 2013 (Number of seats taken from the official websites of NA and Senate)
Serial Name of the Party N A Senate Total No.
1 Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) PML-N 188 14 202 2 Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) 46 41 87 3 Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) 33 - 33 4 Mutahidda Qawmi Movement (MQM) 24 7 31 5 Jamiat Ulama-e-Islam (Fazal-ur-Rehman) (JUI-F) 13 7 20 6 Awami National Party (ANP) 2 12 14 7 Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party (PMAP) 4 4 8 8 Pakistan Muslim League (Quaid-e-Azam) (PML-Q) 2 5 7 9 Pakistan Muslim League (Functional) (PML-F) 5 1 6 10 Jamat-i-Islami (JI) 4 - 4 11 National People‟s Party (NPP) 2 - 2 12 Baluchistan National Party (BNP) 1 - 1 13 Qawmi Watan Party (Sherpao) (QWP-S) 1 - 1 14 Pakistan Muslim League (Zia) (PML-Z) 1 - 1 15 National Party (NP) 1 - 1 16 Awami Muslim League (AML) 1 - 1 17 Awami Jamhuri Ittehad Pakistan (AJIP) 1 - 1 18 All Pakistan Muslim League (APML) 1 - 1 19 Independent Members (without any party affiliation) 9 12 21
The above table shows that while in the National Assembly, there is a representation of
18 political parties, only eight are represented in the Senate. A short review of the four parties with the largest representation in the Parliament may be beneficial in understanding the
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 15 analyses that follow.
Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N)
Pakistan Muslim League (PML) is considered to be the creator of Pakistan which launched its movement for Pakistan under the leadership of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali
Jinnah. After the death of Quaid-e-Azam, it has passed through many phases and has been divided into many factions. In 1985, a non-party election was conducted by Gen. Zia and
Muhammad Khan Junejo became the prime minister of Pakistan. Inside the assembly, PML sponsored by Gen. Zia was formed with Muhammad Khan Junejo its president and Mian
Muhammad Nawaz Sharif its provincial president. After the dismissal of nominated assemblies by Gen. Zia, PML again split into PML (Junejo), PML (Functional), PML (Qasim), PML
(Liyaqat) and PML (Jinnah) factions. Another faction of PML was formed with Fida
Mohammad Khan as president and Mian Mohammad Nawaz Sharif as secretary-general. In
October 1990, Islami Jamhori Ittihad (IJI), a political alliance of nine parties, got a two-third majority and Mr Sharif became PM of Pakistan. In 1993, his government was overthrown which led him to a faction of PML after his name PML (Nawaz). It is a centre-right/populist conservative party (Paracha, 2013). In 1996, PML-N got a majority in the National Assembly and Mr Sharif became the PM for the second time. In 1999, his government was again overthrown by Gen. Pervez Musharraf as the result of coup d'état and Mr Sharif was sent on exile. In the general election of 2002 which were conducted in his absence, PML-N showed very poor performance. After returning from his exile, his party participated in the general election of 2008, and won 91 seats in the National Assembly and became the second largest party. However, it succeeded in making its government in Punjab, the most populated province
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 16 of Pakistan. In general election 2013, PMLN emerged as the single largest party with 188 seats of the National Assembly.
The PML-N is considered a centre-right/populist conservative political party (Paracha,
2013). Basically, PML-N has never been an ideology-driven party as its chief, Mr Sharif himself admitted that he had never been an ideological man but things had turned him to an ideological man. After the general election 2008, PML-N has started adopting liberal democratic principles and the party which wanted to impose Sharia in the country in 1990 now wants to make the country a liberal democratic (Cheema, 2017).
In its party manifesto presented before the general election 2013, PML-N promised to revive the confidence of people by instilling hope, restoring national dignity and resurrecting
Pakistan as a progressive and prosperous nation and build strong dimension of democratic governance by building institutions including an effective parliament, independent judiciary, election commission and a vigilant media. It also reaffirmed party's commitment to Charter of
Democracy (a treaty signed between Mr Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, the Chairperson PPP in
May 14, 2006) and vowed to build strong dimension of democratic governance by building institutions including an effective parliament, independent judiciary, election commission and as vigilant media (“Nawaz announces”, 2013).
Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP)
Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) was founded in a convention held in Lahore from
November 30, 1967, to December 1, 1967. Mr Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto - a cabinet member of Ayub
Khan, a military dictator, who quit his government in 1966 due to the differences of Tashkent
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 17 agreement after Indo-Pak War 1965 - was elected as its Chairman. PPP is a democratic left- liberal party (Paracha, 2013). During the propagation of it's new manifesto, a mass uprising started against Ayub Khan's government. The leadership of PPP played a leading role in this movement and resultantly, Ayub Khan had to resign in March 1969. In the following election,
PPP took part with the slogan of "Roti, Kapra aur Makan" (bread, clothing and shelter) and "all power to the people" and it emerged as the largest party of West Pakistan claiming 81 seats out of 138.
In East Pakistan, Awami League got an absolute majority. Due to political-military upheavals, a civil war started and as a result, East Pakistan became Bangladesh. In West
Pakistan, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto took the office of Chief Martial Law Administrator and President on December 20, 1971. In 1977 election, PPP won 155/207 seats whereas Pakistan National
Alliance, an alliance of nine parties, won 36 seats. The alliance called the election rigged and fraud and announced a movement against the Bhutto's government. Consequently, General Zia- ul-Haq overthrew the government and seized power on July 5, 1977. Mr Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was arrested on the charge of murder and was "judicially assassinated" on April 4, 1978.
After the assassination of Mr Bhutto, Begum Nusrat Bhutto, the widow of Bhutto was elected as the chairperson of PPP along with Benazir Bhutto, the daughter of Bhutto as co- chairperson. However, they were not allowed to play their political role and were sent into exile the same year. After the death of Gen. Zia, PPP took part in the general election of 1988 and emerged as the largest political party of Pakistan claiming 82/207 seats of the National
Assembly. As a result, Benazir Bhutto became the first female prime minister of Pakistan.
However, in 1988, the National Assembly was dissolved and her government was dismissed.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 18
In the general election held in October 1990, PPP could not get a considerable victory, however, in 1992, Benazir Bhutto succeeded in regaining her office but her hand-picked president dismissed her government on November 5, 1996, for the second time. During the
Martial Law of Gen. Pervez Musharraf, PPP took part in the general election of 2002 with its leadership in exile and failed badly. After signing a National Reconciliation Order with Gen.
Musharraf in 2007, Benazir Bhutto returned to Pakistan but later was assassinated in
Rawalpindi on December 27, 2007. After her assassination, Mr Asif AIi Zardari, her husband, became chairman of PPP and Bilawal Bhutto, her son, co-chairman. In the general election held in 2008, PPP regained power and Mr Asif Ali Zardari became President of Pakistan. Syed
Yousaf Raza Gilani was elected as the prime minister of Pakistan. After his disqualification from the office in June 2012 by the Supreme Court, Raja Pervez Ashraf became the prime minister of Pakistan. In the General Election held in 2013, PPP failed badly at the national level and could win only forty-six seats of the National Assembly, mostly from Sindh; however, it succeeded in making its government in the province of Sindh.
The ideology of PPP is said to be based on the welfare of masses opposite to the feudal system. It is a democratic left-liberal party (Paracha, 2013) which aims to bring real democracy in Pakistan. It raised the slogan of “roti, kapra ur makan” (bread, clothes and residence) which was extremely popular among the poor class of Pakistan, especially in the 1970s.
Initially, its ideology was an “amalgamation of Islamic tenets of egalitarianism and justice with social ownership of public goods and resources, democratic rule and empowerment of the marginalized sections of the society” (Khalique, 2018). During his power (1972-1977), Mr
Bhutto “built institutions of learning and culture, invested in a school network taking it to slums and small villages, created basic health facilities, distributed land among landless farmers,
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 19 initiated housing and infrastructure schemes, mobilized foreign investment in industries…” and founded the “Pakistan‟s current defense paradigm premised on nuclear weapons and a missile program among other things” (Khalique, 2018). After the hanging of Mr Bhutto in 1979 in a highly controversial trial and an imposition of Martial Law by General Zia-ul-Haq, PPP had to pass through a transition period and succeeded in regaining its power when, in 1998, his daughter, Benazir Bhutto became first women prime minister of Pakistan. After the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the party seems to deviate from its initial motto and could not deliver in its tenure (2008-2013) which resulted in its poor performance in general election
3013. The party manifesto presented before the general election 2013 shows that PPP government (2008-2013) had “laid down foundations for a sustainable, accountable and robust democracy in Pakistan” (“Manifesto Unveiled”, 2013). Its manifesto also claimed of taking
Pakistan into a future based on social justice, peace and prosperity for all (“Manifesto
Unveiled”, 2013).
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)
On April 25, 1996, Imran Khan (a former captain of Pakistan Cricket Team which won
The World Cup in 1992) founded Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) as a sociopolitical movement.
Initially, it was considered a centre-right/populist party (Paracha, 2013). Now it has become difficult to label it as a left-wing or right-wing political party because most of its leadership is an amalgamation of PPP (a left-wing political party), PNL-N (a right-wing political party) and other political parties. In the beginning, its political progress was very slow. It took part in the general election 2002 and got its first representation in the National Assembly when Mr
Khan himself was elected as MNA (Member of National Assembly) from Mianwali, his
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 20 hometown. Being part of All Parties Democratic Movement which boycotted general election
2008 conducted by Gen. Musharraf, PTI did not participate in the election. However, in the general election 2013, with thirty-three seats of the National Assembly, it emerged as the third largest party of Pakistan, single largest party in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) and the second largest party in Punjab, the most populated province of Pakistan.
PTI was initially considered a centre-right/populist party (Paracha, 2013) but now it has become an amalgamation of left-wing and right-wing leadership because most of its leadership has come from different political parties. The selected parliamentarians, i.e. Mr Qureshi (Vice
Chairman) and Mr Hashmi (President) had come from PPP and PML-N respectively where they had been enjoying a very key position. PTI claims to make Pakistan a modern Islamic republic country. It aims to work for the prosperity of individuals through political stability, social harmony and economic prosperity irrespective of religion, ethnicity and race. It also aims to blend traditional social and religious values and cultural and ethnic diversity to realize the dreams of Quaid e Azam and Allama Iqbal and make Pakistan an Islamic social state. It wanted to empower the Parliament and Election Commission of Pakistan. Its manifesto presented before the general election 2013 claimed that it “would relentlessly work to ensure, free primary healthcare, the uniform education system for all, equal opportunities, social justice and a safety net for unemployed. Imran announced support to local body polls and vowed to restore the local body system if his party comes into power” (“PTI unveil”, 2013).
Muttahida Qawmi Movement (MQM)
In 1976, Altaf Hussain founded a student organization with the name of All Pakistan
Muhajir Student Organization. In 1984, it evolved into a political party with the name of
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 21
Muhajir Qawmi Movement (MQM). Muhajirs (immigrants) are those Urdu speakers who migrated from India to join Pakistan when the subcontinent was divided into two independent states, i.e. Pakistan and India. These Muhajirs migrated to all parts of Pakistan yet most of them settled in Haiderabad and Karachi. In the beginning, MQM claimed to be the true representative of these Urdu speakers. However, in 1997, the leadership of MQM decided to join national level politics instead of regional or an ethnic group and the word "Muhajir" was replaced with
"Muttahida" (United) thus making it Muttahida Qawmi Movement (united national movement) but its focus of politics remained the mohajirs of Karachi and urban Sindh. It is the second largest political party of the province of Sindh and dominant political force in Karachi and
Haiderabad since 1990. In the general election 2013, it became the fourth largest party with twenty-four seats of the National Assembly. It is a liberal political party (Paracha, 2013).
MQM is a liberal political party (Paracha, 2013) and its (official ideology) claims that it is a realistic and practical party which represents 98% of the lower and middle-class population of Pakistan which has been deprived of its social and political rights. It aims to empower the deprived class in a true sense. It wants Pakistan to be a truly democratic country where everybody can enjoy all the rights mentioned in the Constitution of Pakistan. The party manifesto presented before general election 2013 says that MQM aims to bring reforms in almost every sector, give the local government system its top priority because it wanted to give more powers and grant complete autonomy with a unity of command to the city and district governments (“22-point MQM manifesto”, 2013).
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 22
The General Election of 2013 and its Political Impact
For a democratic parliamentary system, high rate of literacy, an industrialized economy and an advanced level of urbanization are required (Tariq, 2012). Pakistan is a developing country and almost 42% of its population is illiterate (Pakistan Economic Survey, 2018).
Perhaps, this is the reason that democratic values have not developed fully. It was the first time in the history of Pakistan that an elected democratic government completed its constitutional tenure which may be considered a step towards the political maturity in the country. The first party based local bodies election held in 2015 is also a sign of the arising awareness among the general masses.
Previously, almost all governments have been under the influence of the military (Riaz- ud-Din, 2018). Factually, this cannot be denied that the governments of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the founder of PPP and Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, the leader of PMLN, had been part of military governments. The other numerous political leaders and companions of Benazir Bhutto, the daughter of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, and Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif had also been directly or indirectly influenced by the military regime. After the general election 2013, first civilian transfer of power took place in the country. In March 2013, Pakistan Peoples Party's (PPP) government completed its constitutional tenure of five years and handed over the government to the caretaker government which conducted elections in May 2013 for the 14th National
Assembly and provincial assemblies. As a result of general election 2013, Pakistan Muslim
League, Nawaz group (PML-N) emerged as the largest political party with 188 seats of the
National Assembly. Among others, PPP with 46 seats, PTI with 33 seats stood second and third respectively. PML-N emerged not only as the leading party in the National Assembly but in the
Punjab Provincial Assembly as well and formed the government in the centre and Punjab, the
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 23 largest populated province. PPP got a majority in the Sindh Provincial Assembly and Pakistan
Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) in the KPK Provincial Assembly and formulated their governments in the respective provinces. However, in Baluchistan, no single party gained a majority and a coalition government was made by PML-N and Baluchistan National Party; and power was smoothly transferred to a newly elected government. The special thing of the general election 2013 was that PTI emerged as the third largest parliamentary party and second highest vote taker party at the national level.
Table 2 Party-wise vote bank and seats in the National Assembly in general election 2013 taken from official website of Election Commission of Pakistan
Serial Name of the Vote bank %age of Total No. of No. Party cast cast votes Seats in NA 1 PML-N 14,874,104 32.77 188 2 PPP 6,911,218 15.32 46
3 PTI 7,679,954 16.92 33
4 MQM 2456153 5.4 24
The following section includes a short review of the events and incidents which occurred during and before the movements against the governments and led to the joint session of the National Assembly and Senate to be called.
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) emerged as a national level political party
Since the 1990s, there had been two mainstream political parties in the country; i.e.
PML-N and PPP. The general elections of 2013 brought a new change in Pakistani politics and, after a long time, the bipolar system was changed and PTI emerged as the third largest political party in the National Assembly. It also got the second highest number of votes in the general election.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 24
It also turned out to be the second largest party in the Punjab Provincial Assembly. It got a majority in the province of KPK and made its government with the coalition of a religious cum political party,
Jamat-i-Islami. However, PTI leadership was not satisfied with the results. The party believed that election was rigged which reduced their possible seats in the assembly to thirty 33, which were 35 less than what they had expected. The PTI leadership demanded recounting and verification of votes in four constituencies. PTI blamed PML-N for conspiring against it. PML-N rejected the blame saying that election was conducted by the caretaker government which was appointed with the consultation of PTI.
Further, it said that the issue fell under the authority of Election Commission and, as PTI had filed their case in the courts, therefore, the government could not do anything until any decision was made. After waiting for more than a year, PTI started a movement against the government and demanded resignation from Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, the PM of Pakistan as he failed to meet their demand of inquiring into the rigging issue.
Model Town incident
Dr Tahir-ul-Qadri is a religious scholar and the founder head of Pakistan Awami
Tehreek (PAT), a political cum religious party. He accepted Canadian citizenship in 2005 and moved to Canada. His party boycotted the general election of 2013 stating that the system was corrupt and it was useless to contest the election under the prevailing system. He had appealed to the people to boycott the election but his effort was not successful. He had expressed his views on numerous occasions that he did not accept the prevailing political system and wanted to change it through inqilab (revolution). He announced his return from Canada on June 23,
2014, and led a movement against the government. Perhaps, to refrain Dr Qadri from his objectives, Punjab police raided on June 17, 2014, at his residence in Model Town where his party workers had gathered. The police were of the opinion that it went there to clear the road from the barriers and encroachments, as there were complaints from the local people, PAT
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 25 workers resisted, and the incident turned into a violent clash. On the other hand, PAT claimed that barriers were put there on the orders of Lahore High Court and they had no notice otherwise. As a result of the clash, 14 lives were lost and scores of people were wounded. PAT leadership directly blamed the Punjab Government for this massacre and refused to accept the
FIR (First Information Report) lodged by the police. It nominated twenty-one persons including the PM of Pakistan, Mian Nawaz Sharif; Chief Minister of Punjab, Mian Shahbaz Sharif;
Punjab Law Minister, Rana Sana Ullah, and some high police officials. Failing in getting FIR registered according to their demand, PAT‟s chief announced a movement to take revenge of the bloodshed.
Azadi (Independence) and Inqilab (Revolution) Marches
Mr Khan, the founder of PTI announced a march to overthrow the government with the slogan "Go Nawaz Go". He along with his thousands of workers started his Azadi March from
Lahore on August 14, 2014, the day of Independence of Pakistan with the objectives: resignation of the PM of Pakistan, CM of Punjab, to bring electoral reforms, to end corruption and the luxurious lifestyle of political leaders and an immediate midterm election (Munawar &
Fletcher, 2016). Mr Khan addressed the procession at different points and repeated his demands. The governments had blocked the roads to Islamabad with containers but PTI leadership and workers equipped with cranes and cutters cleared the roads, reached Islamabad and encamped at Zero Point near Abpara Chowk. Later on, the sit-in was shifted to Red Zone and the protestors held the sit-in in D-Chowk, opposite to the National Assembly building. On
August 30, 2014, the marchers entered into the National Assembly building and PTV House.
They also attempted to reach to the PM House. There were clashes between the police and the
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 26 protestors. The police used tear gas, water cannons and rubber bullets whereas protestors threw stones and used catapults. The sit-in, blockage of the roads with containers and the presence of thousands of police and FC (Frontier Constabulary) men detached the capital from the rest of the country and practically suspended the activities in the city. The sit-in continued until
December 17, 2014, and was called off after the terrorists had attacked the Army Public School,
Peshawar.
On June 23, 2014, Dr Qadri, Chief of PAT arrived at Lahore and announced to take revenge of the victims of the Model Town incident. Apparently, he demanded of registering an
FIR against the nominated persons (see above) by them. Surprisingly, Dr Qadri announced a march from Lahore to Islamabad on the same day when did PTI. In the beginning, Punjab police resisted in allowing PAT leadership and workers to leave for the capital but later on opened the ways because of political pressure. Both marches joined in Islamabad and encamped near each other at Zero Point and then shifted to Red Zone.
The following section will sum up some of the important date-wise political events and incidents which took place from the start of the marches, i.e. August 14, till the beginning of the joint session, i.e. September 2. This review will facilitate the readers in understanding the context of the speeches made during the session.
Important Events from August 14, 2014, to September 2, 2014
Both of the marches departed from Lahore on August 14, 2014, the Independence Day of Pakistan, with the common agenda of dislodging PML-N government. In the beginning, the government had decided to allow PTI to come to Islamabad but detain PAT in Lahore. On
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 27
August 14, 2014, The interior minister, Ch. Nisar Ali Khan, announced to allow both PTI and
PAT to march towards the capital but warned them that government would deal with them strictly if they tried to cross the red lines or Red Zone security. Before departing from his residence in Lahore, Mr Khan tried to charge up his workers by saying that "No one will gift your freedom on a silver platter. You will have to snatch it through a sustained struggle". At another place in Lahore, he said that he was going to Islamabad to force Mr Sharif to resign among the deafening slogans of "Go Nawaz Go" (Malik, 2014).
Earlier, in the meeting between Vice-Chairman PTI, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, and PAT founder, Dr Qadri, it had been decided that both of the marches would kick off together but Mr
Khan started his march without PAT participation. Later, the PAT workers removed the containers placed around Model Town with the help of cranes led by Dr Qadri and left for
Islamabad through a different route (Mahmood, 2014). After reaching Islamabad, Dr Qadri demanded the resignations of the PM, Chief Minister of Punjab, the dissolution of the national and all the provincial assemblies, setting up a national government and accountability at a high level. (Reporter, 2014).
On August 15, in Gujranwala PTI march was "fired upon" and "pelted with stones" allegedly by PMLN workers, claimed PTI leadership. However, PML-N rejected the allegation of firing on the marchers and said that PML-N workers reacted on tearing the posters of a local leader by PTI workers (Malik, 2014). On the same day, on a petition of Supreme Court Bar
Association's President, a Supreme Court four-judge bench restrained the state authorities from taking any steps unwarranted by the Constitution and the Law (Iqbal, 2014).
On August 16, Mr Khan gave a one-day ultimatum to the authorities to accept his
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 28 demands otherwise PTI workers would storm down the Red Zone. Dr Qadri presented his charter of demands, i.e. the resignations of PM and Chief Minister of Punjab, dissolution of all assemblies and formation of national government. He also gave 48 hours‟ ultimatum for accepting his demands (Raza & Ghumman, 2014). On the same day, an Additional District and
Session Judge ordered Lahore Police to register FIR of Model Town incident against the PM of
Pakistan, Chief Minister of Punjab, PML-N leaders and nominated police officials on the petition of PAT (Sheikh, 2014).
On August 17, Mr Khan gave a call for civil disobedience and asked the people not to pay taxes and utility bills (Raza & Ghumman, 2014). Aswandyar Wali Khan, the President of
Awami National Party, advised PM to take a vote of the confidence from the members of the
National Assembly and announced that his party would not support any unconstitutional act
(Khan, 2014). The government decided to form separate committees with multiparty representation to hold talks with PTI and PAT to avert any threat to the national interest (Khan,
2014) and it was announced by the interior minister in a press conference.
On August 18, Mr Khan announced to enter into Red Zone and said that "we will stage a peaceful protest outside the National Assembly building on Tuesday which was established after the rigging in the general election of May 2013 and the next destination of our peaceful protest will be the Prime Minister House". He also warned the police to avoid confrontation otherwise he would not be responsible for the consequences. Mr Khan also announced that PTI parliamentarians would resign from Punjab Provincial Assembly but not from the KPK
Provincial Assembly. On the same day, the PTI members of National Assembly handed their resignations to their leader, Mr Khan. Dr Qadri also gave a one-day ultimatum to the
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 29 government for accepting his demands and said that "from today the Inqilab will prevail throughout the country" (Raza & Haider, 2014). The PM announced the name of a five-member cabinet committee to facilitate the mediation efforts of opposition parties. The Opposition (PPP and other its coalition parties) refused to be a part of the government committee and announced its two four-member committees to hold talks with PTI and PAT separately. The PM wrote a letter to the Supreme Court to constitute a three-member judicial commission to investigate the allegations of rigging in the general election 2013 (Ghumman, 2014). Dr Qadri announced to hold a "People's Parliament" in front of the National Assembly building and said that "so far I and other leaders of Inqilab march took decisions but tomorrow the decision will be made by the people. Whatever the decision will be taken by the people, we will obey it" (Reporter,
2014).
On August 19, Dr Qadri held a "Public Parliament" and asked his workers if they wanted to go home or protest in front of the Parliament. The protestors breached the Red Zone and marched on to Parliament to demand the PM‟s resignation. They removed the containers and other barriers on the road with the help of the crane. The army spokesperson asked the protestors to respect the public buildings in the Red Zone as they were "symbols of the state and being protected by the army". Mr Khan warned the PM and said that "Nawaz Sharif, if anything happens to my people, I won't spare you" and asked the PTI workers "If anything were to happen to me, promise me you will hold Nawaz Sharif responsible and avenge me" (“People‟s parliament”, 2014). Army refused to mediate between the government and the protestors, as there was news that the government had asked the army for meditation. It emphasized solving the problem politically by having a "meaningful dialogue" for an "urgent solution". The spokesperson gave a statement advising the government and the protestors to have patience as
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 30
"situation requires patience, wisdom and sagacity from all stakeholders to resolve prevailing impasse through meaningful dialogue in the larger national and public interest" (Syed, 2014).
On August 20, PAT and PTI workers encamped on the green belt and blocked the gate meant for the entry and exit of judges. The Supreme Court judges including Chief Justice of
Pakistan had to adopt a different route to reach the court. The court also issued notices to PTI and PAT leaders for appearing before the court on the petition of the Supreme Court Bar
Association. On the same day, PTI and PAT showed their willingness to hold a dialogue with the government (Iqbal, 2014). The dialogues were held with both parties separately but these yielded no result. PAT stick-wielding workers, on the direction of Dr Qadri, laid siege to the Parliament building where a session of the National Assembly was in progress and the PM was also attending the session (Raza, 2014).
On August 21, the US spokesman gave a statement in a news conference that the US supported the elected government and was against any unconstitutional change in Pakistan
(Iqbal, 2014). Mr Khan warned the US for interfering in the internal issues of Pakistan. He also accused the government of sabotaging the dialogue process. Dr Qadri addressed the workers with guards armed with automatic weapons and warned the government of his arrest. On the other hand, the PM rejected the option of using force against the protestors and said that the government wanted to solve the issue through dialogue (Raza & Haider, 2014). In the session of
National Assembly, it rejected the demands of PM's resignation and passed a resolution unanimously saying that "the House rejects the unconstitutional demands from certain political parties for the resignation of the PM and the dissolution of the National Assembly and deplores the extremely derogatory, defamatory and inflammatory language used by leaders and members
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 31 of these parties in their speeches" (Asghar, 2014). The PTI leadership was summoned in the
Supreme Court. The leadership assured a five-judge larger bench of SC that their party would abide by the Constitution. It also assured that their workers would neither storm any building nor obstruct free movement of the people (Iqbal, 2014). In the meanwhile, PTI suspended the dialogue process with the government until "Islamabad was unsealed" and "FIR was registered" against the PML-N workers who had attacked the house of PTI Vice-Chairman, Mr
Qureshi, in Multan (Ghumman & Asad, 2014).
On August 22, PTI Vice Chairman submitted resignations of the twenty-seven Members of National Assembly (MNAs) to the office of the Speaker of National Assembly (Raza,
Ghumman & Ali, 2014). A round of talk was held between the government committee and PAT leaders. Interior Minister accused PTI and PAT of violating the undertaking which they had made with the local authorities of Islamabad. He said that the government had shown softness and allowed them to enter the Red Zone. He warned them of strict action if they entered into any public buildings and further said that "Your liberty to swing your arms ends where my nose begins". He lamented that "we were promised that the protestors will remain peaceful, will not carry weapons or firearms, will not damage any buildings, flora and fauna, or obstruct access to public and private buildings and that garbage will not be left undisposed. All these conditions have been violated" (Khan, 2014).
On August 23, the third round of dialogue between PTI and government again ended in no result and PTI declared it dead (Ali, 2014). Former president Zardari called on the PM at his residence in Raiwind and advised him to handle the crisis politically (Husnain & Tahir, 2014).
On August 24, Emir Jamaat-i-Islami called on the Speaker of the National Assembly in
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 32
Lahore on his residence to urge him to delay a decision on the resignations of PTI MNAs. The
Speaker assured him that he would not hurry through the issue. The Federal Minister for
Railways tried to break the deadlock between PAT and government. Dr Qadri upheld his demands in his address to his workers and said that "If I am killed my followers will be ready to be martyred and the Parliament House will become graveyards of martyred" (Reporter, 2014).
On August 25, Dr Qadri waved a shroud and gave the last ultimatum to the government for accepting his demands and said that "I give a 48-hour ultimatum to the government.
Dissolve the assemblies; register FIR (First Information Report) and hand yourself over to the law. I will not be responsible for what happens after that..."(Syed, 2014). In a meeting of the
PPP Central Executive Committee held in Karachi at Bilawal House, the Committee adopted a resolution saying if something happened to the democratic system, PTI, PAT and PML-N would be held responsible. The Committee also demanded an investigation of election rigging by the Supreme Court and registering an FIR about the Model Town incident (Ghori, 2014).
After the three rounds of talk, PTI showed flexibility in the PM's resignation demand and proposed 30 days for the PM‟s resignation and for bringing in another person without any change in the cabinet (Ghumman, 2014). The Opposition met the Speaker to discuss the issue of PTI MNAs' resignations. The government representatives updated the opposition about the talks with PTI (“Speaker says won‟t hurry”, 2014). On the same day, a five-judge bench which was hearing the Supreme Court Bar Association petition ordered the protestors to vacate the
Constitution Avenue (Iqbal, 2014).
On August 26, the Chief of the Army Staff called on the PM in PM House about the ongoing political crisis and called upon the government to reach an urgent settlement with the
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 33 protestors (Syed, 2014). Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions of federal ministers against the session court's decision of registering FIR of Model Town incident. The Court said that the
"purpose of recording FIR is to set the criminal law in motion and to obtain first-hand information of the occurrence in order to exclude the possibility of fabrication of story and to safeguard the accused of any mishap. It cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence against an accused unless proved in accordance with law" (Sheikh, 2014).
On August 27, the PAT leader announced stopping the dialogues with the government and the observing of "Yaum-i-Inqilab" on the next day and said that "we tried our best to find a way out of the crisis, but the government did not reciprocate". The PM cancelled his visit to
Turkey for attending the inauguration of Turkish President-elect Recep. and the President represented Pakistan (Syed, 2014). Mr Khan, addressing his workers, told them that he was foreseeing good news and postponed his important announcement till the next day. He also told them of his refusal to the designation of the deputy PM offered by the government as a political bribe (Haider, 2014). The PM vowed in the National Assembly to defend the constitution and said that "we are not the ones who will be afraid of such things" (Asghar, 2014). The government suggested to Dr Qadri an imposition of Governor's rule in Punjab for ensuring the free investigation of the Model Town incident and the Chief Minister of Punjab along with his cabinet would be restored if found innocent. The FIR was registered and the Governor also showed a copy of proposed FIR to Dr Qadri (Mehmood, 2014). The Election Commission of
Pakistan rejected the allegations of massive rigging in the general election of 2013 (Khan, 2014).
Supreme Court feared that politics of agitation might result in civil war and chaos. During the hearing of the Supreme Court Bar Association‟s petition, a judge from the five-judge bench remarked that "there would be chaos and civil war in the country if this trend of mobilizing the
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 34 crowd to unseat the government of the day catches on" (Iqbal, 2014).
On August 28, both Mr Khan and Dr Qadri, on a call from Army General Head
Quarters, left their containers to have a meeting with Chief of the Army Staff and the meeting was rebuked by the politicians and they decried the role of the army in the politics (Ghumman,
2014). On the political decision taken by PML-N government, FIR of Model Town incident, in accordance with the court orders, was registered against the PM, the Chief Minister of Punjab and other persons nominated by PAT (Hanif & Ghumman, 2014).
On August 29, the army spokesperson clarified that the government has asked the Chief of Army Staff to meet Mr Khan and Dr Qadri. Interior Minister insisted that the government had asked for "facilitation" not for "meditation" (Syed & Khan 2014; Ghumman, 2014). The
PM of Pakistan had clarified his position on the floor of the National Assembly stating that the government had not asked the army for mediation. He further clarified that PTI and PAT wanted to talk "under the shadow" of the army, the government gave them "space" and a facilitating role to the army (Asghar, 2014). Mr Khan rejected the clarification of the PM and accused him of lying and announced he was expanding his sit-in and rallies across the country.
He said that "Nawaz Sharif was lying on the floor of the house. I have already told the army chief that I cannot trust the Prime Minister…. I am sure that he will not fulfil his promise if I leave D-Chowk". On August 28, 2014, an FIR about the Model Town was registered but on next day PAT moved a petition in LHC for the inclusion of the provision of the anti-terrorism act (“Court moved for”, 2014).
On August 30, on the order of Mr Khan and Dr Qadri, thousands of the workers led by
PAT and followed by PTI workers, marched towards the Cabinet Division and Presidency and
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 35 were encountered with a heavy police contingent, teargas and rubber bullets. Workers carrying backpack slung marbles with their catapults and pelted stones on police. D-Chowk turned into battle field leaving over 100 injured including protesters and policemen. The protestors tried to reach PM House but failed. They pulled down the gates of Parliament House with the help of a truck and entered the ground (Syed, 2014). Police fired rubber bullets and tear gas shells to push them back but in vain. The protesters damaged vehicles of the employees of the
Secretariat (“Pakistan protesters”, 2014). The scene continued throughout the night while both of the leaders confined themselves to their vehicles (Syed, 2014). The PM called PTI and PAT a part of a conspiracy against democracy and warned them that no such activity would be tolerated in the future. He said that "we have accepted their demands for electoral reforms which are also part of the PML-N manifesto. We have proposed a commission comprised of
Supreme Court judges to probe the rigging allegations" and he stated that he could not fulfil their demands which were out of his authority (Tahir, 2014).
On August 31, the PM chaired a high level meeting regarding the political situation in
Islamabad and later on his office announced "the Prime Minister, in agreement with the proposal of leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly, Syed Khurshid Shah, and
Leader of the Opposition in Senate, Chaudhry Atizaz Ahsan, decided to convene a joint session of Parliament on Tuesday, September 2, 2014". A corps commanders‟ meeting was also held at the General Head Quarter, Rawalpindi. They reiterated their "support to democracy" and cautioned the government that "use of force will only aggravate the problem" (Syed &
Ghumman, 2014). Regarding Mr Khan's decision of marching towards Prime Mouse House, there seemed some reservations within his camp. PTI President Makhdoom Javed Hashmi and a senior politician left the sit-in. While reacting to Mr Hashmi's decision, Mr Khan said that "We
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 36 have different paths to tread on" (Khan, 2014). Some areas of Constitution Avenue remained a battlefield. The protesters were short of food. There were rumours of a brutal crackdown by the government and a military takeover (Yasin & Ali, 2014).
On September 1, there was a meeting of the Chief of Army Staff with the PM at besieged PM House. Soon after the meeting, the government ordered the inclusion of the anti- terrorism clause in the FIR (Syed, 2014). On the same day, a mob of 800 workers of PAT and
PTI stormed the PTV headquarter, smashed cameras and entered the control room (“Pakistan protesters”, 2014). The mob forced the staff to take two of the state "broadcaster's flagship channels" off the air. They asked the staff to stop the regular transmission and broadcast the speeches of Dr Qadri. After an hour of the incident, army personnel arrived there, vacated the building and restored the transmission (Reporter, 2014). Mr Hashmi, the President of PTI announced that the plan of protests to overthrow the government was scripted. He referred to some of Mr Khan's gestures of showing that the military establishment was behind this plan. He said that "Imran Khan had told the PTI core committee that the new arrangement would not be called martial law. We will file a petition in the Supreme Court and get a judge of our choice who will say okay. The chief [of Supreme Court] will validate the actions which will be taken eventually and this would not be the Bangladesh model". The army spokesperson denied the allegation and said that the "Army is an apolitical institution and has expressed its unequivocal support for democracy on numerous occasions" (Khan, 2014).
On September 2, Dr Qadri congratulated his workers on FIR being registered against the
PM, the Chief Minister of Punjab and other nominated persons according to the demands of
PAT (Haider, 2014). The Chief Justice of Supreme Court cleared his position regarding Mr
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 37
Hashmi's statement. He said that "I want to clarify certain statements that appeared in the media that said I have some kind of understanding with the leadership [of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf]".
When the joint session was in progress to find some solution to the prevailing political crisis, suddenly a new issue, regarding the Ch. Nisar's remarks about Mr Ahsan, a PPP stalwart appeared on the media. Apparently, it seemed that the unity of the session would shatter and
PTI and PAT would succeed in getting the resignation from the PM. However, with the efforts of the senior politicians, the issue was diffused as quickly as it appeared. As some parts of the speeches of the PM and President of PML-N, Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, and Chairman
PML-N, Raja Zafar-ul-Haq's speech was related to the quarrel between Ch. Nisar and Mr
Ahsan, therefore, it seems necessary to review the incident to understand the context.
Ch. Nisar Ali Khan and Mr Aitzaz Ahsan's Clash
On the fourth day of the joint session, Mr Ahsan expressed his anger on the allegation raised by Ch. Nisar that he was involved in land mafia in the country and using Benazir
Bhutto's name for his personal gains among many other things (Zaman, 2014). He clarified his position by referring to his efforts against the dictators. He pointed out some occasions where he could accumulate wealth but he did not do so. He said that he was a lawyer by profession and he had been advocating for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikhar Ch. and the
PM, Mr Sharif, as well. He acknowledged that his wife was doing a business of liquid petroleum gas as it was a private business. He also said that she was paying the tax. He further said that these allegations had hurt him. He reminded the PM that the joint session was called on the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly to strengthen the government. He threatened the government saying that if he walked out of the House, all the
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 38
Opposition would follow him and, as a result, the assembly would be dissolved, and for the third time, the PML-N government would collapse. He repeated that despite their workers' reservations, PPP was standing with the PM for the sake of democracy. He also accused the ministers of bringing the situation to that verge and warned the PM to look around him because
Mr Ahsan considered that some of his ministers were not sincere to him. His body language was aggressive. He indirectly accused Ch. Nisar of being involved in land mafia in Islamabad and his late brother being a part of General Zia‟s faction against Bhutto. He reminded the government to adopt a policy of patience because it was the responsibility of the Opposition to criticize the government and it was the responsibility of the government to listen patiently to this criticism.
In response to Mr Ahsan‟s speeches in the Parliament, Ch. Nisar addressed a press conference. He regretted that the parliamentary proceeding was diverted from a very critical issue to a discussion of his personality and family. At the beginning of the press conference, he clarified the context of his statement and said that it was in response to a personal attack on him by Mr Ahsan. He also said that in politics, it was a routine practice to answer allegations but he regretted bringing that private issue into the Parliament. Earlier when Ch. Nisar wanted to answer Mr Ahsan's speech on the floor of the House, the PM restrained him from doing so.
However, he announced he would answer the personal attacks in the next press conference to clarify his position. In the press conference, he admitted that there was a lot of pressure on him from his colleagues and leaders of other political parties to ignore and diffuse the issue and cancel the press conference. Unless he took this action, colleagues thought that the situation might get worse. He also admitted that he had passed the previous 30 hours in a painful situation.
He was in a confusing situation because on one side was his self- respect and on the other side
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 39 was the future of the country. There were also rumours that Ch. Nisar would leave his party but he reconfirmed his commitment to the party and Mr Sharif, his leader. Ch. Nisar said that the allegation on his late brother had hurt him the most. He also announced to observe forbearance and forgive Mr Ahsan but insisted on the transparent inquiry of the issue. Ch. Nisar also proposed Mr Ahsan's speech to be taken as an FIR and be investigated by the commission/tribunal composed of one-to-three Supreme Court judges. Ch. Nisar also asked his opponent to nominate the judges. He further claimed if one per cent of the allegations against him were proved, he not only would leave the ministry but politics as well.
We have seen above that after the general election of 2013, PTI started accusing the
PML-N government of rigging in the election. PTI had gone to media against the government, submitted petitions in the courts and challenged the results with the Election Commission of
Pakistan. PTI had also accused the Election Commission of Pakistan itself of favouring PML-
N in the election. Simultaneously, PAT, after the Model Town incident, had announced to take revenge of the victims of the incident and overthrew PML-N‟s provincial and federal governments through an Inqilab (revolution). On August 14, 2014, when PTI announced a movement against the government to get a resignation from the PM, on the same day PAT set out for the revolution. Both parties held sit-ins in Islamabad near the very sensitive areas. The city was blocked by the government by placing containers at different places and everyday life was practically suspended. During the sit-ins, PTI and PAT leaders gave different ultimatums to the federal government. There also came some ambiguous announcements from PTI Chief which were interpreted by different political parties as imminent threats to the democratic system. After two weeks of the sit-ins, on the suggestion of the Opposition, the government called a joint session of the National Assembly and the Senate to ponder the prevailing political
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 40 situation and come up with a solution to end the sit-ins. When the session was in progress, a clash broke out between the federal interior minister and Leader of the Opposition in the Senate which apparently seemed to hurt the unity of the government and the opposition. However, with the efforts of some senior politicians the quarrel came to an end. During the sit-ins, high-level meetings of political leaders and Core Commanders were held separately to discuss the political situation. The Army announced its support of democracy. The Chief of Army Staff also held a meeting with the PM and insisted on seeking the solution politically. The Supreme Court of
Pakistan ordered all of the institutions not to cross their constitutional limits. PTI parliamentarians resigned from the National Assembly and the Punjab Provincial Assembly.
The PTI Chief also appealed the people to start a civil disobedience movement against the government. The government and Opposition Committees held talks with the protestors but these talks were of no use. The PAT Chief held a public parliament and announced a plan to proceed towards the state buildings. PAT and PTI workers entered into the National Assembly and PTV buildings. The workers tried to proceed towards PM House and as a result of the clash with the police, they received a couple of casualties and many injuries. FIR of Model
Town incident was registered against the PM, the Chief Minister of Punjab, Federal, Provincial
Ministers and some Police officials. The PM cancelled his official visit to Turkey. Presidents of
China and Maldives cancelled their visits to Pakistan. The above-mentioned events and incidents resulted in the joint session of the National Assembly and the Senate coming up with a political solution to the problem so they could demonstrate a unity of the political forces.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 41
Chapter III
Literature Review
This chapter reviews critical discourse analysis, the relation among critical discourse analysis, political ideology and political discourse along with genres of political discourse particularly, parliamentary debates, their format and structure. It also reviews the concept of ideologies, their functions, their effects on one's cognition and the relation among ideologies. ,
Some methods and styles used by political discourse analysts and linguistic tools employed for ideological analysis have been discussed in this chapter. This chapter also reviews the evolution of CDA and the different approaches used in CDA. In the end, this chapter also includes a review of previous studies done on political discourse in Pakistan and puts down the theoretical underpinning of the research.
Critical Discourse Analysis
Critical Discourse Analysis (henceforth CDA) also formerly critical linguistics, a revolt against the "uncritical and asocial" stance of linguistics (van Dijk, 2001, p. 352, cited as in
Gadavanij, 2002), can be traced back to the Frankfurt School (Wodak & Meyer, 2009).
However, as a discipline, CDA emerged in the 1990s after the meeting of van Dijk, Fairclough,
Kress, Leeuwen and Wodak in Amsterdam (Wodak & Meyer, 2009). van Dijk's first book
Prejudice in Discourse (1984); his journal, Discourse and Society (1990); Norman Fairclough's book, Language and Power (1989); and Ruth Wodak's work, Language, Power and Ideology
(1989) gave CDA new dimensions and these publications developed CDA as a reputed approach in the field of research (Haig, 2004). The collaborated works of different scholars of versatile backgrounds have given it a multidimensional approach and made it an established
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 42 linguistic paradigm (Wodak & Meyer, 2009). CDA is a language critique tradition which has brought critical social science and linguistics in a single theoretical and analytical framework (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999), which aims to describe, interpret and explain the linguistic forms used in the social, cultural or political context (Zaher, 2009). The approach not only analyzes opaque but also transparent structural relations dominance, discrimination, power and control (Wodak, 1995, p. 204; Wodak, 2001a, p. 2, cited in Tyrwhitt-Drake, 2005).
Wodak considers an interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary field, not a homogeneous approach because it is a combination of conjoined approaches and methodologies. To her, the basic strength of CDA is its diversity, which allows for discussions and debates about change; and provides the researchers with the opportunities for innovation (Wodak, 2002; Weiss &
Wodak, 2003). Fairclough (2003b) maintains that CDA evolved to bridge the gap between linguistics and other social sciences. It not only helps in finding relationships between discursive practices and processes but also analyzes the relationship between social, political, economic and cultural practices, process and structures (Fairclough, Pardoe & Szerszynski,
2006). Despite severe criticism by different linguists, CDA is still enjoying a very prestigious status and keeps on attracting researchers and scholars of different disciplines. CDA has emerged as one of the most influential approaches not only in linguistics but also in the social sciences (Zaher, 2009).
Language is the strongest source/medium to practice power (Fairclough, 2001, pp. 46-
60) and control the general public (Mey, 1998). It may create power or be an arena in which to apply power. Language is both an instrument and an effect of power and control. It can also be used to negotiate, transfer or challenge power and control (Hutcheon, 1988). Power may be
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 43 perceived as a control over the behaviour of others (Wheeless, Barraclough & Stewart, 1983). A power holder, through the use of language, has the ability to transform power into right and obedience into duty (Rousseau & Betts, 1999, p. 678). Power, specifically, social power is a central notion in CDA (van Dijk, 2007, p. 112). van Dijk defines the social power of groups or institutions in term of control. One group or institution can control the actions and minds of the other group or institution. This power or control is not constant and the power holder has to reassert its power. The one who does not have is "always liable to make a bid for power"
(Fairclough, 1989, p. 68). This phenomenon is applicable to all levels of powers and situations.
Leezenberg (2002) argues that power is "not necessarily a negative or repressive force, since it may have the positive role of being productive, if not constitutive, of institutional facts" (pp.
906-907).
Power is invested in a language (Fairclough, 1989) as it is a primary source of expressing and reshaping an ideology because as Fowler (1985) notes, "to speak of a language, without speaking of power is to speak meaninglessly" p. 62) because our words are never
"neutral" (Stam, 1989, p. 8). Language users use this power to change the attitude of people and put certain ideas into practice (Jones & Peccei, 2004; Wareing, 2004; Bayram, 2010). They use this generative power of the language (Carvalho, 2008) as a tool to pursue their personal gains
(Laclau & Mouffe, 2001); construct reality (Carvalho, 2008) and create the world. They use language to make the people see what they want them to see.
Ideology and its Centrality in CDA
Ideology is not always explicit and it can be removed or deferred. In the words of
Bahaa-eddin, ideology "is not always synonymous or coexistent with power and control. An
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 44 ideology may be powerless and a powerful ideologue may not use power to transmit or force his/her ideology" (2014, p.35). Before proceeding towards the ideology in political discourse, it seems necessary to define ideology, review its functions and its relation with CDA as an approach and discuss the role of individual and social cognition in cultivating one's ideology.
A general concept of ideology and its discursive functions
Generally speaking, ideologies are sets of "ideas and beliefs which help to legitimate the interest of a ruling group or class" (cited in Calzada-Perez, 2003, p. 4). They are embedded in texts/discourses (Fairclough, 1992) and control the way people plan and understand social practices (van Dijk, 2008). Ideologies have a key role in "establishing, maintaining and changing social relations of power, domination of power and dominance" (Fairclough, 2003, p.
9). According to van Dijk (1998), the function of ideologies is to safeguard the interest of the dominant group (cited in Philo, 2007) and legitimate the group‟s power abuse (van Dijk, 2008).
Sometimes these ideologies, when accepted by the dominated group, become natural or common sense and at other times these ideologies provide justification for maintaining or changing a status quo (Carvalho, 2008). The ruling class has control of the means of production and reproduction of ideas, and ideologies work as an instrument to conceal the power of this class.
The term "ideology" has many vague and debatable connotations (Mayr, et al., 2000) and traditional approaches define it in a negative sense because of its deceptive and manipulative use by the dominant groups in various societies (Balfaqeh, 2007). The term serves the purpose of hiding the social and political goals of these groups and making the public accept them as common sense. In English, this concept came from the French word „ideologie' which
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 45 was coined and presented as "science or study of ideas" by Antoine Destutt de Tracy, a rationalist philosopher (Williams, 1976; Balfaqeh, 2007). Originally this term did not have a negative connotation (van Dijk, 2004b) but after the French revolution, as accused by
Napoleon, this term acquired a negative connotation (Thompson, 2013, cited in Mayr, et al.,
2000). Even Marx and Engels (1845, p. 46) took it as an "ideal expression of the dominant material relationship". They also considered language as "the material form of consciousness and ideology" (cited in Balfaqeh, 2007). After the Second World War, new movements started in Britain and the USA which also affected the concept of ideology and linguistics; and philosophers, e.g. Gee, Kress, Lakoff and Fairclough, started considering ideology as "any social policy which in part or in whole derived from social theory in a conscious way"
(Fairclough, 2001, p. 78). Despite the fact that the concept of ideology was introduced and developed by different philosophers, the modern concept of ideology is attributed to Karl Marx.
Fairclough (2001, p. 77) also defines it, in line with Marxist Philosophy, and considers ideologies as "ideas which rise from a given set of material interests…" (See Williams, 1976, p.
129). The studies of ideologies by Larrain (1979) and Althusser (1976) with reference to discourse have opened new linguistic and discursive concepts and took the concept of ideology from negative to positive implications (see Hall, 1983, p. 64). Althusser (1976) argues that ideology is "a field within which opposing classes engage in and express their conflicts within alternative or competing for ideological formations" (Purvis & Hunt, 1993, p. 482). The
Frankfurt School maintains that ideology is a "concept to be used in the political interpretation of social forces and is predicated on a Marxist theory of the political history and structure of society "(Dant, 1991, p. 85). In Gramscian (1971) terms, ideology is a conception of the world manifested in individual and collective life. Some social theorists e.g. Seliger (1979), Gouldner
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 46
(1976) and Hirst (1979) consider ideologies as systems of beliefs and thoughts. Some critical analysts take them to be processes of maintaining dominance (Thompson, 2013). According to
Gee (1990), ideology is "a social theory (tactic or overt, primary removed or deferred) which involves generalization (beliefs and claims) about the way(s) in which goods are distributed in society" (pp. 23-24). Here he refers to "goods" as a collective ability of human beings to think, feel, believe and create the material world to share resources. He considers these "goods" as the basis for the action(s) of human beings which may create a new world. According to
Lakoff (1990), ideologies are embedded in "conceptual moral system" (cited in Dirven et al.,
2001, p. 9) which teaches us a difference between right and wrong. The conscious and unconscious aspects of ideologies, based on his experiences, are reflected in the language of a language user. To Lakoff, hidden aspects of ideology are the most interesting phenomenon
(cited in Balfaqeh, 2007). Simpson (1993) considers ideologies as a "mosaic of cultural assumption, political beliefs and institutional practices" (1993, p. 176). To Kress (1993), ideology is "a systemic body of ideas, organized from a particular point of view. Ideology is thus a subsuming category which includes sciences and metaphysics, as well as political ideologies of various kinds, without implying anything about their status and reliability, as guides to reality" (p. 6). He considers ideology mainly concerned with different forms of knowledge in the form of structure and social practices (Kress, 1985, p. 25).
van Dijk (1985, 1995, 1995b, 1998, 2004, 2004b & 2006) has done intensive work on ideologies. His work is mainly based on the relationship of ideology to social cognition and racism. He takes ideology as "the basis of the social representations shared by members of a group" (1988, pp. 8-9) and "the fundamental beliefs that underlie the shared social representations of groups, and these representations are in turn the basis of discourse and other
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 47 social practices" (2004, p. 5). He further defines ideology in relation to discourse, society and social cognition. To him, ideology is an "overall abstract mental system that organizes such socially shared attitudes…… ideologies are assumed to control through the minds of the members, the social reproduction of the group" (van Dijk, 1995, p. 18). He also believes that ideologies always have political, social, cultural and historical aspects which are reflected through the basic values, goals, identity and resources of the group members (Balfaqeh, 2007).
Ideologies reveal the ways people form their opinion about the world around them, and influence and mold the thoughts and attitude of others. The differences found are never neutral as these are based on their personal perception and experiences (Badram, 2003). Ideologies work at two levels: micro and macro. At the micro level, they help group members in interacting with one another. At the macro level, they produce, reproduce or resist power and power dominance. They provide a basis for different social practices, shape the identity of groups and also influence their decision power. Ideologies also organize the actions of group members to achieve their goals or control the mind of people and exploit them for their interest.
Ideologies not only legitimate the dominance but also resist at the same time. As said in the previous lines, as a part of a cognitive function, ideologies knowingly or unknowingly affect the behaviour and attitude of different group professionals and their shared opinions (van Dijk,
2004b, pp. 2-4).
Ideology and CDA
CDA is an approach involving a systematic analysis that not only uncovers the underlined ideologies (Jackson, 2007) but also identifies the concepts and their cultural relations to ideologies (Jacobs & Manzi, 1996). CDA is an ideological analysis because ideologies are
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 48 produced and expressed in discourse/text (van Dijk, 1995). CDA aims to explore the relationship between discursive practices, events and texts and the way power abuse, dominance and inequality are enacted, reproduced and resisted (Sarfo & Krampa, 2013) through persuasion and manipulation of discourse/text. It also highlights the way power relations are shaped by ideologies (Sarfo & Krampa, 2013).
CDA is an amalgamation of linguistic and social analysis (Fairclough, 2001a) whose basic objective is to reveal the power relations lying in the discourse, make them explicit, link them to the social, cultural and political contexts and unmask the hidden agenda behind ideologies and apparently transparent and natural use of language. It looks beyond text/s, institutional and socio-cultural context like properties of a communicative situation (van Dijk,
2008). It does not satisfy itself merely by describing, interpreting and explaining the text like other discourse analyses (Roger, 2004) rather it goes a step further and critically analyze the people in power, responsible and enjoying the opportunity (van Dijk, 1986) as well. Discursive practices may help in producing and reproducing unequal relations among different strata of social life. Being a multidimensional, multi-theoretical (Wodak, 2001), multi-methodological and multidisciplinary rather interdisciplinary (Meyer, 2001) or cross-disciplinary, CDA seems the most suitable approach to focus on the discursive practices (Meyer, 2001) of power abuse
(van Dijk, 1998a) and also the discursive sources produced or maintained in the context (Poor- e-brahim & Zaei, 2013).
Effects of individual and social cognition on one’s ideology
Language is a part and parcel of our social and cognitive development. It helps in developing language attitude of its users about different languages, dialects, accents, and their
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 49 speakers. It is used as a tool to transmit ideology and to control (Hodge & Kress, 1993) the minds of others by the powerful groups (Simpson, 1993). Ideologies are based on socio- political cognitions of a group (Lau & Sears, 1986; Rosenberg, 1988); and are expressed in discourse and are embedded in the contexts (van Dijk, 1988, p.17). van Dijk (2004b) rejects the notion of personal or individual ideology; rather, he maintains that "They are socially reproduced and personally acquired…" (p. 730). However, he admits that there are personal or individual usages of ideologies. According to Fowler (1981), each member of a group has his/her own system of beliefs of comprehending the world which develops through the social and cognitive setups of society and the same is reflected through the thoughts and language with which one interacts with the society. In other words, it can be said that social and cognitive setups of a society play a key role in cultivating one's ideology. No doubt, socio-cognitive factors have a key role in one's ideology but are subjected to an individual's cognition as well.
As Weber (1992) points out that every person has his/her own ideological assumptions based on his/her background knowledge and personal history which results in the different interpretations of the same text by the different interpreters. The ideology of any individual is also affected by his educational, religious, social, cultural or historical background. Thus it can be said that social ideology is not only the phenomenon that always culminates the individual ideology rather it is influenced by other cognitive factors as well.
Political Discourse as Ideological Discourse
The political process itself is an ideological process and so are its practices (van Dijk,
1995, 2004b). "Political ideologies are also not only involved in the production or understanding of political discourses and other political practices but are also (re)produced by
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 50 them" (van Dijk, 2004b, p. 732). Language, a form of social practice (Fairclough, 1989), is central to political discourse and may be used to manipulate and limit thoughts (Orwell, 1969;
Chilton, 1985). Language is also a medium to express thoughts and reflect possibilities. Some linguists have proved that social conditions affect the linguistic behaviour of its users (Bayram,
2010). Language, on the one hand, creates power and produces areas where it can be exercised; and on the other hand resists power abuse and unequal power relations. It also helps institutions and organizations in creating social values and beliefs. Language is used to present the world in the way a language user knows, believes or thinks (Montgomery, 1992). Political actors throughout ages have been utilizing language to persuade and influence their audience (Jones &
Peccei, 2004). Sometimes, they use language to hide the negativity or ignore the truth.
Political discourse is a very broad term integrating "a whole palette of meanings"
(Titscher et al., 2000, p. 42). It refers, in a number of ways, to a range of different kinds of talk, text or any textual output that is either about a political subject or which is politically motivated
(Wilson, 2015). Fairclough argues that political discourse is "the whole process of interaction of which a text is just a part" (1989, p. 24). On the one hand, it covers the discourse which itself is political and on the other hand, all discourses relate to power or control (Al-Faki, 2014; Wilson,
2003 & 2010). Therefore, it seems necessary to define political discourse as it will be dealt with in the present study.
Delimitation of political discourse
It is generally believed that politics is concerned with power: the power of decision making, the power of controlling sources, controlling the behaviour of other people and even controlling people‟s values. According to Joseph (2006), every language is inherently political
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 51 and its use could be political discourse. The word „political' refers to the issues of power, conflict, control, or domination (Wilson, 2003) and political discourse is a way of doing politics and it is identified through its characters, i.e. politicians. It is generally about the text or talk of politicians or political institutions. It does not mean what politicians or political actors always say is political discourse or the discourse of the political actors is the only political discourse. It may be the discourse of members of other social groups.
Political activities are not limited to political actors only but they also involve political activities of voters and supporters. Some institutions, social and cognitive factors, contexts, etc. may be involved in the political process. The discourses of politicians are not always taken as political discourses. These discourses are considered political only when the "communicative events" are concerned with political activities, e.g. political meetings, public addresses, cabinet meetings, election campaigns, agitation movements, parliamentary sessions, etc. (Lande, 2010).
The General public, including voters, supporters, members of political parties and pressure groups, etc., also are involved in the political process. Therefore, the delimitation of political discourse seems necessary. The study in hand will consider the discourse of political actors when they are involved in doing politics, i.e. political actions, parliamentary debates and discussions, legislation, protesting, persuading people for political purposes, etc. All political discourses deal with power, conflict, control, or domination which is out of the scope of this study; therefore, this study will be limited to the discourse of political actors in a political context (Graber, 1981).
As we have seen the concept of ideology is a very vast and complicated concept and its detailed evaluation is out of the scope of the present study. Therefore, it seems necessary to
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 52 have a working definition for this research. As the study aims at analyzing ideology in the political discourse, my working definition of political ideology for this research will be "the foundation of the social representations shared by the members of a political party" which is based on the van Dijk's (2004) concept of ideology.
Parliamentary discourse: a sub-genre of political discourse. Political discourse is not a genre of discourse rather it is "a class of genres defined by a social domain, namely that of politics" (van Dijk, 2001, p. 5). As political discourse concerns the power relations, therefore, every discourse dealing with such relations can be called a political discourse. Even the classification of discourse into political or non-political is itself a political act. As mentioned in the previous lines, for the present study, political discourse is taken to be the discourse of political actors who participate in a political activity or are paid for such activities (van Dijk,
2001). The political activities can be classified in different genres; i.e. talk shows or political interviews, newspaper articles, election campaign manifestos, press conferences, public addresses parliamentary speeches or discussions and so on (Lande, 2010, cited in Haj Omar,
2016). A genre is a specific way of using language in a particular social activity (Fairclough,
1995, p. 14) and "an instance of successful achievement of a specific communication purpose
(Bhatia, 1993, p. 16, cited in Sandova, 2011). All these political activities have their own specific goals, formats, and rules and are conducted in the particular settings, and hence can be called sub-genres of political discourse (also see Rashidi, & Souzandehfar, 2010). For example, in a talk show, the interviewer or anchor person provides an opportunity for the political actors to express his/her views about a particular topic or situation, etc. The interview may be structured or unstructured, and the questions asked may be close-ended or open-ended depending on the goal or objectives. In a press conference, a political actor expresses his
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 53 opinion, views about a topic, situation, party policies, etc. which is followed by different questions of media correspondences. Public speeches are aimed to stir, motivate or persuade the audience about a particular situation, i.e. elections, making public opinions, etc. These speeches are made attractive by slogans, emotionalized expressions, etc. based on the political context.
The genre of parliamentary debates or discussions has its own particular format with particular objectives. As the study in hand aims to evaluate the parliamentary speeches of the political leaders, therefore, in the next part, the parliamentary debates or discussion and their structure will be reviewed.
Parliamentary discourse has been defined differently by various analysts. Bayley (2004) defines parliamentary discourse as a formal and institutionalized sub-genre of political discourse. Ilie (2006) considers it a "norm-regulated interaction among politically elected representatives for deliberation and decision-making purposes in specific institutional settings and which displays a number of particular communication patterns" (p. 61). According to van
Dijk (2004), parliamentary discourse is defined on the basis of its contextual properties i.e.
"where it is being held, what it is about and who the participants are" (p. 340, cited in Treimane,
2011). Parliamentary discourse is considered as a subfield of political discourse.
Parliamentary debates are a sub-genre of parliamentary discourse. The word
"parliament" has been derived from the French word "parler" meaning "to speak". Parliament is referred to a legislative assembly or a body and a building hosting activities like legislation, a debate on public issues, etc. Legislative bodies in different countries have been named differently, e.g. national assembly, congress and diet (Ilie, 2006). Usually, legislative bodies are either unicameral or bicameral. Bicameral legislative bodies have two separate houses, an upper
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 54 house and a lower house. In most of the parliamentary systems, the lower house is more empowered than the upper house whereas the upper house is just a chamber of review or advice
(Ilie, 2006).
A parliamentary debate is a formal discussion on a particular issue/s controlled by an institutional set of rules. It is presided over and controlled by a custodian of the house, generally known as a speaker or chairman. He/She opens and closes the parliamentary proceeding officially. His role is to ensure the decorum of the house and smooth running of the parliamentary business. He needs to keep a balance in allotting the time to the government and opposition members. The traditional way of debates is based on the "cut-and-thrust: listening to other members' speeches and intervening them in spontaneous reaction to opponents' views" and face-threatening acts (Ilie, 2006). There are different rules and norms in different countries.
However, the following rules are observed in the majority of parliamentary debates:
All speeches are addressed to the chair, Mr Speaker or Madam Speaker, for example.
The custodian of the house, i.e. Chairman/Speaker ensures the observation of the rules.
No member is allowed to interrupt the other member who is speaking and the speaker
ensures that there is no unauthorized interruption.
Un-parliamentary language must not be used.
Instead of naming the members of the parliament, people are addressed in a third person
or the position they are holding in the house, the leader of the opposition, the prime
minister, for example.
Only one member can speak at a time, named by the Speaker/chairman of the house.
The member willing to participate may get his name written in the list of members
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 55
participating in the debate or he/she may simply do so by raising their hands, half
standing or half standing to have the attention of the Speaker.
The above mentioned are the general rules which are globally practised including
Pakistan. In Pakistan, the Speaker is the custodian of the National Assembly and the Chairman is the custodian of the Senate; both of these parties ensure the implementation of the rules. In the parliamentary debates, a member is not supposed to have a dialogue with another member.
According to (Ilie, 2006), the discursive interaction of a member of a parliament is based on his/her institutive role i.e. a member of a parliament, a representative of a constituency and part of a party. The parliamentary debate is addressed to the multi-level audience, members of the parliament, persons sitting in the visitors/strangers „gallery and the audience in general through media, for example. The debate may be meant to obtain some specific purposes, for example, persuade the opponents/members of the opposite party, propagate the political ideology, build the opinion, etc. According to van Dijk (1997), the application of political discourse needs to be studied in the relation between discourse structures and structures of political context as different words have different functions in different genres. Some lexical or linguistic choices are selected to emphasize or de-emphasize political attitudes, manipulation, support, opinion, legitimacy or ideology. In the parliamentary discussions and debates, the members of the parliament use some specific practices according to the contexts to propagate their ideology and manipulate the feeling of the public. The analyses of these practices reflect their partisan/party and the cognitive effects through which they try to achieve their objectives. The present study has analyzed a few of the linguistic practices used by the Pakistani parliamentarians during parliamentary discussions and debate and tried to assess the possible motives behind their use.
As the study has adopted CDA as an approach for the ideological analysis of these speeches,
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 56 therefore, before proceeding further, it seems necessary to review major approaches used within
CDA.
Major Approaches within CDA
The prominent contributors in the field of CDA who set and explained the main assumptions, principles and procedures are Norman Fairclough, Ruth Wodak and van Dijk.
Some other analysts include Van Leeuwen, Pecheux, Fowler, Maas, and Jigger also presented
CDA frameworks (Balfaqeeh, 2008, p. 28). Given the impact that the perspectives of
Fairclough, van Dijk and Wodak have had on the development and spread of CDA, these approaches will be described in detail.
The Dialectical-Relational Approach (Fairclough)
Having reviewed the general approaches to discourse analysis, Fairclough came to the conclusion that all these lacked criticalities. His (1995) initial concept of CDA can be traced in the Critical Language Study where he was interested in examining the relationship between discourse and power. In his later work, he presented the methodological blueprint of CDA.
According to Fairclough,
“CDA aims to systematically explore often opaque relationships of causality and
determination between texts, discursive practices, and wider social and cultural
structures; and to investigate how such practices, events and texts arise out of and
are ideologically shaped by relations of power and struggles over power; and to
explore how the opacity of these relationships between discourse and society is
itself a factor securing power and hegemony”. (Fairclough, 1995, p. 132)
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 57
Fairclough's approach (1989, 1992) draws concepts from the Bakhtinian theory of intertextuality, the Gramscian theory of hegemony and Halliday's Systemic Functional
Linguistics. Fairclough's approach to CDA has been based on the hypothesis that language is an indispensable part of social life (Fairclough, 2003, p. 2) which aims to bring socially oriented discourse analysis and socio-political thoughts related to discourse and language together
(Fairclough, 1992b, p. 62). Fairclough considers discourse as a mode of political and ideological practice (Zaher, 2009) which has a dialectical relationship with social structure. In other words, the social world is not only represented by the discourse but is also constituted by it. Discourse also helps in transforming social identities, social relations and the system of beliefs and knowledge (Fairclough, 1992b).
According to Fairclough, as a theory and method, CDA studies language in relation to power and ideology. He defines ideologies as the ways of representing the world which helps in establishing, maintaining and changing social relations of power, domination and exploitation
(Fairclough, 2003). He maintains that ideologies invest in a language in different ways at different levels, and cannot be understood merely at the textual level. These ideologies are interpreted by different language users differently depending on the ideologies of interpreters
(Fairclough, 1992b). Ideologies, embedded in discursive practices, become more effective when they attain the position of common sense (Fairclough, 1992, p. 87) and become difficult to recognize (Woodside-Jiron, 2004, p. 200, cited in Lauritsen, 2006).
As laid out in Fairclough (1989, p. 5), his approach to exploring the connections between language use and unequal power relations is through a Three Dimensional Model
(1989, 1992 &1995) to analyze opaque power relations. This model considers each discursive
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 58 event as a set of textual practice, discursive practice and social practice. This model has three layers, each interlinked and embedded in one another. The textual (oral or written) analysis lies in the centre, analysis of discursive practice (production or consumption of the text) in the middle and the analysis of socio-cultural practice at outer level (Fairclough, 1995).
Figure 1.
Fairclough 3D Model
A textual analysis points out the linguistic choices employed in the construction of the text (Taylor, 2004, cited in Mullins, 2013). It involves analyzing the linguistic choices of the text including, vocabulary, grammar, textual structure, etc. (Fairclough, 1992). The linguistic choices of specific vocabulary or lexemes and certain grammatical structures possess ideologies of the language user. For example, the role of vocabulary choices highlights the way the world is being portrayed, the grammar deals with the construction of the sentences to convey particular meaning and the textual structure reveals the organization of the text (Mullins, 2013).
Fairclough insists that CDA should not focus only on the textual properties of a text rather it should also consider the features absent in the text because they can also be equally significant indicators of ideologies of the text producers (Fairclough, 1995). As mentioned in the previous
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 59 lines that Fairclough's approach is influenced by Halliday's (1978) systemic functional linguistics. Fairclough's domains of analysis, i.e. ideational, interpersonal and textual are based on Halliday's approach. The ideational analysis of the text provides clues about the worldly experiences of a language user. The interpersonal analysis of the text provides information about the relations of a language user with others. Through the textual analysis of linguistic features of a text, we come to know the way a language user links a text with the context.
A textual analysis of any text is part and parcel of discursive practices. Discursive practices are an abstract and complex system and can be referred to a habitual way of acting or a social action at a particular time and at a particular place (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999).
The textual analysis of a text cannot be isolated from the discursive practices and these practices help in interpreting the text with the reference to social practices in which it is produced. The key feature of Fairclough's approach is the way discourses vary and shift.
Fairclough is interested in the way one text is used in interpreting the other discourse or text. He believes that "any text is a link in a chain of texts, reacting to, drawing in, and transforming other texts" (Juswik, 2012, 2012, p. 233, cited in Mullins, 2013). Fairclough is also interested in the ways different texts are interchangeably used or merged into one another without affecting the meaning of the discourse or for emphasizing the prevailing meaning. The analysis, in the ways different texts are used, provides an insight into social changes and hence in the change of power relations.
The Discourse-Historical Approach (Wodak)
The roots of Ruth Wodak's approach can be traced in the Vienna School where Wodak participated with her colleagues. Her Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) is an
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 60 amalgamation of sociolinguistics, Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School, cultural studies and the sociology of Bourdieu (Zaher, 2009). DHA is also influenced by positive self-presentation and negative other presentations of van Dijk (1998), Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) of
Halliday, van Leeuwen (1993 & 1996) and German politicolinguistics (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001, cited in Zaher, 2009). Wodak's main objective was to link sociolinguistics to grand theories.
The historical context is an indispensable part of DHA. It tries to analyze the historical facts involved in these changes by integrating "systematically all available background information in the analysis and interpretation of the same layers of a written or spoken text”
(Wodak, 1995, p. 209, cited in Balfaqeh, 2008). It also involves linguistic and psychological analysis as well. Wodak believes that discourses are always linked with the communicative events happening at the same time or what has happened before (Wodak & Ludwing, 1999, p.
12, cited in Balfaqeh, 2008) and that these events are responsible for the production of certain social conditions. DHA focuses on the textual, intertextual, interdiscursive and contextual features of discourse along with socio-political backgrounds (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001; Wodak,
1999b, pp. 12-13).
Wodak, similar to Fairclough, believes that language users belonging to different backgrounds interpret the same communicative events differently (Wodak & Ludwing, 1999, p.
12), and hence no interpretation can be called "the true or right" one. Both believe that a hermeneutic approach which makes a close, plausible interpretation, as CDA does, is best.
While analyzing texts, unlike Fairclough, Wodak conducts interviews to ascertain beliefs, opinions, and attitude of individual participants or groups (Wodak et al., 1999, p. 106) to have a close adequate analysis.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 61
The Socio-Cognitive Approach (van Dijk)
van Dijk's approach is based on the concepts of Aristotle, Marx, the Frankfurt School,
Gramsci and Foucault. The Influence of feminist ideas (van Dijk, 1993b) also has a significant role in his approach to CDA. To him, CDA is a type of discourse analysis which primarily aims to study the social abuse, dominance and inequality exercised, reproduced and resisted through text and talk in the social and political context (Wodak & Mayer, 2009). He considers CDA as a multidisciplinary approach that studies the discourse in relations to social and political issues or problems (Zaher, 2009). He believes that power and dominance are exercised through institutions and organizations which enable the dominant or specific groups to control and manipulate the minds of others for their own interest (van Dijk, 2001). The ultimate objective of such practices is to make this manipulation seem natural and a part of common sense whereas
CDA aims to reveal the discursive strategies behind these practices of unequal power relations.
van Dijk's Socio-cognitive Approach deals with the role of social cognition and personal cognition in discourse (van Dijk, 1993b). It describes the relationship between cognition and social practices (Balfaqeh, 2008). His socio-cognitive model considers the ideological aspects of languages focusing on socially shared representations along with mental operations of societal arrangements and group relations. van Dijk believes that social cognition is affected by micro and macro social levels and is shared by the members of society. To him, discourse analysis is an ideological analysis where ideology is an in-group against out-group representation (van Dijk, 1998). Ideology reflects the aims, interests and values of in-groups and out-groups influenced by their personal cognition. van Dijk (1995) also believes that ideologies are produced through discourse and communication. One of the strategies used for
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 62 legitimacy or denial of the belief or power is "Us" vs "Them" stressing positivity of in-groups and negativity of our-groups.
All the above-discussed approaches are interlinked with one another in one or the other way and it is very difficult to draw a clear-cut line between them (Bahaa-eddin, 2014, p. 17), however, each of the approaches has some preferences. For example, Fairclough's approach is less text-based and more abstract (Tyrwhitt-Drake, 2005) because it focuses on connecting to the widest social context rather than centrally describing textual features (Haig, 2003). Wodak's approach gives importance to context, the status of the participants, their social identities and psychological determinants (Balfaqeeh, 2007) whereas the centre of van Dijk's approach is an explanation of socio-cognitive and ideological aspects of a language (Wodak, 2002). Along with these approaches, different models and frameworks have also been developed and applied by CDA analysts based on their objectives; however, there are three concepts i.e. the concept of power, the concept of control and the concept of ideology that are common in all these approaches (Bahaa-eddin, 2014).
Different approaches, models and methods of CDA, and their applications in various disciplines have broadened the approach‟s scope. It has become multi-disciplinary rather than inter-disciplinary and social scientists are using it in various fields of social sciences. CDA has attracted social scientists from various disciplines including linguistics, anthropology, sociology, psychology, political science, etc. who have not only used these approaches but have integrated various aspects of these approaches depending on their interests and objectives.
Before the development of CDA, the area of political discourse was confined to political scientists only. Now, politics being that it is a struggle for powers, has also become a favourite
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 63 concept of CDA. The linguistic analysis of political discourse has given it new dimensions and it has emerged as a sub-branch of CDA. Political Discourse Analysis is relatively a new field in
Linguistics. It is a critical reflection on the strategic use of political ideas for the achievement of a particular political aim (Chilton & Schäffner, 1997).
Political Discourse Analysis: A Sub-branch of CDA
The statement made earlier about all discourses, in one way or other, being appropriately considered "political discourses", leads to the thought that "then all analyses of discourse are potentially political, and, therefore, on one level, all discourse analysis is political discourse" (Al-Faki, 2014). The traces of political discourse can be found in Cicero (1971) to
Aristotle (1991). The proper work on discourse analysis, in linguistic terms, came to the fore in the 1980s. Geis's (1987) work on political discourse is claimed to be the first analysis done linguistically. Wilson (2001, p. 400) argues that "many of the earlier studies in social semiotics and critical linguistics should also be included in a general linguistic view of political discourse
(Fowler et al. 1979; Chilton 1990, 1985; Steiner 1985)". Wilson (2003) suggests that perhaps
Orwell's (1969) article, "Politics and the English Language", was the first to consider the way in which language might be used for the manipulations of thoughts (Wilson, 2001, p. 400) and
Orwell put this idea into practice in his novel 1949 (1984).
The main concern of Political Discourse Analysis is to analyze the implicit way politicians use linguistic means for the promotion of their authority and ideology. Political
Discourse Analysis focuses on the aspects of language which are used to perform various political functions. Political Discourse Analysis does not merely analyze linguistic features embedded in the political texts but sociocultural aspects of the underlying ideologies as well
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 64
(Lande, 2010). To Wilson (2001), analyzing the specific linguistic options representing the world in a particular way for a particular purpose is central to Political Discourse Analysis. He further opines that its aim is "to seek out the ways in which language choice is manipulated for specific political effects and almost all levels of linguistics are involved" (p. 410). van Dijk
(1993) considers that the aim of Political Discourse Analysis is to examine the style, rhetoric or meaning that are meant for concealing the social power relations and power use or abuse. From a critical perspective, studies done on the problems of language in politics can be divided into two groups. Some target the relationship between macro aspects of politics and language while others focus on the methodological and theoretical problems relating to political discourse
(cited in Kücükali, 2014). Even those who have worked on the linguistic aspects of political discourse seem divergent from one another. For example, some analysts have paid attention to the issues of identity (see Skenderi, 2014), others have focused on the persuasive strategies (see
Rashidi, & Souzandehfar, 2010) and some others have analyzed discursive conditions and social consequences of social and political inequalities (see Okulska & Cap, 2010) and so on.
No single method or theory has been found consistent in CDA (Blackledge, 2005) and even political discourse analysts have employed different approaches, without any core theory or without any core language analysis to deal with the political language (Wilson, 2015). They have deployed different methodologies, depending on their areas of study and interests for various purposes. Beard (2000) focuses on the five tools used by politicians (p. 22). Wodak
(2009) mixes multiple approaches and theories along with ethnographic data and everyday lives of the members of European politicians. Reisigl and Wodak's (2001) discourse-historical approach (DHA) focuses on five discursive strategies along with van Leeuwen's (2007) methodological tool. Reisigl's (2008) three aspects of "the politics" have also been used to
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 65 investigate political speeches. Forchtner (2011) has tried to find a link between DHA and the critical theory of Frankfurt School. He also discusses van Eemeren and Grootendorst's (2004) contribution to DHA. Chilton's (2004) work is an "insight on the relationship between language and politics from the cognitive and evolutionary perspective" (Fairclough & Fairclough, 2012, p.20). He suggests a list of twelve propositions (pp. 198-205). Jones and Peccei (2004) focus on two of the tools frequently used by politicians. Charteris-Black (2006 & 2011, as cited in
Kücükali, 2014) has focused on the metaphors in analyzing the rhetoric used by politicians.
Metaphorization, labelling, legitimation, the use of hedges and phrases in the political discourse has been investigated by Okulska and Cap (2010). The study of Fairclough, Jessop and Sayer
(2002) focuses on the semiotic analysis of the political discourse. The newly discursive practices developed in political development and their relations with socioeconomic structures have been discussed by Fairclough (2000 & 2006). Jessop (2008) analyzes the semiosis role in economic and political activities. Fairclough and Fairclough (2012) analyze narrative, imaginaries and other semiotic structures in understanding the political discourses (Kücükali,
2014). In the recent past, Chilton's spatial proximization (2004) and Cap's STA (spatial- temporal axiological) proximization Models (2006, 2008, 2013 & 2016) have developed into theories to analyze the political discourse.
In-group Positive Presentation and Out-group Negative Presentation: A Key Feature of
Political Discourse
Politics is a struggle of power and dominance between two groups, i.e. in-group (us) and out-group (them); and in every political discourse, this us vs them polarization is clearly visible between these two groups (Wirth-Koliba, 2016). Analysis of this polarization can make
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 66 underlying ideologies of the political agents explicit. As said in the previous lines, van Dijk
(e.g. 1995, 1998, 2004, 2004b & 2006) has worked extensively on political ideologies. His ideological Square Model (e.g., 1997 & 2006), the model of emphasizing in-group‟s positive actions and out-group‟s negative actions and vice versa, is a combination of argumentation, political strategies, rhetorical devices, semantic strategies and stylistic information (Rashidi &
Souzandehfar, 2010). He presents twenty-seven categories of ideological discourse alphabetically (ibid, pp.735-739). His Model emphasizes our good things and their bad things and de-emphasizes our bad things and their good things. Chilton (2004) presents "a number of political tools such as metaphors, passive constructions, implicatures, presuppositions, and antonymous lexical choices" for analyzing self-positive presentation and other negative presentation (Omar, 2016, p. 105). On the basis of Chilton's (2004) concept of Deictic-Space-
Theory (DST), Cap (2006, 2008, 2010, 2013 & 2016) has presented proximization theory (PT) that presents an out-group as a temporal, physical or ideological threat for an in-group and to legitimize the proposed action against the out-group. Clusivity is another discursive practice that enables the interpreters to understand whether the group identity, coalitions, parties, etc. are taken as insiders or outsiders (Chilton, 2004). Wieczorek (2013) broadens the concept of clusivity which was initially limited to inclusion and exclusion of first-person plural pronoun expressing belonging and lack of belonging or rejection. The present study aims to unveil the ideology embedded in the parliamentary speeches by analyzing the way parliamentarians use various linguistic practices and the above discussion clearly shows that no theory or method has been found consistent in CDA analysts (Blackledge, 2005). As CDA provides the researchers with the opportunities for innovation (Wodak, 2002; Weiss & Wodak, 2003) depending on the objective of the study, therefore, the following section would review a few of the linguistic
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 67 practices used by the politician to know how they are employed in constructing political ideologies.
The use of personal pronouns is one of the practices through which politicians propagate their political ideologies. They often use personal pronouns in their speeches to refer to themselves, the opponents or the audience. They intend to "manipulate pronouns to develop and indicate their ideological position on the specific issues" (Wilson, 1990, p. 6). Allen's (2007) study investigates the way politicians use personal pronouns to construct and covey the identities of in-groups and out groups. He observes:
Politicians, when making speeches during an election campaign present positive
aspects of themselves and negative aspects of their opponents. One way of doing
this is by selectively using personal pronouns. The personal pronouns chosen can
be used to refer to themselves and to others, and to evoke multiple identities of
themselves and others… (p. 2).
Political language studies have explored the way politicians across the globe use personal pronouns for political as well as personal purposes (Kuo, 2002, p. 30). They use personal pronouns to refer to themselves or other politicians. Pronouns are context dependent
(de Fina, 1995); and are of great importance for politicians to create an image of reality
(Bramley, 2001). They use personal pronouns to present themselves at an individual level, to share responsibilities, to show authority, personal commitment and involvement (Karapetjana
2011, p. 43f). The personal pronoun I is mostly used to make general statements (Karapetjana
2011, p. 43f), to convey speaker's opinion which makes it subjective (Bramley, 2001), to present oneself at an individual level and highlight one's good qualities (Bramley, 2001) or a
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 68 commitment to the audience (de Fina, 1995).
The personal pronoun we is used for group membership or a constitutional identity
(Bramley, 2001). According to Chilton and Schaffner (1988), in ordinary conversation usually, we is used to referring to the speaker and the listener/s whereas, in political discourse, it is generally used to refer to multiple referents. As a result of the political struggle, almost all political activities can be divided into an allies group (us) and an opposition group (them)
(Chilton 2004, Okulska & Cap 2010). Political actors use language to divide groups on the basis of their identity, interest and ideology. "Us" is the group which is included an in-group and
"them" is the group which is excluded. They usually use we and us to highlight the qualities or positive aspects of their or in-groups; whereas, they and them are used to present the opponents negatively (van Dijk 1993, 1997). These two groups are dispensable for the concept of power and dominance as one group being superior entails the inferiority of the other (Lauk, 2002). de
Fina (1995) says that using we by a speaker to refer to himself shows his representation of a group or an organization. The us and them serve to reflect self-determination and identity building (Wirth- Koliba, 2016). The use of us and them intends to separate one group from the other group (Bramley, 2001). We is also used to represent a team and show shared responsibilities (Beard, 2000). It may also refer to the speaker alone or the speaker and listener/s as well (Karapetjana, 2011). They may be used to separate oneself from others. Its use may also be intended to show them inferior to us (Karapetjana, 2001). The use of they may not be used to present others negatively or positively. It may intend to keep a distance of the speakers from others who are being talked about (Bramley, 2001).
Ideologies play a pivotal role in positive presentations of in-groups and negative
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 69 presentations of out-groups. This is done through the use of certain lexical choices to refer to the actions of individuals and groups. As a linguistic resource, the basic function of these choices, depending on one's ideology, is to describe or name the objects of the world around with the perspective of the language user. The direct or indirect use of different lexemes provides a clue of the ideology of the language user (Oyeleye & Adeyinka, 2014). These choices are also employed to attribute certain characteristics. The selection and use of these choices, depending on one's ideology, is important for presenting and perceiving the actions of in-groups and out-groups. The unified use of different lexical items results in a strong persuasive discourse.
The study of Caldas-Coulthard and Moon (2010) about the classification of social actors on the lexical basis indicates that lexical choices influence the judgmental powers of the audience. The ideology involved in these choices depicts the "cultural assumptions, political beliefs and institutional practices" (Simpson, 1993, p. 176). An analyst needs to "peep into the underlying ideological meaning" (Teo, 2000, p. 14) behind the choices of these lexical items because they reflect the view of the language users on the issue or event.
Since word choice of a language user is never neutral (Fowler, Hodge, Kress & Trew,
1979; Fiske, 1994; Taiwo, 2007), rather it carries the interest of its user. The choice of a particular word by the language user may signal his opinion, emotion or position (van Dijk,
1991, p. 53). Therefore, the influential and prominent figures of society use different lexical items depending on the situation or context to influence their audiences/listeners. Politicians are well aware of "what to say when to say and where to say it" and how to react to issues in the public gathering (Oyeleye & Osisanwo, 2013). It seems interesting to analyze how political
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 70 leaders use their ideological beliefs for dominance, and to control the minds of the general public and to consider what role lexical choices play in this connection. Ideological studies provide impressive theoretical and critical analyses of ideology but do not provide a linguistic or lexical account of ideology, especially regarding the control or dominance of political groups over the society (Oyeleye & Osisanwo, 2013). The analysis of lexis is helpful in revealing the underlying ideologies in discourse.
The use of metaphors is another discursive tool used by politicians to demonstrate and project their ideology and invoke common assumption. Metaphoric language has been the subject of interest of many linguistics and analysts. In politics, the use of metaphors is not limited to poetry and literature rather it involves a variety of life experience (Ike-Nwafor,
2016). The interpersonal and ideational functions of metaphors are central to critical discourse analysis and their use helps the speaker in constructing the realities from a particular point of view (Hardman, 2008). In the words of Lakoff and Johnson (1980), metaphors can play a key role in constructing social and political reality. From an interactive point of view, metaphors are used by politicians for lubricating the contractual factors between the individuals (Chilton &
Ilyin, 1993). The use and selection of alternative metaphors make it more interesting
(Fairclough, 2013). The metaphors are used to avoid a direct reference to face threatening phenomenon. According to Chilton and Schaffner (2002), metaphors are a cognitive device to communicate or form a conceptualization of reality which might be problematic. They are used to minimize the accountability of the speaker and manage threatening speech acts (Ike-Nwafor,
2016). The political actors use the metaphors in such contexts where direct expression of the feeling is either difficult or the speaker does not feel comfortable, and the metaphor allows the audience to infer the meaning according to the political context.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 71
The above discussion clearly shows that us-them polarization analysis is an important tenant for unveiling the underlying ideologies in political discourse. The basic strength of CDA is its diversity, which provides the researchers with opportunities for innovation (Wodak, 2002;
Weiss & Wodak, 2003). Political Discourse Analysis, a sub-genre of CDA, analysts have deployed various theories and models depending on their research objectives. Some have integrated various approaches, and so on to have a deeper analysis. However, it is apparent that linguistic devices have been their main tool in analyzing political discourse practices. Before moving to the research framework being employed for this research, it seems useful to have a short review of the studies which have analyzed political discourse in the Pakistani context. In
Pakistan, a few studies have tried to analyze the political speeches of some prominent political leaders linguistically but no study, till present, has attempted to analyze the parliamentary discourse. The following part has reviewed the work done by linguists in Pakistan on the political discourse.
Studies of Political Discourse in Pakistan
Democracy in Pakistan has not enjoyed the status which it is enjoying in the West
(please see chapter II for details). Perhaps, this is the reason that, in the past, no special attention has been paid to the discourse of Pakistani leadership or maybe a lack of expertise in the critical discourse analysis has been the hindrance. As it has been mentioned in the beginning, no work of critical discourse analysis of the speeches of Pakistani politicians was available; however, in the last couple of years some of researchers and analysts have analyzed the speeches of Quaid-e-Azam, Benazir Bhutto, Dr Tahir-ul-Qadri and Imran Khan to investigate rhetorical devices used by them and reveal the linguistic manipulatison (Iqbal,
2015).
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 72
Mehdi‟s (2012) study deals with the rhetoric used by Pakistani politicians and finds that they make excessive use of rhetoric in their speeches. He also finds the repeated mentions of
"shaheeds" (martyrs) and "sacrifices" in their speeches. He opines that the speeches of Pakistani politicians are full of "words, words and words", and they are serving democracy merely through rhetoric. However, he fails to decide whether the use of rhetoric is because of our political culture or a result of some specific mind-sets.
The research of Naz, Alvi and Baseer (2012) investigates the linguistic spin of the speech of the former PM of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto through transitivity analysis. By analyzing just one speech, delivered in English at an international forum (The Middle East Institute,
Washington, DC on September 25, 2007), the researchers come to the conclusion that the speaker‟s linguistic choices were context-bound and she aimed at the emotional and physical involvement of the masses, using words to mobilize the public. The study of Nasir (2013) reveals that the rhetoric used by Imran Khan is Islamist as well as post-Islamist, and it is the main attraction for his audience.
Iqbal (2015) compares pre-election and post-election speeches of Pakistani political leaders and finds pre-elections speeches more "passionate and exuberant" as compared to
"premeditated and strategic" post-election speeches. According to her findings, Pakistani politicians use language to demonstrate ideologies, steer the thought of the public, "ascertain power, and manufacture consent" (p. 11).
The study of Anwar, Ullah, Ahmed and Ali (2015) investigates Quaid-e-Azam's address to the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan and finds that his (Quaid-e-Azam‟s) choice of words was very clear and forceful, context bond and according to the geographic conditions
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 73 whereas Nawaz, Naqvi, Hassan, Zafar, Jabeen and Akram (2013) have analyzed the same address with the aim to see whether Pakistan has achieved the objectives which Quaid-e-Azam had mentioned in his address, i.e. to see the country free from bribery, corruption, jobbery, nepotism and black-marketing. The study has concluded that the country is totally antagonistic of Quid-e-Azam‟s speech.
Hussain‟s (2015) study discusses the mutual relationship of the institutions of bureaucracy and the parliament and finds that each of the institutions has its drawbacks and neither of them was willing to give importance to the other.
Qadeer and Shehzad‟s (2017) study analyzes the speech of Mr Yousaf Raza Gillani, the ex-prime minister of Pakistan and reveals that he used linguistic techniques, e.g. modalities, subject positions and lexical choices in his speech. The study further reveals that he used the personal pronouns we and our to shift responsibility, I to exhibit authority and you to create solidarity among the people. He used lexical choice to propagate his ideology and persuade the mind of people.
The study of Hassan (2018) deals with the impact of Pakistani news bulletin headlines on the viewers. The findings of the study show that the presentation style of the news, the policy of commercialization, unprofessionalism, coverage of the events need to be revisited.
The study emphasizes that media authorities of Pakistan should play their positive role in bringing harmony and stability in the country.
The Naeem and Rafi‟s (2019) study investigates Zia and Musharafs speeches regarding
Afghanistan to highlight the inclusion and exclusion of different social actors to achieve
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 74 legitimation. It shows how power of language is used in shaping and construing the particular version of reality that results in the dominance of the ruling elite.
The study in hands aims to investigate the way Pakistani parliamentarians used the parliamentary floor for the propagation of their personal and partisan political ideologies and see how they employed some of the linguistic practice in their speeches to achieve various objectives. As discussed in the previous sections, politicians usually divide themselves into an in-group and out-group on the basis of their identity, interest and ideology. Mostly their speeches are concerned with highlighting the positive aspect of the in-group or in-group members and negative aspects of the out-group or out-group members (van Dijk 1993, 1997 &
2006). Despite the few studies undertaken for the analyses of the speeches of the prominent leaders, a vast area still lies uninvestigated. These studies referred above have tried to investigate some of the rhetorical devices and the use of language by Pakistani politicians. The use of discursive practices for in-group positive and out-group negative presentations for manipulating the feelings of the public, propagating their ideologies and how power is abused by the common political leadership still needs to be made explicit. Yet the area of parliamentary debates remains unexplored, which the current study aims to explore. Therefore, the researcher will analyze the linguistic practices that help to investigate in-group positive presentation and out-group negative presentation in the Pakistani parliamentary discourse.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 75
Chapter IV
Research Methodology
This chapter presents the research design of the study. In the first, it presents the justification for the selection of the parliamentary speeches along with a short introduction of the four leading parliamentary parties. This chapter also provides information about the selection of the discursive practised analyzed in this study.
Selection of Parliamentarians and Debates for the Analysis
The study aims to analyze the discursive practices used by in the 14 parliamentary speeches made by Pakistani parliamentarians during the 3rd parliamentary joint session (2013-
2018) which was held from September 2, 2014, to September 19, 2014. Similar to some other democratic countries, the Pakistani parliament has a lower and an upper house. Each house calls its sessions according to its own timeline for the discussion on important issues. In the Pakistani parliamentary system, a joint session of both the houses is called to discuss or debate on some extraordinary or critical issues or on the yearly address of the president to the parliament. For the first time in the history of Pakistan, a civilian government had completed its constitutional five years‟ tenure (2008-2013) and passed the power to the newly elected government in 2013.
During the tenure, various joint sessions had been called on different occasions. The 3rd joint session of the previous tenure, called for the debate on the prevailing political situation, was selected for the study for various reasons. First, it was the longest session since 2008, which continued for ten working days. Secondly, it was called to discuss the internal political situation of Pakistan. Thirdly, in the past during the political crisis, no example can be found of a moment when all political parties were unanimous against any unconstitutional change in the
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 76 governments, i.e. overthrowing the government as the result of Martial Laws. Fourthly, the joint session was called for discussing a one-point agenda on which 51 parliamentarians belonging to different political parties were to express their views. Fifthly, it was the longest sit- in held in Islamabad in the history of Pakistan. This sit-in nearly detached the capital from the rest of the country and suspended "normal" life. All the roads had been blocked, either by the protestors or by the government, with the containers. Two foreign Presidents, one of Maldives and second of China, had cancelled their official visits to Pakistan. The severity of the situation can also be seen in the cancellation of the PM‟s visit to Turkey due to the political crisis.
Sixthly, all Pakistani media telecasted special marathon transmissions and the political discussion had engulfed every facet of life for weeks. The speeches 14 out of 51 parliamentarians belonging to the four largest political parties in the Parliament were selected for the study and their demographic detail and party affiliation is given as under:
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 77
Table 3
Demographic details of the speeches
Party Speech Lines Senator/Mem Province Name of the speakers affiliation deliver ber of ed on National Assembly (MNA) PML-N Sep. 5, 17-23 MNA Punjab Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif 2014 (PM of Pakistan) Sep. 5, 14-16 Senator Punjab Raja Muhammad Zafar ul Haq 2014 (Chairman of PML-N and Leader of the House in Senate) Sep. 2, 2-17 MNA Punjab Ch. Nisar Ali Khan (Interior 2014 Federal Minister) Sep. 10, 21-36 MNA Punjab Khawaja Saad Rafique (Federal 2014 Minister of Railways) PPP Sep. 2, 18-31 Senator Punjab Ch. Atizaz Ahsan (Leader of the 2014 Opposition in Senate) Sep. 8, 39-61 Senator KPK Farhat Ullah Babar (Press 2014 Secretary of former President and Chairman of PPP) Sep. 4, 34-51 Senator Baluchist Mian Raza Rabbani (Chairman 2014 an of Senate) Sep. 5, 95-101 MNA Sindh Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah 2014 (Leader of the Opposition in National Assembly) PTI Sep. 3, 32-68 MNA Punjab Makhdoom Shah Mehmood 2014 Qureshi (Vice Chairman of PTI)
Sep. 2, 63-78 MNA Punjab Makhdoom Muhammad Javed 2014 Hashmi (President of PTI Sep. 18, 38-40 MNA KPK Nasir Khan Khattak (Senior 2014 member) MQM Sep. 19, 57-67 MNA Sindh Dr Muhammad Farooq Sattar 2014 (Parliamentary Leader MQM) Sep. 18, 20-29 MNA Sindh Abdul Rashid Godil (Senior 2014 member) Sep. 8, 16-32 Senator Sindh Babar Khan Ghori (Senior 2014 member)
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 78
The corpus of the thesis comprises 14 selected speeches from the third joint sitting
(session) held from September 2, 2014 to September 19, 2014 during the 2nd Parliamentary
Session of the June 1, 2013 to May 31, 2018 tenure. The speeches were in Urdu and their transcriptions are available on the official website of the National Assembly under the menu of
Legislative Business and sub-heading as NA debates (http://www.na.gov.pk/en/debates.php).
The transcribed speeches were downloaded from the official page and hence can be taken as an official version of the speeches. As mentioned in the table 3, these speeches were made on different days of the session and can be read on the given pages. Each speech was numbered for the analysis and the respective page number has been given against the excerpts and examples taken form the speeches. These speeches constitute 178 pages and to avoid a bulkiness of the report in the appendix, only the link of the official website has been given.
The corpus of 14 speeches includes four from each of the two largest parties (PMLN and PPP), and three from the third and the fourth largest parties (PTI and MQM) in the National
Assembly respectively. These speeches were selected on the basis of results of the general election 2013. During the third joint session, only three PTI members participated in the debate.
For this reason, three speeches of the PTI and MQM members were selected for the analysis.
This purposive sample of the speakers derives from the political importance, designation or position of each participant in the Parliament and their respective party affiliation.
Speeches of the PML-N parliamentarians
Speeches of the four PML-N parliamentarians were selected for the analysis, given their long affiliation with and key positions in the party. The parliamentarians included Mian
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 79
Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, ex-PM of Pakistan and head of the party, Raja Zafar-ul-Haq,
Chairman of PML-N, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, ex-Federal Interior Minister, and Khawaja
Saad Rafique, ex-Federal Minister for Railways.
Speeches of the PPP parliamentarians
Four parliamentary speeches of the PPP parliamentarians were selected for the analysis.
Their selection criteria were also based on their party affiliation and key positions in their party.
They were Barrister Chaudhry Atizaz Ahsan, ex- Leader of the Opposition in Senate, Farhat
Ullah Babar, ex-spokesperson of former President and co-chairperson of PPP, Mian Raza
Rabbani, ex-Chairman of the Senate, and Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah, ex-Leader of the
Opposition in the National Assembly. In the previous tenure, PPP was part of the opposition parties.
Speeches of the PTI parliamentarians
PTI was protesting against the government and was demanding the PM's resignation.
Parliamentarians belonging to this party had submitted resignations with the office of the
Speaker of the National Assembly. Only three of PTI parliamentarians, i.e. Makhdoom Shah Mehmood
Qureshi, the Vice Chairman of PTI; Makhdoom Muhammad Javed Hashmi, ex- President of PTI; and
Nasir Khan Khattak, the senior party member attended the session and made their speeches. All of the three speeches of PTI parliamentarians were selected for the analysis.
Speeches of the MQM parliamentarians
MQM was the fourth largest parliamentary party in the National Assembly. As three of the PTI parliamentarians, the third largest party, were selected for the analysis, therefore, three
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 80 speeches of the MQM parliamentarians were selected to have a balance. They were Dr
Muhammad Farooq, the Parliament Ex-Leader in the National Assembly and President of
MQM, Abdul Rashid Godil and Babar Khan Ghori, the senior members of the party.
Selection of the Discursive Practices for the Analysis
Political Discourse Analysis, a sub-genre of CDA, has developed into a separate genre during the last couple of decades. The main concern of Political Discourse Analysis is to analyze the implicit way politicians use linguistic means for the promotion of their authority and ideology. As politics is a struggle for power and dominance between two groups, i.e. in- group (us) and out-group (them); and this us vs them polarization is clearly visible between these two groups (Wirth- Koliba, 2016) in every political discourse. As ideologies are part and parcel of political discourse, the political actors use various linguistic practices for the promotion and propagation of their ideologies. They use language to divide groups on the basis of their identity, interest and ideology. "Us" is the group which is included in the in-group and
"Them" is the group which is excluded. Such words are used for an in-group which may create a sense of belonging, solidarity, collectivity and positivity. On another hand, out-group is presented in a negative way. By analyzing us and them polarizations, we can have a clear understanding of the authority and ideology employed in the discourse. The present study aims at analyzing the diversity of us vs them to uncover the ideology and see how the Pakistani parliamentarians used this diversity for the in- group (us) positive presentations and out-group
(them) negative presentation in their selected parliamentary speeches. Usually, the use of inclusionary and exclusionary strategies is context- bound and varies depending on the context or objectives of the speakers. Clusivity is the foundation of us and them polarization which
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 81 unveils the pragma-cognitive dimension of the discourse. Therefore, for the ideological analysis of the discourse, three of the discursive practices were employed for the analysis and their details are under:
Ideological Square
Political discourse, as discussed in the previous chapter, is largely based on ideological differences, alliances and similarities. van Dijk's ideological square (e.g. 1997 & 2006) is based on the fundamental dichotomy of "in-group positive presentation" and "out-group negative presentation" which emphasizes on Our good things, Their bad things, and de-emphasizes on
Our bad things and Their good things (Dijk, 2006, p.734). He presents twenty-five other ideological strategies which may be used for the same purpose. He further argues that while analyzing linguistic devices, social context also needs to be considered. Giving an example of personal plural pronoun, he insists that it should be related to other categories e.g. who is speaking, to whom is speaking, when and where is speaking.
Proxmization
Proximization is another discursive strategy of presenting an out- group/event/state as a negative entity which might cause a physical, temporal or ideological threat or a negative consequence to the speaker and other in-group members (Cap, 2013, 2016; Wieczorek, 2013).
Proximization has been used by Cap (2006, 2008, 2010, 2013 & 2016) as a Theory (PT) that is based on Chilton's (2004) concept of Deictic-Space-Theory (DST). The speaker may use it for obtaining different objectives; however, the principal goal of the proximization is the legitimization of the action and policies to neutralize the growing negative effects of the
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 82 opponent entities (Cap, 2013). According to this theory, the speaker (S) acts as a deictic centre
(DC) and selects an in-group as the insiders of the deictic centre (IDCs) of the imaginary discourse space (DS) based on his ideological interests. The speaker (S) takes his anti- ideological group as the outsiders of the deictic centre (ODCs) and presents it as a physical, temporal or ideological threat for the IDCs and urges them to adopt the preemptive measures to control or neutralize the imminent, future or ideological threat. Proximization may be physical, temporal or ideological. However, the degree of presence of these three categories at the same level in a particular event is not necessary (Cap, 2016) and the speaker may involve them as per the demand of the situation or requirement of the legitimization of the preemptive measures.
The study will see how the parliamentarians did present their political opponents as a threat to their in-group.
Figure 2.
Proximization in Discourse Space (DS)
Clusivity
Clusivity, a fairly new concept, is a discursive practice of association and dissociation
(Wieczorek, 2013). It is the linguistic construction of the "roles of actors in a speech event with
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 83 respect to each other, as well as the relationship between the speaker, and the in-group and out- members in particular (Wieczorek, 2013, p. 28)". Initially, it was taken as inclusion and exclusion of the first-person plural we expressing belonging and lack of belonging or rejection
(Wieczorek, 2009). Clusivity enables the interpreters to understand whether the group identity, coalitions, parties, etc. are taken as the insiders or outsiders (Chilton, 2004). According to
Cysouw (2005), the first and second persons are taken as an inclusive and first and third person, also considered as a third person, as an exclusive. Wieczorek, in her book (2013), has expanded its scope to legitimization and delegitimization. She includes association, disassociation, persuasion, manipulation, etc. in the discursive strategies used to mark the clusivity. However, the present study will limit the clusivity to its traditional concept of association and disassociation through the inclusive and exclusive use of first-person plural pronouns (Carvalho,
2008) in the selected speeches of the parliamentarians.
For the present study, Fairclough's (1989, 1992) Three Dimensional Model (3D): description, interpretation and explanation provided a basic theoretical model for the analysis of the selected practices. This model involves three levels of analysis, i.e. textual, discursive and social. The textual level involves the description of the linguistic features of the text, the discursive level looks at the production and interpretation of the text and social level focuses on an explanation of the social organization and situation where the text is produced. This model is based on a number of social and linguistic approaches (Zaher, 2009). The 3D is a flexible prototype model which helps in answering the specific questions about the language use and language pattern used in the particular discursive practice. Instead of treating language as an individual activity, the model assumes it as a social practice (Hicks, 2000; Fairclough, 1989,
1992). This model uses linguistic description for the explanation of a social phenomenon which
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 84 helps in discovering ideology and social practices embedded in the language and revealing the production, consumption and distribution of the power through the discourse; and hence, unveiling the hidden agenda of power relations existed in the society. According to Fairclough, ideologies embedded in the text are subject to the interpretation by the reader/s (1992).
Fairclough's model has also been criticized for being more abstract and less text based
(Drake, 2005) because it analyzes isolated extracts from the institutional settings on the basis of preconceived assumptions (Wodak, 1997, p. 178). It has also been criticized for ignoring individual cognitive process (Gadavanij, 2002) and focusing on member's resources or socio- cognitive effects (Balfaqeeh, 2007). This model also fails to provide a method for investigating text production and interpretation (Mullins, 2012). Insight into the historical background of the text producer and text production is also lacking in this model. CDA provides the researchers with opportunities for innovation (Wodak, 2002; Weiss & Wodak, 2003) depending on the objectives of the study. Fairclough (1992) himself has stressed that this model should be treated as a "guide", not as a "blueprint" or "holy writ" (p. 61), therefore, the researcher has attempted to fill the gap has by integrating it with the van Dijk's ideological square (e.g. 1997 & 2006),
Wieczorek's (2013) clusivity and Cap's (2013 & 2016) proximization models.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 85
Figure 0.
Research Methodology
METHODOLOGY
Selection of the Text
Selection of the Practices
Ideological Square Proximization Clusivity
Results
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 86
Selection of the Parliamentarians and Debates for Analysis
A complete analysis of any larger text is not possible (van Dijk, 2001), therefore, keeping the objectives in view, the study involves the description, interpretation and explanation of the first-person plural inclusive and exclusive pronouns used by the parliamentarians for showing association and disassociation in their selected parliamentary speeches, polarization of political groups into us (in-groups) and them (out-groups) and their negative and positive presentation by emphasizing or de-emphasizing the actions of in-groups and out-groups and the way of legitimizing their actions for and against. The present study integrates the three homogeneous aspects of the three different Modals and applies them to the same text for a deeper ideological analysis. Each section ends with a summary, to sum up, the salient findings.
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 87
Chapter V
Ideology through In-group and Out-group Polarization
This chapter has used a discursive practice of presenting the in-group positively and out- group negatively for analyzing the selected speeches. For this purpose, van Dijk's (e.g. 1997 &
2006) Ideological Square Model has been used. Using the model, this chapter discusses how the lexicalization strategies have been used by the Pakistani parliamentarians in their speeches for emphasizing in-group positive actions and out-group negative actions. The chapter aims to reveal the possible motives behind the use of the discursive practice
In-group Positive Presentation and Out-group Negative Presentation
All political activities have an allies group and an opposition group (Chilton 2004,
Okulska; Cap 2010). These two groups are indispensable for the concept of power and dominance as the superiority of one group entails the subordination of the other (Lauk, 2002).
Political actors use such words for the in-group which may create a sense of belonging, solidarity, collectivity and positivity. On the other hand, the out-group is presented in a negative way. Politicians use such words which may emphasize the good deeds of the in-group members and de- emphasize its bad deeds. They also use specific vocabulary to emphasize the bad deeds of the out-group members and de-emphasize the good actions of the out-group members. The analysis of this practice provides an insight into the social representations of the in-group as well as out- group members. For the analysis of the parliamentary speeches of the selected
Pakistani parliamentarians, van Dijk's Ideological Square Model, "applicable to all actions, meaning, and form of text and talk (Dijk, 2006, p. 734)" for exposing the political ideology has been used.
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 88
Apparently, Islamabad-protest seemed a collision between the two forces, i.e., the once that was demanding the PM‟s resign and the other that was defending the PM. PTI and PAT were having sit-ins in the capital to get resignation from the PM whereas PML-N and other parties, including PPP and MQM, considered the demand of the protestors unconstitutional and were of the opinion that the PM should be removed constitutionally (for details, please see chapter 2) instead of forcing him to resign through non-parliamentary acts. Parliamentarians belonging to these parties made their speeches during the joint session and attempted to convince their colleagues and general public by emphasizing their positive actions so that they may win their support.
Emphasis on the in-group positive actions by the PML-N parliamentarians
PTI and PAT were having sit-ins in the capital against the PML-N‟s government. The
PML-N parliamentarians used this discursive practice in their parliamentary speeches to present their in-group positively by highlighting their positive actions. They attempted to portray themselves as supporters of democracy who believed in the supremacy of the Parliament and
Constitution.
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 89
Table 4
Emphasizing in-group positive actions by the PML-N parliamentarians
Name of the Examples Intended purpose parliamentarian (emphasize on) Mian Muhammad ham ny us ko strongest possible terms main Selflessness of the Nawaz Sharif condemn kiya…. ur is kyliye us waqt ki hakoomat party and its sy koi qeemat nahi mangi [we condemned it in the leadershop strongest possible terms… and did not demand anything in return from the government of that time] (September 5, 2014, p. 22)
un ky sath bat cheet kar rahe hain [we are Sincerity of their negotiating with them] (September 5, 2014, p. 19). party
Raja Zafar ul Haq Ham opposition ky is role ko nah sirf sarahty hain A Policy of …. Ham usy mahsoos nahi karty [we not only forbearance and appreciate this role of the opposition…. We do not reconciliation mind it] (September 5, 2014, p. 14)
Is ka ham I‟tiraaf karty hain ur us ki ta‟reef karty The Positive attitude hain [We acknowledge it and appreciate it] of acknowledging (September 5, 2014, p. 15). and appreciating the role of others Ch. Nisar Ali PAT ny Zero Point par ijaazat maangi ham ny di, Sincerity of their Khan PTI ny Kashmir High Way par ijaazat mangi tu party ham ny di. Hamain is par thori bahut reservations thain ur saath he intehaai aham hassas idaary thy, un ki tarf sy bhi hamain tahafuzaat aaye, magar bilaakhir ham ny ijaazat dy di. PAT ny ijaazat lyny ky ba‟d kaha keh hamian Khayabaan e Suharwardi par ijaazat di jaaye, jo saath saath hain. Hamain is par reservations thy ur is ky baawajood ham ny wahan bhi ijazat dy di [PAT requested for permission (for protest) at Zero Point, we allowed it. PTI requested for Kashmir High Way, we allowed. We had some reservations and there were offices of very important institutions, they have shown some reservations, but we allowed them at last. After permission had been granted, PAT requested for Khayaban e Suharwardi, adjacent to (Kashmir High Way), we
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 90
had some reservations. In spite of that we allowed them there as well] (September 2, 2014, p. 9). Khawaja Saad Ham tu yeh chahty hain keh jo aiwaan main Their belief in the Rafique mojood nahi woh bhi aiwaan main aain. Ikhtilaf ki supremacy of the bat, jhaghry ki bat, tanaz-e-aat ki bat tay karny ka Parliament sab sy a‟la aiwan qowmi assembly ur senate he. Ham tu un ko bhi laana chahty hain jo nahi aasaky…ham kabhi nahi chahain gy keh woh
aiwaan sy juda houn [we want those to be present in the Parliament who are not here. The highest platforms to solve the issues of differences, clashes and disputes are the National Assembly and Senate. We also want to bring those in the Parliament who could not come…. we will never wish them apart from the Parliament] (September 10, 2014, p. 33). Sincerity of their Ham un ky bary woh zuban ist‟mal nahi kar party sakty… [we cannot answer them in the same language …] (September 10, 2014, p. 22) Loyalty to the Pakistan ko mazi ki tarf dhakailny ki koi koshish country and its kamyab nahi hony di jaye gi [No effort of people reverting Pakistan back to the past will be allowed to succeed] (September 10, 2014, p. 27)
Belief in the supremacy of the Parliament and the Constitution. The PML-N parliamentarians presented themselves and their party as the true believers and followers of democracy who believed in the supremacy of the Parliament. They used words, phrases and referred some incidents from the past for highlighting theirs and their party's positive role played for democracy and supremacy of the Parliament. For example, PML-N leader and ex-
PM of Pakistan, Mr Sharif, presented his party as a democratic party which believed that it is the duty of his party to support the system. He pointed out the role of his party as an opposition party during the PPP government in 2012. Lines 96-98 (p. 22) of his speech referred to the positive role of his party during the previous dharna (sit-in) of Dr Qadri in 2012 with the intention to overthrow the government of PPP unconstitutionally. In 2012, Dr Qadri held
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 91 dharna in Islamabad against the PPP government. Mr Sharif claimed that his party, being the largest party of opposition, had called a meeting of other political parties to condemn the action of Dr Qadri and show solidarity with the government. Mr Sharif further claimed that his party did not try to destabilize the PPP‟s government, as it had been a practice in the past, because he and his party had considered this act unconstitutional and against the spirit of democracy. The use of the phrases “strongest possible terms main condemn kiya” (condemned in the strongest possible terms) and “qeemat nahi mangi” (did not ask for a price) seems to highlight the positive role of his party which it had played in the tenure of PPP government. He also claimed that it was done not for any reward but for the sake of democracy.
To highlight his party‟s belief in democracy, Mr Sharif referred to his party's negotiation with the protesting parties against the government, though he considered that their protest was on non-issues. He referred to the dialogue process, between the government and the protesting parties, to show that his government believed in democracy and wanted to solve the political issues through dialogue and not through the use of power. Line 44 (p. 19) shows that Mr Sharif attempted to present him and his party positively by giving the impression that they believed in the constitution and supremacy of the Parliament and were playing their role selflessly. The words “bat cheet karna” (having a dialogue/negotiating) indicate that despite the negative attitude of the protesting parties, the government was talking with them to find some political solution of the problem and refrain itself from using force against the protestors.
Ch. Nisar, another PML-N parliamentarian, presented a positive picture of his party and the government to show that his party believed in the democratic rights of the people. He used such word which show that, in spite of receiving news about the negative intentions of the
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 92 protestors, his government allowed the protestors to come within Islamabad because it considered that protest was a constitutional right of the people and they should not be deprived of their right. For example, in lines 109-112, he said:
“…hakoomat ka mowa‟qif aik tu yeh tha keh jamhoori raye ki aazadi he …. in ko aagy
jaany dain. Prime minister sahib ny baar baar kaha…keh hamain in ky rasty main
rukawat nahi daalni chahye” [the government had the stance that there is freedom of
expression …. allow them to move forward. The Prime Minister has said again and
again …. that we should not put obstacles in their way] (September 2, 2014, p. 8).
In the above example, for presenting the positive picture of his party and the PM, Ch.
Nisar used the words “jamhoori raye ki aazadi” (freedom of expression) to show that the government had not allowed the protestors to enter in Islamabad under any pressure but for the sake of democracy. He claimed that the government had given free hand to the protestors and had not put any obstacles in their way because his party and the PM honoured the constitutional rights of the people. He also attempted to present a positive image of the PM by saying that
“prime minister sahib ny baar baar kaha” (the prime minister has said again and again). The use of the above line seems an effort to emphasize the democratic thinking of the PM that he did not want to take any unconstitutional step and use force against the protestors.
Ch. Nisar claimed that PML-N, as a party, respected the courts and honoured their decisions as well (PML-N have been accused by the opponents of not respecting the courts and abiding by their decisions). Lines 126-127 (pp. 8-9) of the speech of Ch. Nisar referring to the decision of Islamabad High Court of allowing the protestors to protest within the limits of the
Constitution said that his government would abide by the decision of the court. In the court, a
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 93 petition had been filed to stop the protestors from the protest because of their unconstitutional demands. Though the court had admitted that the demands of the protestors were unconstitutional, yet it observed that protest was a constitutional right of the people which could not be banned. To show that his government abided by the decision of the court, Ch. Nisar claimed that his government, after the decision of the court, took initiative and contacted PAT and PTI leadership and asked them to apply for the permission so that the protest might be given a legal cover. He said, “ham ny raabta kiya ur kaha keh aap ijazat mangain [we contacted (them) and asked (them) that they should apply for the permission] (p. 9). In this line, he intended to show that, despite the fact that PTI and PAT were protesting against the government and demanding the PM‟s resignation, the government asked them to apply for permission. Legally, all parties are required to seek permission prior to the announcement of the processions and meetings. The government had the right to go for appeal in the Supreme Court against the decision of Islamabad High Court yet it acted otherwise. Ch. Nisar intended to show that the government wanted to facilitate the protestors; therefore, it asked PTI and PAT leadership to apply for the permission. And when they applied, the government immediately allowed them to have their sit-ins at their desired places. Contrary to the claim of the opposite camp, he told the parliamentarians that the government was trying to facilitate the protestors and cooperating with them at every step.
He further said (p. 9) that initially, the government did not want to allow the protestors to protest in the Red Zone because of the sensitivity of the area – as there are foreign embassies in the area- but, later on, allowed them to do so. Ch. Nisar seems to strengthening his previous claim that the government believed in democracy and constitutional rights of the people and honoured the decisions of courts. In spite of some reservations and security threats, his
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 94 government not only allowed the protestors to come to Islamabad but also allowed them to encamp and protest wherever they wanted. The mentioning of the reservations and location of the sensitive offices in the Red Zone seems to highlight the sincerity and democratic attitudes of the government. He also attempted to impress upon his colleagues that, despite the backing out of the protestors of their words, the government was cooperating with them and was not stopping them from their democratic right of the protest.
Mr Rafique, another PML-N parliamentarian, included other political parties in his in- group to present them positively. He used such words which showed that the government and all other political parties in the Parliament believed in the democratic system and wanted Mr
Khan as well to adopt a constitutional way of protest and use the platform of the Parliament for his demands. For example, he said, “Sirf hakoomat ny nahi, is poory aiwan ny sabr ur tahammul ka daman hath sy nahi chora” [not only the government but all these parliamentarians have also shown patience and forbearance] (September 10, 2014, p. 23).
In the above example, Mr Rafique presented his and other parliamentary parties as the believers in the supremacy of the Parliament and claimed that they had never wished to separate the parliamentary parties from the Parliament rather they wanted even the non-parliamentary parties (parties which did not have any representation the Parliament) to come in the Parliament and play their role through this platform. Mr Rafique attempted to present all parties in the
Parliament positively by saying that they all believed in the parliamentary system and wanted other parties, who were not present in the Parliament, should also be a part of the Parliament through a proper channel. The use of the words e.g. “jo aiwan main mojood nahi woh bhi aiwan main aain” [those who are not present in the Parliament should be part of it] and “ham
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 95 tu un ko bhi lana chahty hain jo nahi aasaky” [we also want to bring those in the Parliament who could not come… (p. 33) reveal the sincerity of the parliamentary parties. PAT had boycotted the general election 2013 and PTI parliamentarians had resigned from their assembly memberships. By using the above-mentioned words, Mr Rafique intended to show the belief of the parties in the system and supremacy of the Parliament. He further claimed that his government wanted the political parties to use this platform for solving all their political differences. The examples mentioned above also show that the parliamentary parties not only wanted PTI to rejoin the Parliament and use it for their demands but also wanted PAT to be part of the Parliament by contesting the election.
The policy of forbearance and reconciliation. The PML-N parliamentarians used words, phrases and examples to show that their party was demonstrating the policy of forbearance and reconciliation for the sake of the system. For example, Mr Haq intended to show that his party was adopting the policy of forbearance by claiming that it welcomed opposition's harsh words and did not take it negatively because his government considered it a part of the democratic system. In lines 11-13 (p. 14), Mr Haq declared the smooth running of the business of the Senate as a result of his party's policy of forbearance and reconciliation. The use of phrases “sarahty hain” ([we] appreciate it) and “mahsoos nahi karty” ([we] do not mind) seems to highlight the policy of forbearance of the governmentthat ignored harsh words and attitude of the opposition for the sake of democracy.
To present a positive picture of his party, Mr Rafique also highlighted his party‟s belief in forbearance and claimed that PML-N leadership had not responded to the abusive language in the same way which was being used by the PAT and PTI leadership against the
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 96 parliamentarians (pp. 22-23). The use of the words “zuban ist'mal nahi kar sakty” ([we] cannot use such language) seems to show the positive attitude not only of his own party but also of other parties present in the Parliament. He praised the parliamentarians who had not reacted emotionally against the protestors despite listening to t h e abuses and blames by the PTI and
PAT leadership. The use of the idiomatic phrase “sabr ur tahammul ka daman hath sy nahi chora” (did not lose patience) also emphasizes the policy of forbearance of the parliamentarians.
Loyalty to the country and its people. Mr Rafique presented his in-group as loyal to the country and its people. He intended to show that their every action was for the betterment of the country. He presented his in-group as a well-wisher of the country who wanted the country to progress whereas the opponents wanted otherwise. He emphasized the resolution of his in- group members of not allowing the opponents to take Pakistan back in the politics of 1990s- a metaphor for political instability and conflicts in Pakistani politics. After the death of Gen. Zia in 1987, a new political era started but the immaturity of the politicians did not allow the democratic norms to develop. From 1988 to 1999, both PPP and PML-N succeeded twice in making their governments, but neither could complete its constitutional tenure. The internal conflicts and personal interests of politicians allowed neither to flourish democracy nor to develop the country and ultimately Gen Musharraf imposed Martial Law in 1999. In line 126
(p. 27), Mr Rafique referred to the same leg-pulling game of politics and used words “Pakistan ko mazi ki tarf dhakailny” (revert Pakistan back to the past) to show the resolution of the PML-
N and PPP leadership of not taking the country back into that blame game. He also claimed that people sitting in the Parliament were experienced enough to deal with such a situation. He further said that the government had enough resources to control the protesters but both was
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 97 observing patience for the sake of the country. He said, “ham Pakistan ki siyasat main nafrat ka izafa nahi karna chahty [we do not want to increase hatred] (p. 30). In this sentence, he intended to tell his colleagues that the defensive and responsible policy of the government and the restraints shown by it was not due to any weakness but for the sake of the country. He claimed that the government was avoiding any strict action otherwise it might have increased the hatred already prevailing in the society and that was not in the interest of the country. At another place in his speech, he said, “is ki jaroun ki ham ny apny khoon sy aabyari ki he [we have watered its (country) roots with our blood] (p. 33). Here, the use of “khoon sy aabyari ki he” (water the roots [of this country] with their blood) seems to highlight the contribution of the political leaders who had laid their lives for the sake of the country and revival of democracy.
In the above example, he again confirmed the commitment of the government and of other political parties for not allowing someone to succeed in derailing democracy. He was of the view that the country had already suffered a lot as a result of the interruptions in the democratic system. Mr Rafique considered that the protest of the opponents was again an effort to derail the system.
Acknowledgement and appreciation of the role of the in-group. PML-N parliamentarian, Mr Haq, presented his party positively by praising and acknowledging the acts and decisions of his fellow members and leaders of political parties for the sake of democracy.
He used such expressions which give the impression that politicians had matured who acknowledged the positive role even of their opponents. For example, Mr Haq, acknowledging the role of opposition in the Parliament said that his party welcomed the positive criticism of the opposition in the Parliament (p.14). He further said that his party honoured the constructive role of the opposition of pointing out the weaknesses of the government. Mr Haq also
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 98 acknowledged the role of Mowlana Fazal- ur-Rehman, a coalition partner of the government and the head of a religious cum political party, in releasing the tension between the two parties, i.e. PML-N and PPP (see chapter 2). In line 35-36 (p.15), Mr Haq used the phrases “I'tiraf karna” (acknowledge) and “ta'reef karna” (praise/appreciate) to emphasize the positive attitude of his party that acknowledged the role of opposition and its criticism as a part of a democratic system.
The examples presented above show that all of the PML-N parliamentarians used the discursive practice of emphasizing their positive actions to present a positive picture of their party and other in-group members. PTI and PAT leaderships had been accusing that the PML-N government was a result of rigged elections. They also accused the government of violating the constitution and devaluing the Parliament. Mr Sharif, Ch. Nisar and Mr Rafique portrayed
PML- N as a party that believed in the parliamentary system, honoured the courts and respected the opposition. Mr Sharif and Mr Rafique highlighted their party policy of forbearance and reconciliation. They attempted to impress upon their colleagues that their government aimed to strengthen democracy in the country. They claimed that despite a severe criticism and abusive language used by the PTI leadership, it had not gone for the politics of confrontation rather had adopted the policy of forbearance and reconciliation. Mr Haq presented his party as one that not only believed in the parliamentary system but also acknowledged and appreciated the positive role of other political parties which, he thought, were strengthening the system. Mr Rafique also presented his party as one which believed in democracy, the constitution, the Parliament, policy of forbearance and reconciliation, and was loyal to the country and its people. He attempted to do this by highlighting the positive steps which his party had taken for strengthening the democracy.
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 99
Emphasis on in-group positive actions by the PPP parliamentarians
PPP was the largest party in the Opposition, however, it supported the government. The party considered the PTI and PAT‟s demands unconstitutional. The PPP parliamentarians attempted to defend their party‟s decision of supporting the government by emphasizing the positive actions which their party had taken for strengthening parliamentary system in the country.
Table 5
Emphasizing in-group positive actions by the PPP parliamentarians
Name of the Examples Intended purpose parliamentarian (Emphasis on) Ch. Atizaz Ham opposition ki jamaaitain is waqt jamhooriat Their loyalty to the Ahsan ur aain ky saath khary hain [we, the parties of Constitution and the opposition, are with democracy and the Parliament constitution] (September 2, 2014, p. 19)
…ham ja kar baithy ur ham ny do teen din tak Their policy of brain storming ki keh ham sy kiya ghltiyaan huin forbearance and (we sat and we had brainstorming for two to three reconciliation days what mistakes we had committed; September 2, 2014, p. 22).
Wazeer-e-Dakhla nay un sy bara narm rawayya A positive attitude of ikhtiyaar kiya keh un ko Lahore sy aaany diya acknowledging and [The Interior Minister has treated them softly and appreciating the role allowed them to come from Lahore] (September 2, of others 2014, p. 22) Farhat Ullah ham ny Senate main is ki shadeed mukhalfat ki [we Their belief in the Babar opposed it severely in the Senate] (September 8, supremacy of the 2014, p. 53). Parliament
Yeh challenges, between the establishment and the Their policy of civil political leadership, un ky samny bhi aaye thy forbearance and likan unhoun ny is ko burdbari ur reconciliation ky reconciliation stah face kiya……. [there were these challenges
between the establishment and the civil political leadership before them and they faced them with patience, forbearance and reconciliation]
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 100
(September 8, 2014, p. 50)
Unhoun ny tu Hussain Haqqani ki qurbani bhi Sacrifices for dydi…wazeer e azam ki qurbaani di…us waqt bhi democracy ham aap sy keh rahy thy keh aiwan ky taqddus ka
khiyal rkhain [He sacrificed Hussain Haqqani… sacrificed PM…even at that time we were asking you to take care of the sanctity of the Parliament] (September 8, 2014, p. 55)
…Keh PML-N jab woh opposition main thi, Mian A positive attitude of Nawaz Sharif ny kala coat tu pahna, Supreme acknowledging and Court main gaye ur memo gate main Pakistan appreciating the role Peoples Party ki hakoomat ky khiaf fard e jum bhi of others „aid ki likan even in spite of that, Mian Nawaz Sharif did not solicit the sport of the third party […when PML-N was in Opposition, though Mr Sharif wore black coat and charged against the government in memo-gate case in Supreme Court yet in spite of that Mian Nawaz Sharif did not solicit the sport of the third party] (September 8, 2014, p. 48) Mian Raza Likan ham ny election ko qabool kiya hy. Ham ny Commitment to Rabbani election ko system kyliye qabool kiya he democracy …Pakistan Peoples Party hy baani ur chairman Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Shaheed ka „adaalti qatl kiya giya. Ham ny kaha ham system main rahain gy.
Pakistan Peoples Party ky muqaably main 1988 main IJI banaai gai ur election chori kiya giya. Ham ny kaha keh ham system main rahain gy… Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto ko Rawalpindi ki galyoun main shaheed kiya giya ham ny kaha Pakistan khappy, khappy, khappy…[ but we accepted the election. We accepted the election for the system… The founder and chairperson of PPP Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was judicially murdered. We said we would remain in the system. In the elections of 1988, against PPP, IJI was formed and elections were stolen. We said we would remain in
the system. …Rev. Benazir Bhutto was martyred in the streets of Rawalpindi, we said long live Pakistan, long live Pakistan, long live Pakistan….] (September 4, 2014, p. 40).
Pakistan ki Tareekh main aaj pahli baar huwahe A positive attitude of keh opposition, tumam jamhoori quwatain…. Aik acknowledging and appreciating the role
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 101
plate form par khary hain [it is the first time in the of others history that Opposition and all democratic forces …. are on one platform… ] (September 4, 2014, pp. 35-36) Syed Ham ny kaha keh senate ur qowmi assembly ko Their belief in the Khursheed akatha bulaain [we demanded to call a joint supremacy of the Ahmed Shah session of senate and national assembly] Parliament (September 5, 2014, p. 99).
Aap ny job hi faisla aaj kiya woh parliament ky A positive attitude waqar, aain ur jamhooriat ko samny rakhty huye of acknowledging kiya [The decision you have made, it was made and appreciating keeping the dignity of Parliament, Constitution the role of others and democracy] (September 5, 2014, p. 96)
Bin the supremacy of the Parliament and the Constitution. The PPP parliamentarians also presented themselves and their party as the true believers and followers of democracy and the parliamentary system. For example, Mr Ahsan, the PPP parliamentarian, included all opposition parties in his in-group to present the positive picture of the Parliament. He emphasized some of the actions to show that all of the opposition believed in the democratic system and supported the government selflessly for the sake of democracy. In lines 22-23 (p.
19) and 85-86 (p. 22), Mr Ahsan attempted to show that all opposition parties believed in democracy and the constitution and were against any unconstitutional demands. That was the reason that they were with the government and supporting the PM. He used the phrase
“jamhooriat ur aain ky sath” (supporting democracy and constitution) to show the commitment of the parties to democracy and the constitution. He further said, “ham ny aap ka haath thaam rakha he. Opposition ny tham rakha he” [we are supporting you. The Opposition is supporting you] (p. 22). In this example, he used the phrase “hath tham rakha” ("hold the hand", an Urdu idiomatic phrase used for expressing support). This phrase confirmed the support of the opposition parties to the government against the protesting parties and non-democratic forces.
Mr Ahsan, being the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, assured the government of its
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 102 support and clarified that their support was not a favour to the government but support to democracy and the constitution. The words of Mr Ahsan also show that the Opposition was opposing the demands and protest of PTI and PAT because it considered the demands harmful for democracy and against the constitution.
Mr Babar, another PPP parliamentarian, presented his party positively by emphasizing its true democratic role as a political party. He claimed that his party had never supported any action which it considered against the spirit of democracy. He referred to the government‟s decision of invoking of the army under Article 245 in the capital, Islamabad, to control the protestors which his party considered against the democratic spirit. He further said that his party, being the largest party in the Senate, opposed this action in the Senate and tried to urge other parties to convince the government to withdraw the notification. In line 290 (p. 53), Mr
Babar intended to show his party‟s belief in the true spirit of democracy by presenting the act of invoking army by the government in the capital against the true democratic spirit. He claimed that his party had tried its best to refrain government from taking such action. The use of the words “shadeed mukhalfat” (opposed severely) seems an attempt to show the seriousness of his party and its commitment to democracy. The use of the words also seems to highlight the belief of PPP of exercising executive power through the Parliament.
Mr Shah, the PPP parliamentarian and Leader of the Opposition in the National
Assembly, presented his as a party that believed in democracy and democratic rights of the people. Mr Shah's referring to his party's decision of asking the government to call a joint session of the Parliament to find some political solution through the Parliament on the prevailing political situation in the country also seems to present PPP as a party that believed in
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 103 the supremacy of the constitution and the Parliament. To emphasize the belief of his party in democracy and constitutional rights of the people, he further said, “us waqt ham ny kaha PTI ko aany diya jaaye [at that time, we demanded that PTI should be allowed to come] (p. 99). Here he intended to highlight the positive role of his party in convincing the government to allow the
PTI protestors to enter in the capital and its belief in the supremacy of the Parliament. Lines 21
(p. 96) and 67 (p. 99) show that Mr Shah intended to present his party that believed in the constitution and considered the Parliament the highest platform to solve political issues. The sentence “ham ny kaha PTI ko aany diya jaye” (we demanded that PTI should be allowed to enter) seems to impress upon his colleagues about the positive role of his party.
A policy of forbearance and reconciliation. The PPP parliamentarians intended to show that their party was demonstrating the policy of forbearance and reconciliation for the sake of the system. They claimed that their party did not believe in politics of confrontation because it may destabilize the prevailing democratic system of the country. For example, Mr Ahsan narrated an incident from the past to show that his party did not believe in the politics of confrontation, and was following the policy of reconciliation. He referred to an incident from the past when, in 1989, PML-N organized a No Confidence Movement against former PM,
Benazir Bhutto. She, on Mr Ahsan‟s suggestion, called a meeting of leading members of his party to review their party policies. Mr Ahsan, through this example, intended to show that PPP leadership, instead of adopting the policy of confrontation, believed in self-accountability.
Through this example (p. 22), Mr Ahsan tried to advise the PML-N government to follow
PPP‟s policy of reconciliation.
Mr Babar presented his party's positive image by emphasizing some of the sacrifices of
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 104 his party given for the sake of democracy and claimed that despite discriminated treatment with his party, it had not given up the policy of forbearance and reconciliation. He considered the prevailing political situation as a continuation of the civil-military clash. He referred to it to some past events to shed light on the policy of reconciliation of PPP chairman and the former president of Pakistan, Mr Zardari. He claimed that civil-military relations had posed challenges for the previous governments as well, but the PPP government under the leadership of the former president, Mr Zardari, faced them patiently and did not leave the policy of forbearance and reconciliation. Line 217 (p. 50) clearly shows that the government of Mr Sharif was also facing constraints in civil-military relations which the PPP government had also experienced during its tenure but settled it through the policy of forbearance and reconciliation. Mr Babar presented the firing of their party‟s appointed ambassador and its elected PM (Mr Gilani) from their positions as sacrifices. He said, “… Hussain Haqqani ki qurbani bhi dydi…wazeer-e-azam ki qurbani di” […sacrificed Hussain Haqqani… sacrificed PM] (p. 55). He further said, “PP ny apny wazeer e azam ko qurban kar diya likan ham ny reconciliation, dialogue ky „aml ko aagy barhaya” [PP sacrificed its PM but we promoted the process of reconciliation and dialogue] (p.
56).
During PPP's tenure, there were some allegations on Mr Hussain Haqqani, an ambassador to America appointed by the PPP government, for working against the interest of
Pakistan and he was fired from his post as the result of a Supreme Court decision. The former
PM of Pakistan, Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani, was also removed from his designation on the orders of Supreme Court of Pakistan on a contempt of court. Mr Babar declared these firings as the sacrifices of his party for democracy. He said that instead of adopting the policy of confrontation, his party leadership adopted the policy of reconciliation and negotiation. He
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 105 claimed that his party had always accepted the challenges and faced them with patience, forbearance and reconciliation.
Sacrifices for democracy. As discussed in the above lines, the PPP parliamentarians emphasized some of the incidents from the past as the sacrifices given by their party for the sake of democracy. Mr Babar, in lines 322-324 (p. 55) and 340-341 (p. 56), presented his as the party which had been mostly a target of the non-democratic forces. He used the words
“qurabani di” (sacrificed) and “qurbqan kar diya” (sacrificed) to show that even the removal of the ambassador and PM on the allegation of going against the interest of the country and contempt of court were the sacrifices given by his party.
Commitment to democracy. The PPP parliamentarians also emphasized their commitment to democracy and the things their party had accepted for the sake of democracy.
Mr Rabbani, the PPP parliamentarian, pointed out some of the sacrifices given by his party for democracy (p. 40). He reconfirmed his party's commitment to democracy as well. He said that his party had always supported the democratic system and sacrificed for it. He further said that in spite of rigged elections, his party accepted the results of the 2013 election to support the system. He claimed that his party's commitment to democracy had been unshakeable in the past.
He also claimed that his party had suffered irreparable loss but had not revolted against the system. Mr Rabbani declared the prevailing political situation a “war” and repeated his party's resolution for not compromising on democracy. He also pointed out some past incidents as evidence of his party's commitment to democracy. In lines 113-124 (p. 40), he attempted to present a positive picture of his party by claiming that it had always supported democracy and despite undergoing sufferings and bearing irreparable loss, it had continued supporting the
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 106 system. He used words “election chori kiya giya” (election was rigged), “„adalti qatl” (judicial murder), “shaheed krna” (to martyr) to emphasize the injustice done with his party and the loss it had suffered as the result. He used words “election ko qabool karna” (accepted the results of the election) to show the positive image of his party. He said that two leaders of his party were assassinated and even the elections results were changed to favour other parties. Despite all this, his party had never considered any other option of going against the system because it had committed to democracy and parliamentary system.
Acknowledgement and appreciation of the role of the in-group. The PPP parliamentarians also presented their party positively by showing that they praised and acknowledged the acts and decisions of other members and their parties for the sake of democracy. For example, Mr Ahsan's praise of the act of Ch. Nisar, the Federal Interior
Minister, for allowing PAT and PTI to enter Islamabad and treating them gently, was meant to show that he (Mr Ahsan) was a responsible politician and parliamentarian who commended the good actions of his opponents (p. 22).
Though Mr Babar criticized Mr Sharif for protesting against the PPP government yet he praised him for his sincerity to the democratic system and not inviting the third party, i.e. army establishment, to interfere in the political system. During the tenure of the PPP government, Mr
Sharif, as a leader of the Opposition party, demanded the resignation of its PM and appeared before the Supreme Court against the PPP government. Mr Babar acknowledged that Mr Sharif had not tried to end or destabilize their government by invoking military as it was a practice in the past (p. 48). In lines 67-70 (p. 42), he also appreciated the positive attitude of the PTI leader in the joint session and said:
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 107
“is house ky andar unhoun ny yeh mutalba nahi kiya keh wazeer e azam asti‟fa
dydain…Unhoun ny wazeer e azam sy asti‟fa ka mutalba nahi kiya” [In the house,
he did not demand that PM should resign…he did not demand PM resign] (p. 42)
PTI was protesting against the government and its leaders were demanding resignation from the PM, Mr Sharif, but when PTI Vice Chairman, Mr Qureshi, attended the joint session and made a speech, he did not demand the PM's resignation and declared that the Parliament was his political qibla (holy Centre; basically qibla is a Holy Ka'ba in Makkah towards which
Muslims face while offering prayer) and his party had never intended to attack the Parliament.
In the above example, Mr Babar also praised and welcomed the statement of Mr Qureshi and appreciated him for not demanding Mr Sharif's resignation at the floor of the Parliament.
Mr Rabbani also praised and acknowledged the role of the Opposition and other democratic forces, lawyers and media houses for supporting the Parliament and constitution.
The political history of Pakistan is evident whenever Martial Law was imposed, some political parties had always encouraged and invited the military establishment to take over the government. It was the first time that all political and non-political forces were unanimous against any unconstitutional action. Mr Rabbani appreciated and acknowledged this change (pp.
35-36).
Mr Shah also acknowledged the positive role of the parliamentarians in the prevailing political crisis. For example, Mr Shah praised the role of the Speaker and the government in lessening the tension. He appreciated the Speaker for allowing Mr Qureshi to attend the session and expressing his views. As Mr Qureshi and other PTI parliamentarians had resigned from their memberships of National Assembly, therefore, the Speaker could have stopped Mr
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 108
Qureshi from attending the session but he did otherwise. Some of the parliamentarians considered the decision of the Speaker unconstitutional but Mr Shah believed otherwise. He said that the decision taken by the Speaker was according to the dignity of the Parliament and democracy. Mr Shah presented the positive image of the Parliament which remained united and, as a result, the PTI leaders had to attend the session and acknowledge the importance of the
House (Parliament). He said, “yeh Parliament jis dagar ur aag sy guzar kar aai he ab yeh kundan ban chuki he [This Parliament has become pure like gold after passing through the difficult phases] (p. 101). In these lines, Mr Shah praised the unity of the Parliament and said that the democratic process and ups and downs of the political system had refined the parliamentarians. Mr Shah also appreciated the role of the Parliament for unanimous and unconditional support to Mr Sharif for the sake of democracy and supremacy of the
Constitution. He, appreciating the decision of the PM for calling the joint session on his suggestion said, “main wazeer e azam ka shukr guzar houn keh unhoun ny aik dam mery bat ko tasleem kiya [I am thankful to the Prime Minister who at once accepted my suggestion] (p. 99).
The above example illustrates the positive attitude of Mr Shah who acknowledged and appreciated the good decisions of the parliamentarians.
The analysis shows that all PPP parliamentarians used the practice for presenting a positive picture of themselves and their party. They attempted to show that their party had always supported the democracy and parliamentary system in the country. All of the PPP parliamentarians presented their party as a one which not only itself believed in democracy and supremacy of the Parliament but also honoured other political parties which had played their role for strengthening the democracy and empowering the Parliament. Three of the PPP parliamentarians attempted to highlight the role of their party which it had played for
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 109 strengthening the parliamentary system in the country and the sacrifices it had given for this purpose. Mr Babar and Mr Rabbani seemed keener on presenting their party positively than their party-fellows. Mr Babar mentioned the sacrifices of his party in order to highlight their belief in democracy. Mr Rabbani pointed out the loss which his party had suffered in the struggle for the revival of democracy in the country. He also revised his party's commitment to democracy and assured his colleagues that it would not surrender at any cost.
Emphasis on in-group positive actions by the PIT parliamentarians
PTI was protesting against the government and demanding the PM‟s resignation. PML-N and other political parties including PPP had declared its protest unconstitutional. They had also accused it of working for some undemocratic forces and paving a way for a martial law. The PTI parliamentarians used the discursive practice to clear their position by emphasizing their positive actions to show that their party believed in democracy and was against any unconstitutional act.
Table 6
Emphasizing in-group positive actions by the PTI parliamentarians
Name of the Examples Intended purpose parliamentarian (Emphasis on) Makhdoom Shah Hamain ihsas he, hamain ihsas he keh hamary saow Their belief in the Mehmood ikhtelaaaf houn jamhooriat par aain ur Pakistan ki supremacy of the Qureshi khushhali par hamara koi ikhtelaf nhi [we realize it, Parliament we realize that we may have hundreds of differences but on democracy, constitution and prosperity of Pakistan we have no differences] (September 3, 2014, p. 59)
Aap ky har aik jumly, aap par tanqeed bhi ki A positive attitude of likan dard e dil sy ki. Ham is ko accept karty acknowledging and hain, ham is tanqeed ko accept karty hain… appreciating the role […criticized every sentence you said but did it of others sincerely. We accept it, we accept this criticism] (September 3, 2014, p. 67).
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 110
Aaj main phir Peolple‟s Party ko mubarakbad Positive attitude of daita houn keh un ky sarbrah, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto acknowledging and Makhdoom ny woh aain diya, jis ny Pakistan ki bunyadoun appreciating the role Muhammad Javed ko aaj tak mazboot rakhat huwa hw [Today, I of others Hashmi once again congratulate People‟s Party that its head gave Pakistan a Constitution which has still kept the foundations of Pakistan united] (September 2, 2014, p. 64)
Belief in the supremacy of the Parliament and Constitution. The table above shows that
PTI parliamentarian also presented their party positively. Mr Qureshi, the PTI parliamentarian, used some words and phrases to emphasize the positive image of his party to show that it believed in the sanctity of the Parliament and constitution. The example given in the above table shows that Mr Qureshi presented his party positively by saying that it believed in democracy and the Parliament and it had no differences with the parties sitting in the Parliament on the sustenance of democracy, constitution and prosperity of Pakistan. He repeated words “hamain ihsas he” (we realize it) twice to emphasize the stance of his party and confirm that their protest was not against the state and his party had equal concern for the democratic setup and prosperity of the country. He accepted that their party had a lot of differences with other parties sitting in the Parliament but on strengthening democracy and the constitution, and prosperity of Pakistan, they all were united (p. 59). He claimed that their protest was not to weaken the Parliament rather it was to make it more powerful and autonomous. He said:
“Ham chahty hain keh hamesha kyliye, hamesha kyliye Pakistan main aik elections ka
nizam mut‟araf karwa diya jaye jo free, fair, reliable elections ko mumkin kar saky”
[forever, forever, we want to introduce a completely free, fair and reliable election system
in Pakistan] (p. 62)
In the above example, Mr Qureshi rejected the notion that their protest was a revolt against the state, as was alleged by some of the parliamentarians. He intended to present a
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 111 positive picture of his party by saying that it was struggling for the improvement of the electoral system so that it could be made fair, free and reliable. It has been a practice in Pakistan that losing parties call the elections rigged. They have always doubted the impartiality of Elections
Commission of Pakistan. In the above example, Mr Qureshi used the phrase “hamesha kyliye”
(forever) twice in the statement to emphasize the positive thinking and commitment of his party to bring an impartial system and empower the Commission so that it could conduct free and fair elections. He claimed their protest was to strengthen the institutions of the country. Mr
Qureshi attempted to show that his party believed in the constitution and also claimed that their protest was within its limits set by the constitution. He further claimed that their aim of coming to Islamabad was not to fight with the Parliament but to have a dialogue with the government how Parliament can be made powerful. He further said, “Tehreek-e-Insaaf ny apny liye nahi kiya, yeh Pakistan kyliye kiya he. Pakistan ki any wali nasloun ky liye kiya he” [PTI did not do it for itself but for the sake of Pakistan, for coming generations of Pakistan] (p. 68). In this example, Mr Qureshi claimed that they were protesting not for any personal benefits or with negative intentions but for the sake of coming generations of Pakistan. The use of the words
“Pakistan kyliye kiya he” (have done it for Pakistan) and “Pakistan ki any wali nasloun ky liye” (for the coming generations of Pakistan) seem to highlight the sincerity of his party. He intended to impress upon his colleagues that his party was on the roads for the sake of the country and the generations to come.
As evidence that his party believed in the constitution, Mr Qureshi reminded PML-N and other parties that PTI had also been with them during the Judicial Restoration Movement.
He also rejected the rumours that PTI was protesting on the support of some third party or for the third party. Mr Khan's had used a cricketing term "ungli uthna" (raise figure) in his
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 112 speeches saying that the PM would have to go when umpire raised his figure. The term had been interpreted as an invitation to General Raheel Sharif, the Chief of Army Staff, for overthrowing the government. Earlier, Mr Hashmi, PTI President had also pointed out some similar things which he had perceived during the meetings. Mr Qureshi rejected such notions that PTI wanted Martial Law to be imposed upon the country. He claimed that their movement was based on the principles, i.e. their protest would be democratic, peaceful, non-violent and within the limits set by the constitution. He also reconfirmed the determination of his party of not only condemning the martial law but opposing it as well. Mr Qureshi presented his party as a truly democratic party which not only believed in the system and the constitution but its protest was for strengthening it further. Mr Qureshi intended to impress upon the Parliament that the protest of his party was not against the state but for reforming the electoral system, and his party would oppose any unconstitutional interference.
Acknowledgement and appreciation of the role of the in-group. Table 6 shows that PTI parliamentarians, Mr Qureshi and Mr Hashmi, praised and acknowledged the positive role of some of the parliamentarians which they had played to lessen the political tension. Mr Qureshi praised the positive efforts of “Ameer” (head) Jama'at e Islami, Mr Siraj-ul-Haq, being made for settling the problems. He also appreciated the role of Mir Hasil Khan Bazinjo, a leader of
National Party, for taking pains to resolve the issue. He further said that his party not only accepted Mr Bazingo‟s criticism but valued it as well. Mr Qureshi also acknowledged the role of Benazir Bhutto in his political training (p. 67). Former PM of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, had appointed him (Mr Qureshi) as the Provincial President of the largest province, Punjab of her party. He also thanked PPP and the Parliament for nominating him as a candidate of the prime minister-ship in 2008 (please see chapter 2 for details).
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 113
Mr Hashmi praised and acknowledged the role of the politicians from the past for giving a unanimous constitution of 1973 to the country. He also acknowledged the efforts of Wali
Khan, President of National Awami Party in lessening the tensions. He also thanked his voters for electing him again and again. He congratulated PPP for its leader Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto who gave the first unanimous constitution of Pakistan to the nation which has kept the whole nation united (p. 33).
The results show that PTI parliamentarians, Mr Qureshi and Mr Hashmi, used this discursive practice to show that their party was a democratic party and against any unconstitutional act. They also attempted to present their positive attitude by emphasizing that they acknowledged and the positive and constructive role of other political parties and their leaders. Mr Qureshi also intended to show that the protest of his party was not against the
Parliament and the system but for strengthening the public institutions, e.g. Parliament, Election
Commission of Pakistan, etc. so that real democracy may develop in the country. However, Mr
Hashmi did not highlight the democratic belief of his party in his speech.
Emphasis on in-group positive actions by the MQM parliamentarians
MQM was also one of the opposition party and considered the PTI‟s demands unconstitutional. The MQM parliamentarians also emphasized some of their actions to show that they were the true followers of democracy and against any unconstitutional act.
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 114
Table 7
Emphasizing in-group positive actions by the MQM parliamentarians
Name of the Examples Intended purpose parliamentarian (Emphasis on) Dr Muhammad Ham sattar fisad revenue deny waly log hain. ham Their belief in the Farooq Sattar Pakistan ki wahdaniat ko qaim rakhna chahty hain. supremacy of the Decentralization ky zaree‟y ham Pakistan ko mazboot Parliament ur mutahkam banana chahty hian. Pakistan main ain ki bala dasti ur qanoon ki hukmrani, jamjooriat, ko ham „awam ki dahleez tak ly jana chahty hain [we are the people who give 70% revenue. We want to keep Pakistan united. We want to make Pakistan strong and stable through decentralization. We want supremacy of constitution and rule of law in Pakistan. We want to take democracy to the doorstep of the public] (September 19, 2014, pp. 63-64) Abdul Rasheed …MQM main aisa nahi he kiyounkeh hamari jaib sy Their belief in the Godil aik dhela kharch nahi hota…. party ny aik nizam supremacy of the banaya he keh ghareeboun ky bachoun ko assembly Parliament main bhaijo [this is not the case with MQM. We don‟t spend a penny from our pocket…. party has formulated a system to send the poor people in the assembly] (September 18, 2014, p. 25).
Woh jo is process sy nah guzra ho woh squad ky saath jaaye ga photo session kary ga ur chala jae True public ga hamary MPAs, MNAs, Senators ur kaarkunaan representatives imdad puhnchaany Punjab main lagy huye hain [He who has not gone through the process will go and have a photo session and then leave. Our MPAs, MNAs and Senators are busy in helping in Punjab] (September 18, 2014, p. 26). Babar Khan Ghori Jab bhi wazeer-e-azam ny bulaaya ham gaye. Ham yeh Their belief in the bhi chahty hain keh is k taqaddus ko koi pamaal na supremacy of the kary…. ham poory towr par jamhooriat ky sath hain Parliament [Whenever PM called, we came. We also want that its sanctity should not be violated. We are fully with democracy] (September 8, 2014, p. 17)
Main Baluchistan ky sooby ko kharaj e tehseen pais karta houn keh unhoun ny apny soby main A positive attitude of baldiyati elections karwaye [I appraise the acknowledging and province of Baluchistan for conducting the local appreciating the role bodies elections in their province] (September 8, of others 2014, p. 27).
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 115
Belief in the supremacy of the Parliament and the Constitution. The above table shows that the MQM parliamentarians attempted to present theirs as a democratic party by emphasizing its positive actions. For example, Dr Sattar, the MQM parliamentarian, presenting a positive picture of his party, said that MQM believed in the supremacy of law and wanted to strengthen the country by taking democracy at the doorstep of the people (p. 64). He used the lexicons and phrases to show that his party wanted to keep Pakistan united, strong and stable through the decentralization of the power. This, he argued, was only possible by dividing the country into small administrative units. He said:
“Ham Hazara ky logou ko bhi aik intizaami unit dain gy. Ham saraiki „ilaqa ky log
hain unhian bhi ham dain gy. FATA ky logu ko bhi ham aik sooba bana kar dain gy”
[We will give an administrative unit to the people of Hazara. We belong to Saraiki area;
we will give them as well. We will also give a separate province to the people of FATA]
(p. 66).
In the above example, Dr Sattar intended to present his party as a true representative of the common people that believed in the democratic and parliamentary system of the country and wanted the people to be given their democratic rights. He claimed that after gaining power,
MQM would fulfil the demand of the people of FATA by giving them the status of a separate province. He also announced that his party would set up separate administrative units in North
Punjab and Hazara. The use of the noun phrase “sattar fisad revenue” (70% revenue) was used to emphasize the importance of the role of Karachi in the national economy. He claimed that his party was the true representative of Karachi and was struggling for the political rights of the people living in the largest city and economic hub of the country. The use of phrases
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 116
“wahdaniat ko qaim rakna” (keep it united), “Pakistan ko mazboot ur mutahkam banana”
(make Pakistan strong), “aain ki bala dasti ur qanoon ki hukmraani” (supremacy of the constitution and rule of law) and “jamhooriat ko „awam ki dahleez tak ly jana” (take democracy to the doorsteps of the people) were used to emphasize the positive attitude and thinking of his party, and to show its loyalty to the country. The MQM leader seems intended to extend the scope of his party by representing the areas of Hazara Division and Sraiki belt where people were demanding separate provinces. By using the above-mentioned words, he also intended to show solidarity with those people and his party‟s concerns with the prosperity of the country. In the example given in table 7, provincialism is dominant as MQM has its representation only in Karachi and some other urban areas of the Sindh. The second example shows that he intended to present his party as a representative of the other ethnic groups of the country which are struggling for their political rights. He showed his party‟s concerns for their rights and promised to address their problems after gaining power.
Mr Godil, another MQM parliamentarian, used some words and phrases to emphasize that his party believed in true democracy and the Parliament as a representative of the people.
To emphasize the positivity of his party, he said that his party had established a system which enabled the educated people from the middle class to become a member of assemblies, whereas, in other parties, candidates had to give heavy donations to get parties tickets (p. 25).
He claimed that his party did not demand any donation rather supported its members in elections. He further said that no poor person from other parties could think of contesting the election because he could not afford the expenditures of the elections. He gave evidence that his party was a true representative of the poor and middle class as it was rooted in the public. By saying that “party ny aik nizam banaya he keh ghareeboun ky bachoun ko assembly main
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 117 bhaijo” [the party has devised a system to send the poor in the assembly] (p. 25), Mr Godil intended to show that his party had taken practical steps to support the deserving candidates form the party funds for contesting the elections. He accused other parties of selling their party tickets at a high price and as a result, the candidates after winning the election involve themselves in the corruption to recover the expenditures. He also emphasized that his party bore all the expenditures during the election and had a proper check and balance on its members.
According to him, every member of his party was required to have a close contact with the people and he/she was also required to sit at different seven places of his constituency in a week to have interaction with the people, otherwise, the party would demand explanation, which other parties would not do (p.25). He insisted on introducing the democratic system in other political parties so that true public representatives and educated persons could become members of the Parliament and solve the problems of the people. Praising the check and balance system in his party, he claimed that every member of his party had to declare his assets and justify his source of income; otherwise, he would be expelled from the party. Through these examples, he attempted to present his party as a truly democratic party that had parliamentarians representing the educated middle class. Through this, he also urged other parties to implement democracy in their parties so that the Parliament could represent and defend the interest of people in a true sense.
Mr Ghori, another MQM parliamentarian, also used positive words for his party to show that it was a democratic party and wanted to make the Parliament strong and keep its sanctity.
He also intended to show that his party‟s support for the PM was unconditional and it was just for the sake of democracy and parliamentary system. In the lines 26-29 (p. 16) and 104 (p. 20), he attempted to show that his party believed in the sanctity of the Parliament and was against
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 118 any action which could put it in danger. He said that his party was against any unconstitutional demand that was the reason that it was not supporting PTI and PAT's demand for the PM's resign. He further clarified that his party did not want the PM to resign through any unconstitutional act because he had been elected by the parliamentarians and only the
Parliament had the authority to fire him from the post. He used phrase “taqaddus ko koi pamal”
(violate the sanctity) to show the importance of the Parliament and its decisions. His words
“poory towr par jamhooriat ky sath hain” (are completely supporting democracy) seems to emphasize the sincerity and commitment of his party to democracy.
Acknowledgement and appreciation of the role of the in-group. During the sit-in, a flood had affected the vast areas of the country. Mr Godil appreciated KKF, a welfare foundation run by his own party, MQM, and MPAs (Members of Provincial Assembly), MNAs (Members of
National Assembly) and Senators of his party for rendering valuable services to the flood- affected areas of Punjab. He claimed that some ministers went to these people for just photo session whereas MQM members, being middle-class persons, knew their problems and were busy in helping these people practically (p. 26).
Mr Ghori appreciated former the PMs of PPP for sacrificing their positions for their party and democracy. The sentence “woh jo is process sy nah guzra ho” (he who has not gone through this process) seems to present a positive picture of his party colleagues and show that they, being a member of the middle and lower class, had a complete knowledge of the difficulties of common people (p. 26). He also appreciated the Baluchistan government for conducting local bodies' election in its province (p. 27). MQM had been demanding for the local bodies elections to be conducted in the country to pass the power to the lower level. Baluchistan was the first province of the country which had
Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani parliamentary debates 119 conducted the local bodies election. He acknowledged and appreciated the provincial government for taking the initiative in this connection.
The table shows that all the three MQM members presented their party as the only party which not only believed in the Parliament and the system but had implemented democracy in the party as well. They also presented the parliamentarians of their party as the true representatives of the public claiming that they knew the problems of the people and were helping them practically. They also intended to show that their party was not only itself following democracy but also appreciated and respected others who were practising it.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 102
Figure 4. Emphasizing in-group positive actions
Ideological Square: Emphasizing in-group positive actions
Show belief in the True public supremacy of the, representation Constitution and the Parliament Acknowledgement and Sacrifices for Loyalty to the country Commitment to appreciation of the strengthening Policy of forbearance and and its people democracy positive role of others reconciliation democracy Intended purpose
Mr Sharif (PML-N) Ch Nisar (PML-N) Mr Rafique (PML-N) Mr Ahsan (PPP) Mr Haq (PML-N) Mr Babar (PPP) Mr Ahsan (PPP) Mr Rabbani (PPP) Mr Babar (PPP) Mr Sharif (PML-N) Mr Shah (PPP) Mr Rabbani (PPP) Mr Haq (PML-N) Mr Godil (MQM) Speakers Mr Qureshi (PTI) Mr Babar (PPP) Mr Rabbani (PPP) Mr Shah (PPP) Mr Rafique (PML-N) Mr Rafique (PML-N) Dr Sattar (MQM) Mr Qureshi (PTI) Mr Ahsan (PPP) Mr Godil (MQM) Mr Hashmi (PTI) Mr Babar (PPP) Mr Ghori (MQM) Mr Ghori (MQM)
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 121
The above-given figure of the in-group positive presentation reveals that all of the parliamentarians presented their parties and in-groups as the true followers of democracy who respected the Constitution and the Parliament. In Pakistan, it is often heard that democracy, the
Constitution and the Parliament are in danger and generally politicians are held responsible for this. The parliamentarians, in the selected, attempted to defuse the propaganda of their opponents that they were not true to the Parliament or were playing in the hands of non- democratic forces. They emphasized their positive actions to prove them otherwise. They also presented their small and routine actions as sincerity and loyalty to the country and its institutions. They used such words which reflect that they had adopted the policy of forbearance and reconciliation for the sake of democracy. They also attempted to show that they had made great sacrifices for the sake of democracy. Their speeches reveal that they had struggled for the restoration of democracy and were against any unconstitutional change.
The Islamabad sit-ins were held by the parties, i.e., PTI and PAT, who considered election of 2013 were rigged. PTI leaderships had been accusing PML-N of depriving their party of some seats. They also considered the attitude of ruling party unconstitutional. They were demanding the PM‟s resignation. PAT was against the prevailing political system and wanted to overthrow the government through revolution. PPP and MQM, though part of the opposition, considered the PTI and PAT‟s demands unconstitutional. The figure shows that three of the each PML-N and PPP, one of the PTI and all of the MQM parliamentarians presented their in-groups as the believers in the supremacy of the Constitution and Parliament.
Whereas, two of the parliamentarians each from PML-N and PPP highlighted their policy of forbearance and reconciliation. The PTI and MQM parliamentarians seem ignoring this aspect
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 122 of the positive presentation. The figure also shows that all of the PPP, two of each PTI and
MQM and one of the PML-N parliamentarians emphasized their positive attitude of acknowledging and appreciating the role of other parties and colleagues. The PPP parliamentarians also attempted to highlight their commitment to democracy and the sacrifices they had given for democracy. The analysis shows that all of the parliamentarians were aiming to clear their party positions by highlighting and mentioning their positive actions. Through this, they attempted to win sympathy and support of their colleagues and the general public.
Figure 5 shows that three of the parliamentarians (one from PML-N and two from PTI) did not highlight their parties‟ belief in democracy and sanctity of the Parliament. Mr Haq, the
PML- N parliamentarian and senior leader, mostly focused on emphasizing the policy of forbearance and reconciliation and the positive attitude of his party. When he delivered his speech, it was the time when unity of the Parliament seemed shattering and resulting in the failure of the government. As discussed in chapter II (see Ch. Nisar Ali Khan and Mr Atizaz
Ahsan‟s clash), PPP parliamentarian and leader of the opposition in Senate, Mr Ahsan had threatened the government of withdrawing the support of the Opposition. Being a senior parliamentarian, perhaps, Mr Haq focused on resolving the clash by highlighting the forbearance and positive attitude of his party. He knew if the clash continued, it would be difficult for his party to save its government. The PTI parliamentarians, Mr Hashmi and Mr
Khattak, also did not use this practice in their speeches. Their indifferent attitude may be the reason that they were not happy with their party. Before the session started, almost all of PTI parliamentarians had resigned from the membership of the National Assembly but Mr Khattak had not resigned. He had differences with his leadership on this issue. Perhaps, this may be the reason that he did not attempt to emphasize the positive image of his party. Mr Hashmi also did
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 123 not attempt to emphasize the democratic attitude of the party because he, perhaps, too was not happy with his party. Later on, Mr Hashmi left PTI which adds to the possibility that he purposefully avoided this practice. Only Mr Qureshi defended the policy of PTI and presented it positively.
Emphasizing Out-group Negative Actions
The Pakistani parliamentarians, in their selected speeches, not only presented their in- groups positively but also portrayed the out-groups negatively. The findings show that the parliamentarians focused more on the negative presentation of the out-groups by emphasizing their negative actions than emphasizing the positive actions of their in-groups. The results also reveal that there were two groups among the members; one group, i.e. from the treasury benches, which highlighted the negativity of the PTI and PAT only, while the other group, i.e. from the opposition benches, which not only presented PTI and PAT negatively but also castigated the Punjab and federal governments of PML-N.
Emphasizing Out-group Negative Actions as a Party
The results shows that eight out of the 14 parliamentarians representing PML-N, PPP and
MQM placed PTI and PAT in the out-group and presented them negatively by highlighting their negative actions. In the coming part, negative presentation of the out-group by each party will be discussed.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 124
Emphasis on out-group negative actions by the PML-N parliamentarians
The PML- N parliamentarians presented PTI and PAT negatively by emphasizing their negative actions. They attempted to portray them as the as the enemy of the country who did not want democracy flourish in the country.
Table 8
Emphasizing out-group (as a party) negative actions by the PML-N parliamentarians
Name of the Examples Intended purpose parliamentarian (emphasize on) Ch. Nisar Ali Yeh Pakistan ki khilaf baghawat he [this is a revolt Protest as a revolt and Khan against the state] (September 2, 2014, p. 10) conspiracy against the state
Woh trained dehshat gard hain uwr aik „askari jama‟at sy aaye hain [they are trained terrorists Protestors as and belong to a militant group] (September 2, terrorists 2014, p. 12) Khawaja Saad Yeh 73 ky muttafiqa aain ky upar attack kiya giya Protest as an attack Rafique he [this is an attack on the unanimously passed on the Parliament and Constitution of 1973] (September 10, 2014, p. 29) Constitution
Aap ny Pakistan main byhayai ky culture ko Participation of male farough diya he [you have promoted the culture of and female vulgarity in Pakistan] (September 10, 2014, p. 34). participants as a promotion of vulgarity
An attack on the parliament and constitution. The PML-N parliamentarian, Mr
Rafique, called the protest an attack on the parliament. He also declared that the protest was an attack on the unanimously approved Constitution of Pakistan (p. 29). He held PTI and PAT responsible for attacking the Parliament and inciting the people for taking law in their hands (p.
28) (for details please see chapter II). He used different synonyms, e.g. hamla, dhawa, charai,
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 125 attack and assault sixteen times (pp. 25, 28, 29, 34) in his speech, Mr Rafique interpreted Imran
Khan's statement “umpire ki ungli khari khari ho gi” [The Umpire will raise his fingure] (p. 27) as an attempt to seek the help of the army establishment for upsetting the prevailing political system.
A revolt and conspiracy against the state. The two PML-N parliamentarians, Ch. Nisar and Mr Rafique called the protest a revolt against the country and conspiracy against the system. Ch. Nisar called the protest a revolt against the country and its institutions. He used the word “baghawat” (revolt) seven times (pp. 10, 13-14) in his speech. He referred to the attack of the protestors on the PTV building and stealing of the eight PTV cameras, misbehaving with a lady broadcaster and snatching her purse; beating the old beard-people and taking away the loudspeakers and prayer mats from the mosque (please see chapter II for details). Through telling this to the parliamentarians, he intended to show that PTI and PAT protest was an effort to destabilize the country. Mr Rafique also declared the protest a conspiracy against the state and its system. He claimed that Mr Khan and Dr Qadri aimed at pushing Pakistan back into the politics of the 1990s (p. 27) as the period of 1990s might be called a politically dark period because it had caused a great loss to the system (please see the in-group positive actions by the
PPP parliamentarians).
As an entertaining circus. Ch. Nisar and Mr Rafique attempted to de-emphasize the protest by naming it an entertaining circus. They called the PAT's sit-in and slogan for revolution a shallow one and just entertainment for the public. Comparing the protest with a circus, Ch. Nisar and Mr Rafique called Mr Khan and Dr Qadri non-serious politicians who had no agenda except entertaining the public. They called the protest a circus, which was meant to
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 126 provide some recreation and entertainment to the public. Ch. Nisar said that during the tenure of
PPP government in 2012, Dr Qadri (though without naming) also held a sit-in in Islamabad but backed out his promise and made fun of the whole system. Without naming him, he said that during the tenure of PPP, a person had come there after making promises and giving his commitments and encamped in Islamabad (pp. 7-8). Ch. Nisar (p. 8) used an idiomatic expression “tamasha laga na” (conduct a public show) and other words, e.g. “public show” and “circus” for the sit-in. Mr Rafique accused Mr Khan and Dr Qadri of having a public show at the nerve of Pakistan and cutting it off from the rest of the country which had earned humiliation (p. 22) for the country throughout the world. He also called these leaders irresponsible persons (p. 24). He considered the protest and sit-in unconstitutional because the protestors were ready to adopt every illegal means to upset the government.
Promotion of the culture of vulgarity and abusive language. PTI was accused of promoting the culture of vulgarity and using an abusive language by one of the PML-N parliamentarian, Mr Rafique. He accused PTI of promoting the culture of vulgarity. He considered the participation of young girls with makeup and singing and dancing in the PTI meetings an act of encouraging and promoting vulgarity in the country (p. 35). Mr Rafique also accused Mr Khan of using abusive language. He said that Mr Khan had declared all the parliamentarians corrupt, murderers and terrorists and abused them all despite the fact that there were many honest persons belonging to all political parties (p. 34).
As trained terrorists. Ch. Nisar called the PAT workers the trained terrorists who belonged to some militant groups as they were armed with axes, poles, catapults, etc. (p. 12).
He accused that both parties, i.e. PTI and PAT had gathered in Islamabad with the same agenda.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 127
The above analysis shows that only two of the PML-N parliamentarians used the practice of highlighting the PTI and PAT negative actions to present them negatively. They declared their protest as an attack on the public institutions and revolt against the state. Ch.
Nisar presented the protest as a revolt and conspiracy against the state whereas; Mr Rafique presented the protest as an attack on the public institutions. He also declared the participation of young women and men in the public meetings and processions as an act of the promotion of vulgarity. Mr Sharif and Mr Haq did not use this practice.
Emphasis on the out-group negative actions by the PPP parliamentarians
PPP considered the demands of the protestors unconstitutional and was against any unconstitutional change. Its parliamentarians not only emphasized the negative actions of the protestors but also presented the PML- N government negatively.
Table 9
Emphasizing out-group (as a party) negative actions by the PPP parliamentarians
Name of the Examples Intended purpose parliamentarian (emphasize on)
Ch. Aitzaz Ahsan Agar aaj …. yalghar uwr lashkar kamyab ho giya Protest as an attack [if…invasion and attack succeeds today] on the Parliament and (September 2, 2014, p. 19) Constitution
Jo Model Town main aap ny kiya … [what you did Show ruthlessness of in Model Town…] (September 2, 2014, p. 20) Punjab Government
Farhat Ullah Yeh…. Pakistan ky idarown ky khilaf aik jang he Protest as a war Babar [this … is a war against the institutions of between the political Pakistan] (September 8, 2014, p. 56) forces and non- political Parliman par yalghar ho rahi he [parliamentarians are being raided/attacked] (September 8, 2014, p. Protest as an attack on the Parliament and
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 128
56) Constitution
Aik fazil wazeer sahib ny … kaha keh woh apna Criticism of ministers thoka huwa chat rahye hain [one respectable as an irresponsible minister ….said that he was licking his own spit] attitude (September 8, 2014, p. 43)
Mian Raza Khuda ki qasam ham is jang main compromise Protest as a war Rabbani karny ko tayyar nahi hain. Kiyounkeh ham between the political samajhty hain keh yeh jang Pakistan ky baqa ki forces and non- jang he. Yeh jang Pakistan ky waqfaq ki jang he political [By God, we are not ready to compromise in this war because we believe that this war is for the survival of Pakistan. This war is for the Federation of Pakistan] (September 4, 2014, p. 37)
Aap kehty hain keh is poory system ko…. dismantle kar diya jaye [you announce to dismantle this Protest as an attack whole system] (September 4, 2014, p. 40) on the Parliament and the Constitution Jab aap parliman ko isolate kar dain gy, jab aap A non-democratic parliman ko bewuq‟at kar dain gy, jab aap khud Senate attitude of the ur Qowmi Assembly main tashreef nahi laain gy, jan aap ky wozara Senate main nahi aain gy... [when you government will isolate parliamentarians, when you will devalue Parliament, when you yourself will not come to Senate and National Assembly, when your minister will not come to Parliament…?] (September 4, 2014, p. 36) Syed Khursheed Yeh Parliament hi un sy jang kary [this Parliament Protest as a war Ahmed Shah should fight this war against them…] (September between the political 5, 2014, p. 99) forces and non- political
A war between political and non-political forces. The PPP parliamentarians, similar to the PML-N parliamentarians, declared the PTI and PAT protest against the government a war between the political and non-political forces. Mr Rabbani declared the protest a war against the country, and the unity of the political parties in the Parliament a struggle for the survival of the country (p. 42). He repeated the word “jang” (war) 17 times (pp. 35, 37 & 47) in his speech.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 129
Mr Rabbani revised his party's commitment of not compromising on its principles because he feared that failure of the Parliament would affect the solidarity of the country. Mr Babar also called the protest war and used the word “jang” (war) seven times (pp. 47, 56, & 58) in his speech. Mr Shah used this word twice (p. 99) in his speech. The frequency of the word “jang”
(war) used by the PPP parliamentarians indicates the severity of the case. Both of the parliamentarians used this word to emphasize the negativity of the protest. They also considered the protest a part of an ongoing war between the democratic and non-democratic forces which had not allowed democracy to flourish in the country.
An attack on the parliament and constitution. The PPP parliamentarians, Mr Rabbani,
Mr Ahsan and Mr Babar, presented the protest an attack on the Parliament, the constitution and public institutions. Mr Ahsan accused PTI and PAT of paying the way for the third party, i.e. military establishment. He also interpreted Mr Khan's statement of raising the umpire's finger
(pp. 23 & 27) and Dr Qadri's ultimatums and extensions of deadlines as the indications of waiting for some external support, perhaps from the Chief of Army Staff. For example, Mr
Ahsan said that they were waiting for "Yes" or "No" that was the reason that they were extending the time of ultimatum (p. 28). Here, he meant yes a green signal from the army chief.
Mr Ahsan also called the demand of the PM‟s resignation by Mr Khan, Dr Qadri and their followers an illegal and illogical on two reasons. First, he considered Mr Khan's demand of dissolving assemblies unreasonable because the provincial governments in Pakistan were not under the control of PML-N. In KPK, PTI had its Chief Minister and even if Mr Khan succeeded in getting a resignation from him, he would not be able to get resignations from the
Chief Ministers of Sindh and Baluchistan. Secondly, constitutionally, the PM could be removed from his designation through No Confidence Movement (NCM) but PTI did not have the
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 130 required number of members in the National Assembly for that movement and PAT had no representation in the assembly. Therefore, he considered the PTI and PAT's demand unconstitutional. He also considered the demand of a resignation forcefully from the elected
PM an unconstitutional and its success as an unprecedented example for the future. Mr Ahsan used words synonyms “yalgahar” and “attack” (p. 19), “lashkari” (p. 21) twice each in his speech and declared the protest an attack on the Parliament (p. 27). Mr Rabbani called the protest and sit-in an attack on the Constitution of 1973. It was the only constitution made as a result of the joint efforts of political parties. All the parties in the Parliament unanimously considered the constitution a symbol of unity of the country. He presented the voices from the protestors against the constitution an attack on the solidarity of the country. He used the word
“hamla” (attack) thrice (pp. 35 & 44) in his speech. Mr Babar also called the protest a raid on the Parliament (p. 56) which was meant to wrap up the prevailing system.
A revolt and conspiracy against the state. The PPP parliamentarians also presented the protest a revolt against the country and the system. For example, Mr Rabbani considered the statement of the PAT leadership of dismantling the whole system a direct threat to the country
(p. 40) and the system. Without naming, Mr Qardi, he said that there was another person who was not eligible to become a member of the Parliament because he had taken an oath to be loyal to the British Queen (p. 42) and had not accepted this constitution, law and the Parliament (p.
43), and was threatening to upset the whole system. Mr Shah presented PAT as a non-political party which aimed at something else because it did not accept democracy, the constitution and the Parliament. He said that due to this reason, his party opposed allowing PAT to come in
Islamabad for the protest. Mr Rabbani and Mr Shah considered PAT a non-democratic party, therefore; they did not consider their protest constitutional but a revolt against the state.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 131
A shallow claim. Mr Ahsan declared the slogan of “inqilab” (revolution) by the PAT chief an untimely demand because he considered that the conditions were not favourable for the revolution. He also considered it a shallow slogan because the real revolution needed the active participation of the general public (p. 26). Whereas, in the present case, chaos and restlessness among the masses and institutions were apparently missing and they were taking the sit-in as a recreation. Comparing the protest with a circus, Mr Ahsan called Mr Khan and Dr Qadri non- serious politicians who had no agenda except entertaining the public. He called the “dharna” a part-time sit-in where people gathered in the evening for recreation and amusement and disappeared in the day (p. 25).
The Negative portrayal of the PML-N provincial and federal governments
The PPP parliamentarians not only presented the protesting parties negatively but also expressed their feelings against the attitude of the federal and Punjab governments and the ministers openly. They held them responsible for the prevailing political situation. For example,
Mr Ahsan held the Punjab provincial government responsible for the Model Town incident and said that the brutality of the Punjab government in Model Town resulted in the bloodshed (p.
20). He rejected the PM's claim that the incident was in a response to the resistance shown by the followers of Dr Qadri when police wanted to remove hurdles put on the road. He said that the government went to remove eight small hurdles from Model Town but, due to its negative attitude, it had to put 800 hurdles in the whole Punjab (p. 20). Mr Ahsan also declared that ministers in the cabinet of Mr Sharif egotist. He feared that the success of the government in the crisis would make the ministers more arrogant. Mr Ahsan said that the PML-N‟s ministers did not consider themselves answerable to anyone as if membership of the assembly was their
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 132 legacy. He feared that after coming out of the crisis successfully, the minister of the PML-N government would become prouder and more arrogant. He used the phrase “ra'oniat ur takabbur” (pride and arrogance) to reflect the attitude of the ministers. He also considered that the reason behind the self-conceited attitude of the ministers was their belief that they would be elected again without any difficulty. Commenting on the attitudes of the ministers, Mr Ahsan
(p. 23) said that “Punjab ky wozara mian jo samajhty hain keh ham ny tu Punjab sy muntakhib ho hi jaana he?” (Do the Ministers from Punjab think that they are sure to be elected from
Punjab?). He believed that this indifferent attitude of the ministers was the reason of the prevailing crisis. Mr Ahsan further felt that PAT and PTI had some genuine issues and had the government brought them into consideration, the current crisis could have been avoided. He complained that the provincial government had treated PPP workers badly. He also claimed that the PML-N government had closed their shops, cancelled their contracts, and fired PPP worker from their jobs (p. 19). He also declared Chief Minister Punjab's claim of being unaware of the
Model Town incident as a lame excuse and an act of irresponsibility and negligence from his duties because the clash between the police and PAT workers continued for eight hours and it was being telecasted live on the televisions (p. 20) as well.
Mr Babar, the PPP parliamentarian, believed that the government's incapability of decision making had brought the situation at that stage because either the government had not taken timely decisions or had violated its own decisions (p. 41). He presented the federal government as arrogant for not taking the parliamentarians on board and held it responsible for the current situation. He referred to the PM's decision of Musharraf's trial under Article 6 (p.
51) and claimed that Mr Sharif wanted to take the credit himself that was the reason he had not bothered to take the Parliament in confidence (Mr Musharraf, as an army chief, overthrew the
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 133
PML-N‟s elected government, suspended the constitution and imposed martial law and emergency in the country in 1999 which later on was declared by the Supreme Court as the abuse of his authority. According to the constitution of Pakistan, this act comes under the treason and government was required to lodge a case of treason against Mr Musharraf). Mr
Babar further said if Mr Sharif had brought the issue before the Parliament, the opposition would have supported him in handling the situation but the arrogance and desire of taking the credit had restrained Mr Sharif from doing so. He also considered that delayed decisions of the government and its arrogance provided the opportunity to PAT and PTI for sit-in (p. 46). Mr
Babar‟s criticism on the negative attitude of some of the ministers on the arrival of Mr Qureshi in the assembly (p. 43) and declaring this attitude an act of obstinacy and proudness (p. 43) is the negative presentation of the PML-N government.
Mr Rabbani, on one side, called the “dharna” (sit-in) a conspiracy (p. 36) against democracy and, on another side, claimed that it was the result of the PM and his ministers' indifferent attitude with the parliamentarians who had elected him as their PM. He held the federal government responsible for the prevailing situation. He said that PM, Mr Sharif and his ministers did not take the Parliament seriously and did not consider themselves answerable to the Parliament. The use of different phrases, e.g. “parliman ko isolate karna” (isolate the
Parliament) and “parliman ko bywuq‟at karna” (devalue the Parliament) by Mr Rabbani seem to highlight the negative attitude of the ruling party and its negligence from the responsibilities
(p. 36).
The frequency and intensity of the negative words used by the PPP parliamentarians against the protestors indicate that they were more severe in emphasizing negative actions of
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 134 the out-groups than that of the treasury benches. They declared PTI and PAT protest an illegal, unconstitutional and harmful activity for the parliamentary system. Mr Rabbani, Mr Babar and
Mr Ahsan called PTI & PAT protest a war against the state and an attack on the parliament and the constitution. Mr Ahsan and Mr Babar declared the protest an illegal and unconstitutional act. Mr Rabbani and Mr Shah declared the protest a revolt against the state. Mr Ahsan also presented the PTI and PAT leaders as liars who were befooling the public and inviting the third party‟s intervene. The PPP parliamentarians seem to agree with the PML-N parliamentarians that PTI & PAT protest was illegal and unconstitutional. Both considered it as an attack on the
Parliament and the system and a revolt against the state. They also considered the protest as an effort of paving a way for the third party or non-political forces.
The PPP parliamentarians presented the PML-N government egotist which dared not pay attention to the demands of PTI and PAT. They used the word “ra'oniat ur takabbur” (egoist and arrogant) to present the indifferent attitude of the federal government and its ministers. They held the government responsible for the prevailing situation. They also used “parliman ko isolate karna” (isolate the Parliament) and “parliman ko bywuq'at karna” (devalue the Parliament) to emphasize the undemocratic attitude of the government.
Emphasis on the out-group negative actions by the PTI parliamentarians
PTI was protesting against the government and demanding the PM‟s resignation. Its parliamentarians presented the government negatively by highlighting it‟s the negative actions.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 135
Table 10
Emphasizing out-group (as a party) negative actions by the PTI parliamentarians
Name of the Examples Intended purpose parliamentarian (emphasize on) Makhdoom Shah Main ny Model Town ko hasar main daikha ur jo An act of Punjab Mehmood Qureshi containers sirf containers rakhy nahi gaye thy, yahan Government as tu rakhy gaye hain whan tu lowhy ky sath un ko cruelty and electric polls ky sath weld kiya giya tha. Yeh kaifiyat ruthlessness main ny daikhy, hazaroun khawaeen thain, khana band kiya giya, Jo khaana likar aata tha bahar jaata tha gariftaar ho jata tha… paani khana adwiyaat band kar di gai [I saw that Model Town was sieged. Here (in Islamabad) containers have been placed but they were wielded with electric polls in Model Town. I saw that there were thousands of women, food was blocked. whosoever came with food or went out was arrested, water, food and medicines were blocked] (September 3, 2014, p. 51)
Khowf ka mahol paida kiya giya, containroun sy Islamabad Ghaza ban giya, hazaroun ki ta‟dad The Irresponsible main police ki nafri, FC kiya kuch nahi tha. [An behaviour of Federal atmosphere of fear was created. Islamabad was Government turned into Ghaza. There were police in thousands, FC (frontier constabulary) was there and what was not there ...] (September 3, 2014, p. 46) Non-democratic hamara mandate churaya giya. Hamari haq talfi attitude of PML-N huwi [our mandate was stolen. We were deprived government of our right] (September 3, 2014, p. 42). PAT as a violator of Khudara! Yeh nah karain…. main in ko nahi rok the law sakta, yeh un ky alfaz hain [for God sake! Do not do this…I cannot stop them, these were his words] (September 3, 2014, p. 47) PML-N governments: hamara mandate churaya giya. Hamari haq talfi a result of rigged huwi [our mandate was stolen. We were deprived elections of our right] (September 3, 2014, p. 42).
Makhdoom Chowda afrad ki lashain pari houn, assi logown Cruelty and Muhamma ko gowliyan lagi houn. [14 persons have been ruthlessness of d Javed shot dead, 80 have been injured...] (September 2,
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 136
Hashmi 2014, p. 72) Punjab Government Is ko girana he, crane ky sath is ko utha kar bahar phaninkna he [... end this (government), throw it away with the crane] (September 2, PAT as a non- 2014, p. 69) democratic party In crisis main bhi aik wazeer aata he tu woh Lack of unity among doosry ky sath hath nahi milata [under such crisis the ministers one minister does not shake hand with the other]
(September 2, 2014, p. 70)
The table given above shows that PTI parliamentarians, on one hand, presented the
PML- N‟s federal and provincial governments negatively and held them responsible for their protest and on the other hand, they portrayed PML-N as a non-democratic party which did not obey the constitution of Pakistan.
The Negative portrayal of the PML-N's provincial and federal governments
The two PTI parliamentarians used the practice for a negative portrayal of the PML-N governments. Both Mr Qureshi and Mr Hashmi presented the federal and Punjab governments negatively and held them responsible for the protest. Mr Hashmi attempted to expose the differences between the ministers as well. Mr Qureshi held the Punjab government directly responsible for the Model Town incident and accused it of killing PAT workers.
Mr Qureshi presented the PAT workers as innocent and helpless and the Punjab government as a cruel and inhuman which had deprived the workers even of their basic needs e.g. food and medicines by blocking the entrances to the place where PAT workers had gathered (p. 51). He portrayed the incident of Model Town which resulted in the numerous causalities and injuries pathetically. He said, they were shot and I saw them in the hospital, not just 14 deaths, 83 close to 90 people, bullets wound on the upper portion of the body (p. 49). He
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 137 said these words to present the Punjab government ruthless and cruel which had killed and wounded the innocent people. He also used phrases, e.g. “khoon ki nadyaan/lahu lahaan/ khoon ki holi khailna” [blood bathing] (pp. 40, 52 & 61), “khoon kharaaba” (bloodshed],
“maqtoleen/ laashain” [who were killed/ dead bodies] (pp. 49, 52 & 61) and “mazlomeen”
[victim of cruelty] (p. 49) for the PAT workers for the negative portrayal of the PML-N government. Mr Qureshi blamed the government for using delaying tactics in registering FIR according to the application submitted by Dr Qadri. Failing to get their FIR registered, he was forced to protest against the government. His claim that “kiyounkeh Punjab hakoomat leet o la'l sy kaam ly rahi thi” [because Punjab government was using delaying tactics] (p. 45) seems to prove the PML-N government guilty and PAT innocent.
Mr Qureshi also presented Chief Minister of Punjab and his government negatively by accusing him of arresting thousands of PTI workers and putting them behind the bars. He also blamed that, on the orders of Chief Minister of Punjab, DCOs (District Commissioner Officers) and DPOs (District Police Officers) were arresting, locking up and threatening the people. Mr
Hashmi also blamed the Chief Minister for Modal Town incident and rejected his claim that he was unaware of the incident. He accused him of neglecting his duties and said that CM House was in Model Town and he could not see his ministers and look after the city (p. 73). He also accused the Chief Minister of not taking any action against the responsible persons and said that
14 persons were killed and he had not taken any notice of it (p. 73). As mentioned in the previous lines, Mr Hashmi blamed that the PML-N government, during the last thirty-one years of its governments, had increased the problems of the people instead of solving them (p. 71). He further accused all PMs including Mr Sharif of ignoring the Parliament altogether which had elected them (p. 71). He considered that PMs did not take the Parliament seriously which was
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 138 weakening democracy. He warned Mr Sharif if he kept on ignoring the assembly, he would have to face consequences as well (p. 73).
Mr Qureshi, on one hand, denied that his party leadership was involved in the attack on the Parliament and PTV buildings. On the other hand, he held the federal government responsible for inciting the people to enter into the Parliament building. He claimed that, due to the firing and teargasing, people had to take refuge somewhere. Therefore, they entered into the premises of the Parliament. He was of the view when police were batting, firing and teargasing them from three sides, and the protestors had no other option except taking refuge in the buildings. His claim that they had come in Islamabad with hope but were welcomed with teargasing and bloodshed was also attempt to present the government negatively. His accusation on Islamabad Police of blood bathing, batting and smearing roads with blood (p. 62) also seems to emphasize the negative attitude of the federal government.
Mr Qureshi presented the federal government negatively and accused it of creating an atmosphere of fear and blocking the capital with containers to fail the PTI and PAT sit-in. He compared the condition of Islamabad with Gaza (coastal area of Palestine) under the control of
Israeli forces. By comparing the situation of Islamabad with that of Gaza, he intended to emphasize the cruelty of the federal government and show that no law was being observed and sanctity of the human life was violated openly (p. 46).
Mr Hashmi, similar to his colleague, also held Mr Sharif and his party responsible for not delivering satisfactory results and said that Mr Sharif had been in power for the last thirty years, yet things had not improved. Before joining PTI, Mr Hashmi was a part of PML-N. He blamed Mr Sharif‟s government for being unjust with him. He also blamed the government for
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 139 ignoring the people of FATA – the Federal Administrated Tribal Areas in the Northern part of
Pakistan (p. 71). During the Waziristan operation (Pak army had started operation against the terrorists hidden in the Northern areas), people of Northern areas were forced to leave their homes and took shelter in camps. He accused the government of not paying proper attention to them and fulfilling their basic needs. He also blamed the government for not conducting a census in the country because the policies were being based on the estimated population (p. 70).
Pointing to the strained relations between the two leaders and ministers of PML-N (p. 70), he declared it a failure of PML-N leadership because the government needed a unity to overcome the crisis.
Mr Qureshi accused, though indirectly, Election Commission of Pakistan and PML-N of stealing PTI mandate and claimed that his party was purposefully deprived of some seats in
Punjab in the general election 2013 (p. 42). He referred to the white paper published by PTI about thirteen constituencies in which they had presented the facts and figures to the nation with specific details (p. 43).
PAT as a non-democratic party
Although PTI and PAT had jointly held sit-ins in Islamabad, though apparently with different demands yet both the parties had advanced towards the Parliament jointly. However,
Mr Qureshi seems taking separate directions when he tried to present PAT leadership negatively, though indirectly, by holding it responsible for violating the law and occupying the public buildings, i.e. PTV house and Parliament lawn. Without naming PAT or its leadership, Mr
Qureshi tried to convince the parliamentarians that PTI and its leadership had tried their best to refrain PAT leadership from proceeding towards the buildings. He tried to impress upon the
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 140 parliamentarians that attacking the buildings was the plan of PAT only and PTI was not its part.
He said that on coming to know about PAT's plan of proceeding towards the buildings and taking hold of them (p. 45), on the orders of Mr Khan, he personally went to PAT leadership and implored him to revise their decision. According to him, PTI considered that by doing that, they would lose the battle which Mr Qureshi considered they had already won (p. 47).
Mr Hashmi also presented PAT negatively and tried to describe the difference between the approach/thinking of PTI and PAT. According to him, PTI was a democratic party and believed in the parliamentary system whereas PAT wanted to disrupt the whole system. He said that Dr Qadri just aimed to end the government and threw it away with a crane (p. 69), i.e. with force.
The above analysis shows that PTI parliamentarians presented the PML-N‟s federal and provincial governments and PAT negatively. They used specific lexicons to emphasize the negative actions of the governments. The PTI parliamentarians, especially Mr Qureshi used the words, “hazaroun khawaeen” (thousands of women), “khana band karna” (ban the food),
“pani, khana” and adwiyat band karna” (ban water, food, medicines) to emphasize the negative and inhuman treatment of the Punjab government with the PAT workers at Model
Town, Lahore. He also claimed that the Punjab government had deliberately killed the PAT workers. He used the words “shot, 14 deaths, bullets wounds, the upper portion of the body” to emphasize his arguments. The use of words, e.g. “khoon kharaaba” (blood bathing), maqtoleen/ laashain (dead bodies), mazlomeen” (the people who were treated cruelly) was also meant to present the government cruel, inhuman and ruthless. Mr Qureshi compared the situation of Islamabad with Gaza to emphasize the atmosphere of fear and inhuman treatment.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 141
He used the word “mandate churana” (steal the mandate) to present his party as a victim of injustice and support the decision of protest. The PTI parliamentarians did not spare their co- protesting party, PAT and declared its attitude non-democratic which wanted to take law in their hands and implement their decisions forcefully.
Emphasis on the out-group negative actions by the MQM parliamentarians
The MQM parliamentarians did not emphasize actions of any group to present it negatively, however, they held PML-N government responsible for the prevailing political crisis.
Table 11 Emphasizing out-group (as a party) negative actions by the MQM parliamentarians Name of the Examples Intended purpose parliamentarian (Emphasis on)
Abdul Rasheed FIR daraj nahi huwi. FIR daraj nah howny ki PML-N government Godil waja sy woh ghar sy nikalna shuro ho gaye. as an obstinate Whan sy yahan tak aagaye, Red Zone sy yahan tak aagaye. Sirf woh hatdharmi, main nah manna… [FIR was not registered. In failing to get the FIR registered, they started coming out of their homes. They arrived here. They came from Red Zone to the Parliament. That was the result of obstinacy and not accommodating others…] (September 18, 2014, p. 21)
ML-N as an obstinate government. One of the MQM parliamentarians, Mr Godil, held the Punjab government responsible for allowing PAT to come in Islamabad. He was of the opinion if the Punjab government had registered FIR as per the demand of PAT, it would not have come there (p. 21). He declared the act of not registering FIR and coming of the protestors from Red Zone to the Parliament as a result of obstinacy (p. 21) of the government.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 142
Figure 5. Ideological Square Emphasizing out-group negative actions (as a group/party).
Ideological Square: Emphasizing out-group negative actions (as a party/group)
Show the PML-N Show the protest as a Show that PTI Show the the rotest Show that PML-N goernments as an revolt and conspiracy Show PAT as a was promoting Show that there present as a war between the Governmnet was a obstinate, ruthless and against the state and non-democratic the culture of were differences protestors as political forces and result of rigging in iresponsible attack on the party vulgarity among the ministers terrorists non-political the election parliament
Ch Nisar (PML-N) Mr Rabbani Mr Qureshi Mr Rafique (PML- (PPP) (PTI) Mr Rafique Mr Qureshi Mr Hashmi N) (PTI) Ch Nisar Mr Rabbani (PPP) Mr Shah Mr Hashmi (PML-N) (PTI) (PML-N) Mr AHsan (PPP) Mr Ahsan (PPP) (PPP) (PTI) Mr Qureshi (PTI) Mr Babar (PPP) Mr Hashmi (PTI) Mr Rabbani (PPP) Mr Godil (MQM)
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 143
Almost all of the PML-N, PPP and MQM parliamentarians considered the PTI and PAT protest as illegal and unconstitutional. The figure shows that all of the PPP and two of the PML-
N parliamentarians seem more severe in the negative presentation of the out-group. They presented the protest as a war and conspiracy against the state and its institutions. They called the protestors; especially PAT workers trained terrorists who belonged to some militant groups.
The protestors were also presented as the agents of some non-democratic forces who were paving way for some unconstitutional changes. They considered the protest an effort of weakening democracy on the behalf of the non-democratic forces which had not allowed democracy to flourish in Pakistan. The free mixing of male and female workers and their dancing was called an act of vulgarity. The leaders of both PTI and PAT were presented as non- serious politicians. Especially, the use of words, for example, “war”, “attack”, “conspiracy”,
“revolt”, etc. for the protest was meant to emphasize its negative effects and show that the protest was against the state and its institutions. The PML-N and PPP parliamentarians used the words, e.g. “trained”, “terrorists”, “militant groups”, etc. for the protestors for portraying them as the enemy of the state who wanted to spread terror in the country and promote lawlessness.
The word “vulgarity” was used to emphasize the immoral and non-Islamic values promoted by
PTI. The use of the word “circus” for the protest by PML-N and PPP parliamentarians was used to de-emphasize the purpose and seriousness of the protest.
Figure 5 shows that the two senior PML-N parliamentarians, i.e. Mr Sharif and Mr Haq did not present PTI and PAT negatively. Though the protest was against the PML-N government with the aim to get resign from the PM, Mr Sharif, yet he avoided the negative presentation of the opponents and even PML-N Chairman, Mr Haq, did not do this practice
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 144 against the protestors and their leaders. Perhaps, Mr Sharif and Mr Haq‟a reconciling and non- aggressive attitude might be the result of the pressure of protestors or position of the government. It may be interpreted as a tactic of winning the sympathies and support of parliamentarians as well as the public. Their act may also be interpreted as an exhibition of their sense of maturity and responsibility.
However, all of the four PPP parliamentarians seem aggressive in portraying the protestors negatively because they had nothing to lose. The MQM parliamentarians considered the protest unconstitutional. However, one of its parliamentarians criticized the government and called the protest a result of the obstinacy of the PML-N governments. Based on the analysis, it may be assumed that external/internal pressure or fear of losing one‟s position may affect the selection of linguistic choices. Thus, it may be concluded that the discursive practice of emphasizing the out-group negative actions may be mediated by the political situation or position.
Generally, it is observed that politicians divide themselves into two groups, i.e. in- groups and out-groups. They present in-group positively by emphasizing their positive things and de- emphasizing their negative things and opposite with the out-groups. The analysis of the parliamentary speeches of Pakistani parliamentarians reveals that they had not categorically divided themselves into two groups rather more than two groups. The PPP, MQM and PTI parliamentarians played a dual role. The PPP and MQM parliamentarians, on one hand, as in- group, they assured the government of their support and on the other hand, as out-group, they presented it negatively. Similarly, they presented PTI and PAT negatively but also claimed that
PTI and PAT were forced to protest ad the government was not fulfilling their demands.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 145
However, there is a clear demarcation between the parliamentarians of PML-N and PTI because they placed each other in the out-group and presented negatively. Thus, it may be concluded that politicians do not always divide them into two camps. This division may be based on the political situation or political interests of the politicians.
Negative Portrayal of the Individual Politicians
Along with presenting the protesting parties negatively, the parliamentarians portrayed a negative picture of the leaders of these parties as well. The following analysis will focus on the negative portrayal of individual politicians, i.e. Mr Khan and Dr Qadri by the PML-N, PPP and
PTI parliamentarians.
The negative portrayal of Mr Khan by the PML-N parliamentarians
The PML-N parliamentarians not only presented PTI negatively but also portrayed its head, Mr Khan negatively.
Table 12
Emphasizing out-group (individual) negative actions by the PML-N parliamentarians
Name of the Examples Intended purpose parliamentarian (emphasize on) Ch. Nisar Ali Downing Street, Scandinavian Countries, West ki Act of Lying Khan jamhooriat he us ka hawala dy kar logu ko bywaqoof banaty hain [...he befools the public by referring to Downing Street, Scandinavian
Countries and western democracy] (September 2, 2014, pp. 2-17, lines 45-46) Teen maheenown main aap ny 360 degree ka turn Action of liya (in three months, you took a turn of 360 inconsistency degrees) Khawaja Saad Pakistan main jamhoori ur aaini jidujohad karny An action of
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 146
Rafique walu ko gaaliyoun sy nawaaza jar aha he. Nafrat criticizing as a ki aik aisi lahr phailaai gai he jis ny is aiwaan sy spreading hatred related siyaasi jamaa‟toun ky kaarkunoun ur qaa‟ideen ki zindgiyaan khatry main daal di gai hain [those who have made democratic and constitutional struggle in Pakistan are being abused. A wave of hatred has been spread because of which the lives of the members of the political parties and their leaders related to this Parliament have been put at a risk] (September 10, 2014, p. 21).
Mr Khan as a Liar and hatred monger. The PML-N parliamentarian, Ch. Nisar accused Mr Khan of telling a lie and befooling the public by referring to western democracy.
Earlier, Mr Khan had criticized the government for teargasing and batting the protestors by saying that protest was the right of people. He had given examples of Ten Downing Street and western countries where people are allowed to protest without any hindrances. Referring to his statement, Ch. Nisar said that Mr Khan was befooling the public because no protest was allowed in the western counties when protestors were armed with clubs, catapults, hammers, etc. (p. 5). Mr Rafique accused Mr Khan of distributing hatred through his language and, as a result, the lives of the parliamentarians had been put in danger (p. 23). He presented Mr Khan's speeches against the politicians as an act of hatred-mongering among the people (p. 21). He used an idiomatic phrase “nafrat ky beej bona” (sow the seeds of hatred) for highlighting the negative effects of Mr Khan‟s speeches on the parliamentarians.
Mr Khan as an inconsistent and immature politician. Ch. Nisar also presented Mr
Khan as an inconsistent politician. He said that Mr Khan had a meeting with the PM at his house and announced to support him. After a few months, he had changed his stance and started protesting against him and demanding his resignation (p. 4). He used the phrase “teen sow sath degree ka turn” (a turn of 360 degrees) to emphasize the inconsistency of Mr Khan. Though the
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 147 use of this phrase, he intended to show that Mr Khan was not a reliable politician because he did not stick to his words and kept on changing his decisions.
Mr Rafique also presented Mr Khan as an immature political leader who did not know how to contest an election (p. 25). He was of the view that Mr Khan‟s immaturity was causing irreparable loss to the country, and the whole nation had to face the consequences as well. He also said that being unaware of the tactics of contesting the election, Mr Khan was complaining about the rigging.
The above results show that two of the PML-N parliamentarians presented the protesting leaders and their workers negatively by emphasizing their negative actions. Ch. Nisar criticized Mr Khan‟s decision of protest after announcing his support to the PM, Mr Sharif. He declared Mr Khan's decision as an indication of inconsistency. Mr Rafique accused Mr Khan of promoting hatred in the country through his speeches. He interpreted Mr Khan's criticism on the other political leaders as an effort of creating the feelings of hatred among the workers of PTI and the general public. Mr Rafique also declared him an immature politician who was unable to take proper decisions. Mr Sharif and Mr Haq did not use this practice of presenting their opponents negatively.
Negative portrayal Mr Khan and Dr Qadri by the PPP parliamentarians
The PPP parliamentarians not only presented PTI and PAT negatively but also their chiefs as well. They portrayed Mr Khan and Dr Qadri as liars and insincere politicians.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 148
Table 13
Emphasizing out-group (individual) negative actions by the PPP parliamentarians
Name of the Examples Intended purpose parliamentarian (emphasize on)
Ch. Aitzaz Ahsan Ten downing street konsi dunya main he, aap jis ky Ac action of bahar dow teen hazaar lath bardaar, ghowlailoun misreporting as a sy musallah, keel ur dahndoun sy musallah, crane lying sy ten downing street ky gate ukhaar dain…. jis main aisy musalah jathy ko ijaazat ho gi [in which world is Ten Downing Street where with two three thousand armed persons with clubs, catapults, clubs with nails on it, you uproot the gate of Ten Downing Street with the help of crane... where will an armed group be allowed?] (September 2, 2014, p. 28). Farhat Ullah Aik Canadian citizen jo is parliman ka member Insincere person Babar nahi ban sakta …. [a Canadian citizen who cannot become a member of this Parliament …] (September 8, 2014, p. 44) Mian Raza Dosri tarf aik owr sahib hain jo is parliman ka Insincere person Rabbani kabhi member nahi ban sakty … [on the other side, there is another person who can never become a member of this Parliament … ] (September 4, 2014, p. 42)
Mr Khan as a Liar. Mr Ahsan declared Mr Khan's claim a lie that protestors were allowed to protest on Ten Downing Street and in front of White House freely (p. 28). Mr Ahsan questioned the Parliament if any country allowed a group of armed persons to protest whose leader had announced to enter the house of the PM and arrest him. Through this question, he attempted to show that Mr Khan was lying and misguiding the public.
Dr Qadri as an insincere Politician. Two of the PPP parliamentarians, Mr Babar (p. 44) and Mr Rabbani (p. 42), presented PAT chief, Dr Qadri as a politician who was not sincere to the people of Pakistan. They called him foreign and Canadian citizen who had taken an oath of
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 149 loyalty to Canada. They intended to show that Dr Qadri was just befooling the public in the name of revolution and was not eligible to become a member of the Parliament. Pakistani constitution does not allow any person to contest the election who has accepted foreign nationality and Dr Qadri‟s act was proof that he was not sincere to the people of Pakistan.
The above analysis shows that three of the PPP parliamentarians presented the protesting leaders negatively. By refuting Mr Khan's statement of being given a free hand to the protesters in the UK and US, he intended to prove him a liar who was misreporting the facts.
Mr Babar and Mr Rabbani portrayed Dr Qadri as an insincere person to the people of Pakistan saying that he had shifted his loyalty by accepting foreign nationality and now his loyalty was to Canada not to Pakistan. Mr Shah spared himself from targeting any leader directly.
Negative portrayal Mr Khan and Dr Qadri by the PTI parliamentarian
Not only PML-N and PTI parliamentarians presented protesting leaders negatively but one of the PTI parliamentarians also presented his own party leader, Mr Khan and
PAT‟s chief, Dr Qadri negatively.
Table 14
Emphasizing out-group (individual) negative actions by the PTI parliamentarians
Name of the Examples Intended purpose parliamentarian (emphasize on) Makhdoom Imran Khan ky sath nowjawanoun ki itni bari As a proud leader Muhammad ta‟dad he…. jab koi peak par howta he tu aap ki Javed Hashmi batain nahi manta… [Imran Khan has a large number of young people with him…. when one is
on one‟s peak, he does not listen to you...] (September 2, 2014, p. 68) Qadri sahib tu kehty hain keh hakoomat ko girana he, crane ky sath utha kar bahar phanikna he [Dr
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 150
Qadri says to end the government, overthrow it As a rebel out with the help of crane] (September 2, 2014, p. 69)
Mr Khan as an inconsistent and a proud leader. Mr Hashmi, the president of PTI, also blamed his leader, Mr Khan, of not sticking to his words. He claimed that PTI's initial decision was to protest at D-Chowk but on the signals from unknown forces, Mr Khan backed out of his promise and decided to have sit-in near the Parliament House. Mr Hashmi declared his leader, though indirectly, a stubborn who was not consulting with any members of his party
(p. 68). He said that “jab aap peak par hoty hain tu aap ki baat nahi manta” (when one is at his peak, he does not follow others' advice). He compared Mr Khan with Mr Sharif and attempted to show that both were arrogant and did not listen to any of their workers (p. 68).
Dr Qadri as a rebel. Mr Hashmi presented Dr Qadri as a rebel who did not believe in the constitution and wanted to end the government in any way and dismantle the whole system (p.
69).
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 151
Figure 6. Ideological Square Emphasizing out-group negative actions (as a person/individual).
Ideological Square: Emphasizing out-group negative actions (individuals)
Present Mr Khan as an Present Mr Khan spreading Present Dr Qadri as an immature, inconsistent and Present Mr Khan as a liar hatred and promoting insincere person Dr Qadri as a rebel proud politician vulgarity
Speakers Mr Rabbani (PPP) Mr Rafique (PML-N) Ch Nisar (PML-N) Mr Ahsan (PPP) Mr Hashmi (PTI) Mr Babar (PPP) Mr Hashmi (PTI)
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 152
Figure No. 6 shows that PML-N and PPP parliamentarians portrayed the PTI and PAT leaders negatively, and one PTI parliamentarian presented his own party leader and PAT‟s chief negatively. Two of the PML-N parliamentarians emphasized the negative actions of the protesting leaders. Ch. Nisar and Mr Rafique intended to prove Mr Khan inconsistent and immature politician who did not have a decision-making capability and had failed to stick to his words. Mr Rafique intended to show that Mr Khan was unable to become a national leader as he was spreading hatred and dividing the nation. Three of the PPP parliamentarians highlighted the negative actions of protesting-leaders. Mr Ahsan portrayed Mr Khan as a leader who was misguiding the public by telling a lie and misreporting the things. His other colleagues, Mr Babar and Mr Rabbani, presented Dr Qadri as a person who was not loyal to Pakistan. Being a
Canadian citizen, he could not become a member of the Pakistani Parliament and just was befooling his followers. One of the PTI parliamentarians, Mr Hashmi, presented his own party leader as a proud person who did not listen to anyone and kept on changing his decisions. He also portrayed Dr Qadri as a rebel who wanted to upset the prevailing system and overthrow the government forcefully. The figure shows that Mr Shah, the PPP parliamentarian, and none of the
MQM parliamentarians used this practice and they seem detached from such an activity.
The negative out-group presentation shows that PPP parliamentarians joined the PML-N parliamentarians in declaring the protest a war against the country and revolt against the state and its institutions. They considered that the protest was being done on the directions of some non-democratic forces and the protestors were part of the conspiracy against democracy and the
Parliament. The PPP parliamentarians were also found unanimous with the PTI parliamentarians when they called the PML-N government cruel, arrogant and responsible for the situation. They
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 153 also supported the PTI parliamentarians' stance on the Model Town incident. The PTI parliamentarians, on one hand, included PAT in their in-group and tried to justify their protest and on other hands, they included it in the out-group and declared it a non-democratic party which was responsible for the attack on the PTV and Parliament buildings and wanted to upset the system with force.
The analysis also reveals that politicians do not always categorically divide themselves into two groups. This division may be based on the political situation or political interests of the politicians. During the sit-ins, apparently, there were two groups: one group was protesting against the government and the other was supporting the government because it considered the demands of the protestors unconstitutional. The group that was supporting the government, on one hand, it included the government in the in-group and defended it and by including the protestors in the out-group and declaring their protest against the state. On other hands, this group included the government in the out-group and held it responsible for the political crisis.
The parliamentarians of the ruling party, the PML-N, included the protestors in the out-group and presented them as enemies of the country. The PTI parliamentarians included the PPP and other opposition parties in their in-group and the ruling party in the out-group. They praised the parties included in the in-group for their positive role and held the government responsible for the prevailing situation. Most of the time, the MQM parliamentarians contented themselves merely by declaring the demands of the protestors unconstitutional. However, one of its members considered the political crisis a result of the obstinacy of PML-N the government.
In this chapter, Dijk's Ideological Square Model (e. g. 1997, 2006) was used to analyze the in-group positive presentation and out-group negative presentation. The result reveals that the
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 154 parliamentarians belonging to PML-N, PPP and PTI parties mostly focused on the negative presentation of the out-group than the positive presentation of their in-group. Perhaps, the intention behind this act was inciting the feelings of the public against their opponents and gain sympathies of their colleagues. The parliamentarians also used some lexicons and phrases to emphasize their good actions and present their in-group as a well-wisher of the country. The
PML-N parliamentarians intended to get the support of their colleagues in particular and the public in general by proving themselves innocent, sincere to the country and followers of democracy. The PPP parliamentarians intended to prove themselves to be the champion and supporters of democracy by extending their support to the government and mentioning the sacrifices given by their leaders. The PTI parliamentarians attempted to defuse the negative propaganda being propagated against them by the PML-N and PPP parties by showing that they not only believed in democracy but also respected the Parliament and its authority. They also seem to separate themselves from their co-protesting party PAT by declaring it violators of the law. They also attempted to gain the support of the parliamentarians and public against the PML-
N government.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 155
Chapter VI
Proximization in the Parliamentary Speeches
Chapter V has analyzed the discursive practice of in-group positive presentation and out- group negative presentation by emphasizing the in-group positive actions and the out-group negative actions in the selected speeches of the Pakistani parliamentarians. To have a deeper analysis of the selected speeches, this chapter has investigated another discursive practice of presenting the out-group (ODCs) as a physical, temporal and ideological threat to the in-group
(IDCs) in the selected parliamentary speeches. It aims to explore the way the parliamentarians presented the out-group in ODCs for the justification of their in-group actions or getting the support of their colleagues and the general public against any expected action. For this purpose, the study uses Cap‟s (2008, 2013) theory of proximization for the analysis of the selected parliamentary speeches.
Proximization
Proximization is a discursive strategy of presenting an out-group/event/state affair as a negative entity which might cause physical, temporal or ideological threat or a negative consequence to the speaker and other in-group members (Cap, 2013, 2016; Wieczorek, 2013).
During the third joint parliamentary session which was called for adopting a unanimous policy to cope up with the situation as a result of the PTI and PAT sit-ins and the other possible effects, two parliamentarians from the ruling party, PML-N; three from the opposition party, PPP; and two from PTI, the protesting party, used the strategy of proximization. The following section has analyzed the way the parliamentarians has presented the Outsiders of Deictic Centre (ODCs) as a physical, temporal or ideological threat for the Insiders of Deictic Centre (IDCs) for cultivating
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 156 the opinion of their colleagues and public to legitimize or neutralize the expected action/response.
Proximization by the PML-N Parliamentarians
The PML-N parliamentarians used the discursive practice of proximization for presenting the protestors as a physical, temporal and ideological threat for the country.
Table 15
Proximization by the PML-N parliamentarians
Name of the NP/VP Phrases ODCs/ Intended parliamentaria IDCs purpose n (emphasize on)
Ch. Nisar Aiwan (Parliament), Idary (institutions), IDCs Under Pakistan ky assay/ riyasti assay (assets of Threa Pakistan), Qanooni haddain (constitutional t limits), mumlikat e Pakistan (state of Pakistan),
Hamary riyasti „imartain (public buildings), hamary riyasti idary (our public institutions),
Mumlikat e khudadad (state of Pakistan), hakoomat (government), aiwan wazeer e azam (the Prime Minister House), Supreme Court of Pakistan, Pakistan ky idary (institutions of Pakistan), Pakistan ky assay (assets of Pakistan), Intehai mo‟aziz khatoon (very respectable lady), Khatoon broadcaster (lady broadcaster), Baraish log (people with beard)
aik growh (one group), Aaini ur ghair qannoni qadm (constitutional and unconstitutional step), ODCs As a threat Imran Khan ks Aazadi march (Imran Khan‟s march for freedom), Dr Tahir ul Qadri ka inqilab march (Dr Tahir ul Qadri‟s march for revolution), National Government, Dr Qadri, Waqt ki aakhri had (ultimatum), ‘Ibrat ka nisahn (make a lesson), Mustafwi Inqilab waly (those who were bringing Muhammad‟s SAW revolution), insaf ur jamhooriyat ka na‟ra lagany waly (those were raising the slogans of justice and democracy), aik niya nizam lany waly (those were bringing new system), islam ka nam
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 157
badnam karny waly (those who were defaming the name of Islam), Mustafwi inqilab ka na‟ra lagany waly (those who were raising the slogans of the revolution of Muhammad SAW), lashkari jama‟at (militant party), „askari group (militant group), Hathory (hammer), cutters, ghulailalain (catapults), kulhariyan (axes), trained dahshat gard (trained terrorists), Darwazy par pahunchna (reach the threshold), Lashkar kasha howna (invade), Ghrraisan hona (avoid), takhata ultnal (over throw), Shaheed karna (martyr), Baghawat he (revolt), Mut‟afi howny ka i‟lan karna (announce to resign), Qanoon ky sapurd karna (surrender to the law), Gariftari dena (surrender), Rasta hamwar hony dena (pave the way), Bahar jana (go out), Lashoun par sy nikalna (pass over the dead bodies), Salook karna (behave), Chori karna (steal), Cheenna (snatch), Dandy marna (beat), Dhawa bolna (attack), Mr Rafique Pakistan, Parliament House, PTV, Parliament, IDCs Under arakeen (members), darulhakoomat (capital), 73 Threat ka muttagiqqa aain (unanimous approved constitution of 1973), arakeen e parliament
(members of Parliament),
Imran Khan, Dr Qadri, Musalah (armed),
dhawa/hamla (attack), assault, Lashkar kashi ODCs (invade), ghairao (cordoning off), Umpire ki As a threat ungli (fingure of umpire), evil plans Targheeb dena (urge/incite), shikar karna (prey), logoun ko tashaddud par uuksana (incite the people for brutality)
The two parliamentarians, from the treasury benches, used proximization for presenting
PTI and PAT, their policies and actions as a threat to the state and its institutions. Ch. Nisar, the
PML-N parliamentarian, presented “Pakistan ky asasy/ riyasti asasy” (assets of Pakistan),
“mumlikat e Pakistan” (state of Pakistan), “riyasti „imartain” (public buildings), “riyasti idary”
(public institutions), “aiwan/Parliament, hakoomat” (government), “aiwan wazeer e azam” (the
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 158
Prime Minister House) and “Supreme Court” as insiders of deictic center (IDCs) which were under the direct threat of the action of the two parties. He used words like “aik growh” (one group), “Aazadi march” (march for freedom), “inqilab march” (march for revolution), “donow march” (both marches), “Mustafwi Inqilab waly” (those who were bringing Muhammad‟s SAW revolution), “insaf ur jamhooriyat ka na‟ra lagany waly” (those were raising the slogans of justice and democracy), “aik niya nizam lany waly” (those were bringing new system), “Islam ka nam badnam karny waly” (those who were defaming the name of Islam), “Mustafwi inqilab ka na‟ra lagany waly” (those who were raising the slogans of the revolution for implementation of
Muhammad‟s SAW teachings), “lashkari jama‟at” (militant party) and “„askari group” (m ilitant group) for the outsiders of the deictic centre (ODCs).
The use for the IDCs and ODCs had their significance and the parliamentarians used them for the specific objectives. For example, Ch. Nisar placed PTI and PAT‟s protests in the ODCs and declared them a direct threat to IDCs, i.e. the public institutions, parliamentary system and even the state itself. The following excerpt shows that he did not consider the protest as a gathering of people under some ideological objective, rather a short gathering of different- minded persons who had gathered there with the aim to wrap up democracy. He said:
“Aik growh jamhooriyat ka sahara likar, rule of law ka sahara likar, aazadi e
izhar ka sahara likar is aiwan ky darwazy par pahuncha ur ab har aaini ur har
ghair qanooni qdam sy guraizan nahi. Yeh aik lashkar kashi huwi he Pakistan
ky asaoun par, riyast asasoun par, idaroun par, aaini ur qanooni haddain ha un
par” [one group, in the name of democracy, in the name of rule of law, in the
name of freedom of expression, has reached the threshold of the Parliament and
now is ready to take every constitutional and unconstitutional step. It is an
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 159
invasion against the assets of Pakistan, the public institutions and constitutional
limits] (September 2, 2014, pp. 2- 3).
In the above example, Ch. Nisar presented the protestors a physical as well as an ideological threat for the state and its institutions. He placed NPs “aik growh” (one group), “aaini ur har ghair qanooni qadam” (constitutional or unconstitutional step) and VPs “darwazy par pahuncha” (reach at the threshold), “lashkar kashi huwi” (invaded), “guraizan nahi” (not reluctant) in the ODCs and NPs “aiwan” (Parliament), “Pakistan ky asasown” (assets of Pakistan), “idaroun”
(institutions) and “qanooni haddain” (constitutional limits) in IDCs. He declared the protestors
(ODCs) - who had reached the doors of the Parliament and were ready to take every unconstitutional step to wrap up the whole system - a direct physical threat to the state of Pakistan and its institutions (IDCs). In the above excerpt, Ch. Nisar declared the protest of PTI and PAT and their sit-ins opposite to the
Parliament an attack on the institutions and assets of Pakistan as a physical and ideological threat to the state institutions. He further said:
“idhar Imran Khan ka Aazadi March shoru ho ga, udhar Dr Tahir ul Qadri ka
Inqilab March ho ga. Donoun March akathy chaplain gy ur hakoomat ka takhta
ult dain gy. (He repeats the wordsDr Qadri) ur jo is march sy wapis aa jaye usy
bhi shaheed kar daina takeh woh „ibrat ka nishan bany…. Agar is j‟ali
hakoomat ny must‟afi hony ka i‟lan nah kiya ur apny aap ko qanoon ky sapurd
nah kiya, un ka qanoon, gariftari nah di. Un ko gariftari nah di ur national
hakoomat ka rasta hamwar nah hony diya tu main time frame ki aakhri had kisi
waqt bhi dy sakta houn. Log tumam tar jaghoun par jam‟a rahain, nah koi
andar aasaky nah koi bahar ja sakay ur jo nikalna chayain un ki lashoun par sy
niklain” […on one side, there will be Imran Khan‟s Aazadi march and on
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 160
another side, there will be Dr Tahir ul Qadri‟s Inqilab march. Both marches will
start together and overthrow the government. (He repeats the words of Dr
Qadri) “Martyr the person who leaves this march so that he may become a
lesson (for others) …if this fake government does not announce to resign and
does not hand itself over to law (law of their own), does not surrender itself,
does not pave the way for the national government, I may give the last
ultimatum. O‟ people remain on your deputed places, nobody should be allowed
to go inside or out and if anybody does, he would have to cross our (PAT
workers‟) dead bodies”] (September 2, 2014, p. 5).
In the above excerpt, Ch. Nisar referred the NPs “Imran Khan ka Aazadi March” (Imran
Khan‟s freedom march), “Dr Tahir ul Qadri ka Inqilab March” (Dr Qadri‟s revolution march) “National
Government”, “main” (I, here means Dr Qadri), “waqt ki aakhri had” (ultimatum); and VPs “takhta ult dena” (over throw), “shaheed kara” (martyr), “must‟afi hony ka i‟lan karna” (announce to resign),
“sapurd karna” (hand over), “gariftari dena” (surrender), “rasta hamwar hony dena” (pave the way),
“andar aasakna” (enter), “bahar ja sakna” (go out) and “lashoun par sy niklain” (pass over the dead bodies) to the ODCs which were a physical threat to the government (IDCs). Here, Ch. Nisar attempted to expose the plans of both parties, i.e. PTI and PAT. To him, their sole objective was to overthrow the government through an unconstitutional way. He cited the statement of Dr Qadri of martyring the person who returned without achieving the objectives so that he might be made a lesson for others.
Dr Qadri had used verb phrases “shaheed karna” (martyr) and “„ibrat ka nishan bana”
(make a sign of lesson) in his speeches. Both phrases, with their religious linkage, might have a very strong impact on the listeners. According to Islam, “martyrdom” is a sacred and most desired
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 161 death for a Muslim to get a closeness to GOD. The use of this term emotionalizes the feelings of
Muslims. Sometimes, religious scholars or leaders use this term to exploit the emotions and feelings of less educated persons as well. Dr Qadri had declared the protest a sacred mission and death during the mission a death of a martyr. He had used this term to motivate his workers and followers to get ready to die for their cause and vice versa. Ch. Nisar referred to Dr Qadri‟s statement to highlight the severity of the issue. He also referred to the “ultimatum” given by him to the government for handing it over to “the law” (according to Ch. Nisar, Dr Qadri had declared himself the law and demanded the government to surrender to him) and repeated his words
“qanoon ky spurd karna” (surrender to law) and “gariftari dena” (surrender) to enhance the impact of the threat. Usually, these terms are used for the criminals or rebels who violate the rule of law. The use of the terms shows that Dr Qadri wanted to impose his own law other than the constitution of the country. Ch. Nisar also referred to another statement of Dr Qadri of cordoning off the Parliament building and not allowing any member to enter or exit. He had used the verb phrase “lashoun par sy niklain” (cross over their dead bodies) which meant that the members could only leave or enter the Parliament House by killing the PAT workers who had been deputed around the building or vice versa. Through these citations, Ch. Nisar pointed out the imminent danger and intended to urge the members for taking some measures against Dr Qadri and his followers.
In the following excerpt, Ch. Nisar became even more severe and declared the protest and sit-in a baghawat (revolt) against “hamary riyasti „imartoun” (state/public buildings), “hamary riyasti idaroun” (public institutions) and “mumlikat-e-Pakistan” (state of Pakistan). He used personal pronouns “hamari/hamary” (our) for the institutions and presented their (ODCs) protest as a revolt against our (IDCs) institutions and the country itself. Contrary to the claims of PTI and
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 162
PAT, Ch. Nisar did not consider their protest within the constitutional limits rather against the state and its institutions. He presented the protestors as an “enemy” of the state who had revolted against it and hence needed to be handled accordingly. He said:
“Yeh nah ihtijaj he nah dharna he, nah siyasi ijtema‟ he. Yeh Pakistan ky khilaf
baghawat hy. Yeh hamri riyasti „imartoun ky khilaf baghawat he. Yeh hamari
riyasti idaroun ky khilaf baghawat he. Yeh mumlikat e Pakistan ky khilaf
baghawat he” [It is neither a protest nor a political gathering. It is a revolt
against Pakistan. It is a revolt against our public buildings. It is a revolt against
our public institutions. It is a revolt against the state Pakistan.] (September 2, 2014,
p. 5).
In the above excerpt, Ch. Nisar used VPs “baghawat hy” (revolt) as an ODCs and NPs “hamri riyasti „imartoun” (our public buildings), “hamari riyasti idaroun” (our public institutions) and
“mumlikat e Pakistan” (state of Pakistan) as IDCs. By declaring the protest “a revolt”, Ch. Nisar presented it an ideological threat against the IDCs. He further said:
“Yeh Mustafwi Inqilab ka na‟ra lagany waly, unhoun ny kal dhawa bola. Yeh
aiwan wazeer e azam peh tu dhawa bolna chahty hain. Unhoun ny Parliament
par tu dhawa bola. Yeh Supreme Court ky darwazy par pahunchy. Kal woh aik
riyasti idary ky ander ghus gaye wahan par aik tarf Tahir ur Qadri zindabad ky
na‟ry lag rahy thy tu doosri tarf Imran Khan zindabad ky na‟ry lag rahy thy….
Unhoun ny aksar CCTV kaimry toor diye. Woh Muslim League (N) ky movie
kaimry nahi thy. Woh lakhoun rupaye ky thy, sat aath lakh aik ki qimat thi. Yeh
insaf ur jamhooriyat ka na‟ra lagany waly, aik niya nizam lany waly in ky
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 163
parwarda woh hian keh aath PTV ky kaimry chori kar liye. Aik ki qimat sath
aath lakh rupaye he. Unhoun ny aik intihai mo‟aziz kahtoon ky sath, yeh islam
ka nam badnam karny waloun ur wahan Mustafwi inwalab ka na‟ra lagany
waloun ny aik khatoon broadcaster ky sath kiya salook kiya, mujhy aik dignity
ijazat nahi daiti. Unhoun ny us ka purse chori kiya, cheena, unhoun ny us ka
mobile cheena, baqi jo harkatain ki un ki tafseel main nahi jana chahta, unhoun
ny baraish logoun ko jis tarah dandy mary…” [These people who raise a slogan
of Islamic revolution (for the implementation of the Sunnah of Holy Prophet
SAW) attacked yesterday. They intend to attack the PM House. They attacked
the Parliament building. They reached the door of the Supreme Court. They
broke into state institutions yesterday where on one side slogans of “long live
Tahir ul Qadri” were being raised and on the other side, a slogan of “long live Imran
Khan” were raised…They broke most of the CCTV cameras. These cameras were not
movie cameras of PML-N but they belonged to the state and were worth millions of
rupees. Each camera valued seven to eight million. These people who raised the slogan
of justice and democracy, claiming to bring a new system and their patron have stolen
eight PTV cameras, each worth seven to eight million. How did these people, who are
defaming the name of Islam and raising the slogan of an Islamic revolution, misbehave
with a respectable woman? My dignity did not allow to explain what they did with the
lady broadcaster. They stole her purse, snatched her purse and how did they behave
with her, I do not want to go in its detail. The way they beat the old beard man...]
(September 2, 2014, pp. 10-11).
The above excerpt shows that Ch. Nisar attempted to depict the ideological and temporal threat to the state and its institutions by highlighting the hypocrisy of the protestors and exposing
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 164 the differences between their claims and actions. He used NPs “Mustafwi Inqilab ka na‟ra lagany waly” (the people who raise slogan of Islamic revolution) and “islam ka nam badnam karny waloun” (the people who defame Islam) for the ODCs and presented them an ideological threat for the IDCs, i.e. “aiwan wazeer e azam” (Prime Minister House), “Parliament”, Supreme Court” and “riyasti idary” (state institutions). He also referred to “khatoon broadcaster” (lady broadcaster) and “baraish logoun” (people with beard) to the IDCs and presented them as the victim of ill-treatment of the protestors by using VPs, i.e. “dhawa bolna” (attack), “salook kiya”
(treated/behave), “chori kiya” (stole), “cheena” (snatched), “dandy mary” (beat) to highlight the severity of the issue.
For presenting the protestors as an ideological and temporal threat, Ch. Nisar referred to the incident of PAT and PTI‟s workers attacking the Parliament and Pakistan Television‟s (PTV), buildings. He used the phrase “Mustafwi Inqilab ka na‟ra lagany waly” (people who were chanting the slogan of Islamic revolution) for Dr Qadri, a political cum religious leader, who had been claiming to implement an Islamic system in the country. “Mustafa” is a name of the Holy
Prophet (SAW), known for his humanitarianism and mercifulness, and his true followers can never be expected to commit an inhuman action. Ch. Nisar said that those people who claimed to be the successors of Prophet (SAW) had stolen the expensive cameras from the PTV building and misbehaved with the lady broadcaster and the men with beards. He used the phrases “baraish logoun” (people with beard), “intihai mo‟aziz khatoon” (a very respectable woman) and “lady broadcaster” to highlight the negativity the ODCs. Here again, he pointed out the non- Islamic treatment of the protestors. To have a beard is a Sunnah (practice) of the Holy Prophet (SAW) and a person, in Islamic society, with a beard has more respect than a Muslim without a beard.
Islam does not allow misbehaving with any human, especially women. He wanted to prove the
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 165 protestors‟ hypocrisy through this example that they were not the true follower of Islam and the
Holy Prophet (SAW) but were defaming Islam for their personal interests. Ch. Nisar attempted to portray a picture of the future if the protestors would succeed in their mission. PTI had denied that the persons who had entered the PTV building and stolen the expensive cameras were their workers. By referring to the slogans of the protestors, Ch. Nisar refuted their claims and attempted to convince his colleagues that both parties were equally responsible for the incident.
He said:
“Un ky pas kiya he Jinab-e-Speaker kulhariyan hain, hathory hain, cutter hain,
ghulailain hain ur wo ghulailin baqaida trained tareeqy sy jis tarh trained
dahshat gard hoty hain…. woh trained dahshat gard hain ur aik lashkari
jama‟at sy aaye hain, aik „askari group sy aaye hain” [Mr Speaker, what do
they have? They have axes, hammers, cutters, catapults; and they used the
catapults in a trained way like trained terrorists…they are trained terrorists and
are from a militant party, belong a militant group] (September 2, 2014, p. 12).
In the above excerpt, Ch. Nisar used NPs “kulhariyan” (axes), “hathory” (hammers),
“cutters”, “ghulailain” (catapults), “trained dahshat gard” (trained terrorists), “lashkari jama‟at”
(militant party) and “„askari group” (militant group) as the ODCs to present the protestors as a physical and ideological threat for the state. Here, he seems even bitterer in the out-group negative presentation. He lashed out at the protestors, calling them trained terrorists who belonged to the terrorist groups. He named the weapons, i.e. axes, hammers, cutters and catapults, with which the protestors were equipped, to prove that they were not gathered there mere for a protest or to demand their democratic rights rather they aimed at something disastrous. Both of the parties had been claiming that their protest was peaceful. Here Ch. Nisar not only refuted their claims but
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 166 also called them terrorists who were armed with different kind of weapons and belonged to different militant groups. It shows that Ch. Nisar, being an Interior Minister, believed that these parties were not supported by the public and they had called trained terrorists to topple down the government and impose their agenda forcefully.
The above excerpts show that Ch. Nisar declared Mr Khan, Dr Qadri and their workers trained terrorists who were armed with different weapons and were a physical, temporal and an ideological threat for the state and democratic system of the country. They did not believe in democracy but wanted to impose their own agenda forcefully. He also referred to some of the statements of Dr Qadri and incidents of the misbehaviour of his workers with the lady broadcaster and people with beards to prove his claim. Ch. Nisar also considered the protestors an ideological threat to the country as they were demanding Islam because their actions contradicted their claims. Ch. Nisar was an Interior Minister and his responsibility was to maintain law and order in the country. By presenting the protestors as a threat to the state and system, he urged the parliamentarians to chalk out a policy on how to tackle the situation. He also demanded suggestions from the Parliament for his ministry.
Mr Rafique, the PML-N parliamentarian, similar to his colleague, included “Pakistan”,
“Parliament House”, “PTV”, “Parliament”, “arakeen” (members of the Parliament),
“darulhakoomat” (capital), “73 ky muttafiqqa aain” (unanimously approved constitution of
1973) as the IDCs which were under the physical, temporal and ideological threat of the ODCs, i.e. Mr Khan, Dr Qadri and their workers who were armed with different weapons and aimed at violating the constitution and democracy. In the following excerpt, Mr Rafique declared Mr
Khan‟s statement of inviting the army and police to join the protest an unconstitutional act. He
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 167 declared the act of invoking the two public institutions to political activities constitutional. He referred to Mr Khan‟s use of a word umpire to which he considered an invitation to some non- political agent. Mr Khan had used cricket gorgon “umpire ki ungli khari hona” (raise the finger of the umpire) and announced that soon an umpire would raise his finger. In the game of cricket, an umpire has final authority and the sign of raising his figure means an order to the batsman to leave the ground. Mr Khan‟s invitation to the army of joining the protest and mentioning the figure of the umpire was interpreted as an invitation to the Chief of the Army Staff for political interference. In the past, it had been a practice that some political parties kept on inviting army for overthrowing the elected governments. Mr Rafique took Mr Khan‟s statement in the same context and declared it a temporal as well as an ideological threat for the democratic forces who wanted the continuity of democratic system in the country. He said:
“Yeh aik Khan Sahab ny agly din kaha keh foj ur police waly mery dharny main
aajain. Yeh kis qanoon ur aain ky that kaha he? Kiya Pakistan ki kisi siyasi
jama‟at ko yeh ikhtiyar ur haq he keh woh foj ur police ko ba qaida invite kary
publically keh woh aain ur who politically activities main shamil houn. Phir
unhoun ny kaha keh umpire ki ungli khari hogi. Umpire ki ungli kaisy khari ho
gi woh kis ko umpire keh rahye hain ….” [that Mr Khan said the other day that
army and police should join his sit-in. Under which law, he said so? Does the
constitution of Pakistan allow any political party to invite army and police
publically to join the political activities? Then he said umpire‟s finger will rise.
How will the umpire raise his finger and who does he mean by the umpire?]
(September 10, 2014, p. 27).
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 168
In the excerpt given below, Mr Rafique declared Mr Khan and Dr Qadri as the ODCs and a threat to the state and even to the members of the Parliament. He referred to Dr Qadri‟s congratulations to his workers and announcement of occupying the important state buildings, i.e.
“mery karkunoun ny aham maqamat par qabza karliya” (my workers have taken control of some important places) and his order of hitting the members, i.e. “arakeen Parliament chaly gaye hain”, assembly main ab in ka sikar karo” (that members of the Parliament have gone into the
Parliament building and now prey them). These examples were quoted to intimate the parliamentarians and public about the “evil plans” of the protestors. Mr Rafique used phrases e.g.
“targheeb dena” (urge/convince) and “logoun ko tashaddud par uksain” (incite the people) to show a temporal threat for the nation. By referring to the phrases used by Dr Qadri, e.g. Coffin, graves, hanging and invasion on the capital, Mr Rafique attempted to present a negative image of him. He again mentioned the weapons of the protestors for enhancing the impact of the threat. He said:
“Imran Khan ur Qadri sahib Pakistan ko peachy dkakailna chahty hain… Aap
Parliament House par qabza ki koshish karain ur aap ko sharm nah aaye. Aap
PTV ky upar qabza karain ur charhai kar dain ur aap kahain, pahly I‟lan
karain Mubarak ho, Mubarak ho., phir aap ki aawaz aaye mery karkunoun ny
aham maqamat par qabza karliya he, phir aik ur awaz aai yeh arakeen
Parliament chaly gaye hain, assembly main ab in ka sikar karo. Andaza lagain
aap, tu state channel par qabza karain aap. Quwwat ur dandy ky zari‟ye aap
Parliament House par dhawa bol dain. Aap arakeen Parliament ko hit karny ki
targheeb dain. Aap logoun ko tashaddud par uksain, kafn, qabroun ur kafn ki
batain, phansiyoun ki batain, garden dabany ki batain karain aap. Aap cutter,
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 169
kulhary, carainain dandy likar ur is main maikhain dal kar aap darulhakoomat
main lashkar kashi karain” [Mr Imran Khan and Dr Qadri want to push back
Pakistan… You try to occupy Parliament and do not feel chagrin? You occupy
PTV and attack, and then announce “congratulations, congratulations”. Then
your voice resounds that your workers have taken control of the important
places, then (you) order (your workers) prey on the members of the Parliament
who have entered the Parliament. Imagine, you occupy state channel, vandalize
the Parliament House. You incite your workers to hit the parliamentarians. You
incite the people, talk about coffin and graves, talk about hanging, talk about
holding of the neck, you attack the capital armed with cutters, axes, cranes and
poles with nails…] (September 10, 2014, pp. 27-28).
Similar to Ch. Nisar, in the following excerpt, Mr Rafique also declared the protest, an
ODC, attack and invasion. He declared that the attack was not on the Parliament building but it was in fact on the unanimously passed Constitution of 1973. He placed the Constitution of 1973, the only constitution passed by civilian representatives of people, in the IDCs. Mr Rafique used the name of the constitution to emotionalize the parliamentarians. He knew that most of the parties would not bear any threat to the constitution. He repeated it five times in a row that it was not a sit-in or protest. He used synonymous phrases “dhawa” (attack), “lashkar kashi”
(invasion), “ghirao” (blockage), “hamla” (attack) and “assault” for the protest to place it in the
ODCs and prove the enmity of the protestors against the state and the Parliament. He repeated these phrases and claimed that it was not merely a protest against the government for their demands but a planned conspiracy against the system. He said:
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 170
“Yeh dharna nahi dhawa he, is ko darust kiya jaye yeh dharna nahi lashkar
kashi he. Yeh dharna nahi ghirao he. Yeh dhara nahi hamla he. Yeh dharna
nahi assulat kiya giya he. Ur yeh hamla, yeh ghirao, yeh dhawa ur yeh lashkar
kashi agar hakoomat ky kdhilaf hoti tu shaid ham bardasht karty, yeh 73 ky
muttafiqqa aain ku upar attack kiya giya he ur 73 ka yeh constitution is par jo
hamla kiya giya he isy koi tolerate nhi kary ga” [This is not a sit-in but an
assault. It should be rectified that this is not a sit- in but an invasion. It is not a
sit-in but a blockage. It is not a sit-in but an assault. It is not a sit-in but an
attack. If this assault, this blockage, this attack, this militancy had been against
the government, we might have accepted. It is an attack on the unanimous
constitution of 1973. No one will tolerate this attack on the constitution]
(September 10, 2014, pp. 28-29).
Mr Rafique, presenting Dr Qadri a physical, temporal and ideological threat, quoted the examples from his speeches to show that he was not only a threat to the members of the
Parliament but also to the whole system. He labelled the protest as an attack and invasion against the system. Mr Rafique aimed to create unity and harmony among the members so that they may take some unanimous measures against it. By declaring the protest, a threat to the whole system, he put a shared responsibility on all parliamentarians. He also intended to mold the public opinion and win their sympathy against the protestors.
The analysis given above shows that two of the PML-N parliamentarians used proximization in their speeches. Ch. Nisar and Mr Rafique presented the protest of PTI and PAT as a physical, temporal and ideological threat for the state and its institutions. They intended to
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 171 show that protest was not a political gathering for constitutional demands but a gathering meant to wrap up the system by force and implement its own agenda forcefully. They also presented the protestors as armed terrorists belonging to some militant groups who had attacked the public institutions and revolted against the state. They tried to prove that protest was a physical threat to the institutions that were working under the unanimously approved constitutions, a temporal threat as they were having their own agenda to implement that could destabilize the country and an ideological threat as it was unconstitutional, undemocratic and against the basic ideology of the country.
Proximization by the PPP Parliamentarians
The PPP parliamentarians used the discursive practice of proximization for presenting the protestors as a physical, temporal and ideological threat for the state and its institutions.
Table 16
Proximization by the PPP parliamentarians
Name of the NP/VP Phrases ODCs/ID Intended parliamentari Cs purpose an (emphasize on)
Mr Atizaz Hakoomat (government), Parliament, IDCs Under Threat Ahsan Parliaman (parliament)
Sunni (a majority religious group), Shia (a ODCs As a threat minority religious group) Bees tees hazar ka Lashkar (a group of 20-30 thousand), Kisi ur maslik waly (persons belonging to other sect), Protestors, Lath bardar (club holders), Gholailouns sy musallah (armed with catapults), Keeloun ur dandoun sy musallah (armed with nails and clubs), Hathory ur steel cutter sy musallah (armed with hammer and
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 172
steel cutters), Crane Mr Babar A Canadian citizen, Kafn lehrana (weave ODCs As a threat coffin), Parliament ky andar dakhil hona (enter into the parliament building), Parliament sy bahar jana (leave the parliament building), Yalghar hona (invade), Parliman ka rukn nahi ban sakta (cannot become a member of the Parliament) Mr Rabbani 73 ka aain (constitutions of 1973), Wafaq IDCs Under Threat (federation), Pakistan ki baqa (survival of Pakistan), Mulk (country), Parliman (Parliament) Aik sahib (one person), Jang (war) ODCs As a threat Unconstitutional forces, Aamriyat (aristocracy), Establishment, Inqilab (revolution), Musallat karna (impose)
Three of the PPP parliamentarians used this strategy against their political opponents. Mr
Ahsan placed the protestors and their demands in the ODCs and presented them as a threat. He pointed out their temporal and ideological impact. In the following excerpt, he asserted that acceptance of their demands would set a wrong example because, in future, any group of a few thousand people might attempt to force the government or Parliament for the implementation of its particular ideas. He quoted two examples to explain the criticality of the situation. In Pakistan, there had been a clash between two religious sects, i.e. “Sunni” (a majority religious group) and
“Shia” (a minority religious group) for their faith and ideological differences. As a result of these clashes, many valuable lives had been lost. The other example, he gave of the Park army‟s operation against extremists, i.e., “Taliban” (most of the Muslim “Ulamas” [Muslim religious scholars] consider the actions of these extremists against the teachings of Islam) in the Northern part of the country who wanted to impose their own Islam. They had killed thousands of innocent
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 173 people including children and women. Their armed struggle had caused irreparable loss to
Pakistan nationally as well as internationally. This operation was considered a survival for the country. He asked the parliamentarians if it was possible to stop the operation on the demand of a group of a few thousand people. He logically rejected the demands of the protestors and called them unconstitutional. He feared if the protestors succeeded in getting their demands accepted by force, then in future such other demands would come forth. Therefore, he considered their demands a temporal as well as an ideological threat to the country. He further said:
“Agar yeh darust rawayat ban jaye tu kiya mushkil ho gi keh kal koi ur bees
tees hazar ka lashkar jo ziyada pur „azm ho lykar aajaye ur kahy keh jab tak
sh‟ia ko kafir qara nahi diya jata ham us waqt tak nahi jaain gy, hakoomat ur
Parliament shi‟a ko kafir qarar dy ya koi ur aajaye ur kahy keh jab tak aap
wazeeristan sy foj wapis nahi bulaty ham yahan sy jany waly nahi hain ya kisi
maslik waly aajain keh jab tak hamary maslik wali shari‟at nafiz nahi ki jati
ham jany waly nahi” [if it becomes a habit/custom what will be the problem?
If someday, someone brings twenty thousand more determined people and
demands to declare the Shi‟a (a minority sect in Pakistan) as non-Muslims. (He
demands) that government and Parliament should declare the Shi‟as non-
Muslims or someone else demands to withdraw the army from Waziristan or
people of one sect come and demand that they will not disperse until Sharia
(Islamic rules) of their sect is implemented.] (September 2, 2014, p. 27).
In an address, Mr Khan had condemned the police action against the protestors when the protestors marched towards the Parliament House and pulled down its gate. Claiming the protest,
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 174 a democratic right, he had given the example of Ten Downing Street. Mr Ahsan challenged his claim and said that no government could allow such kind of protest; even the British government could now allow an armed group of people to protest. In the following excerpt, Mr Ahsan, refuting Mr Khan‟s claim, presented the protestors armed with different weapons as the ODCs.
He attempted to justify the action of the government taken against the protestors as he considered the protest unconstitutional because no government would allow an attack on its Parliament. He declared Mr Khan‟s demand for giving the armed protestors a free hand an ideological threat to the state. He further said:
“Mujhy batain keh konci dunnya main, konsy sayyari par woh ten downing
street he. woh ten downing street konsi dunya main he, aap jis ky bahar dow
teen hazar lath bardar, gholailoun sy musallah, keeloun ur dandoun sy
musallah, crain sy ten downing street ky gate ko ukhar dain. Hathory ur steel
cutter sy musallah hain, yeh aowzar nahi hathyar hain. Konsi dunya main aisi
ten Downing Street hy jis main aisy musallah jathy ko ijazat ho gi” [Will
anyone tells me in which world, on which star is Ten Downing Street? Where
is the Ten Downing Street where you go with two three thousand people,
armed with poles, catapults, nails and clubs and uproot the gate of Ten
Downing Street? [They] are armed with hammers and steel cutters. These are
not the instruments but weapons. Where is such kind of Ten Downing Street
where such an armed mob is allowed to go…?] (September 2, 2014, p. 28).
In the above excerpt, Mr Ahsan opposed the demands of PTI and PAT on the logical grounds and declared them an ideological threat to the state. He also refuted Mr Khan‟s claim of
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 175 the democratic right of the protest and said that no government would allow such gathering of the people with poles, cutters, hammers and catapults to protest and uproot the gate of the Parliament.
Babar, another PPP parliamentarian, apparently did not seem including anyone in the
IDCs while using proximization, however, he included Dr Qadri and his actions in the ODCs and presented them a physical, temporal as well as ideological threat. In the following excerpt, he included Dr Qadri in the ODCs and presented him as a physical as well as a temporal threat to the parliamentary system. He used the noun phrase “Canadian citizen” and verb phrase “Parliman ka rukn nahi ban sakta” (cannot become a member of the Parliament) for Dr Qadri. Dr Qadri has dual nationality, and according to the constitution, he is not eligible to become a member of the
National Assembly of Pakistan. Referring to Dr Qadri‟s announcement of not allowing any member to go in or out of the Parliament building, Mr Babar attempted to convince the members, particularly and the public generally, that a foreign national could not be loyal to the country and its people. He also repeated verb phrase “kafn lehrana” (weave coffin) used by Qr Qadri and his threat that “Parliman ki ander koi dakhal nahi ho ga ur Parliman sy bahar koi nahi jaaye ga”
(neither anyone will go into the Parliament House nor come out of it) to highlight the severity of the threat. He said:
“Aik Candian citizen jo is Pakistan ky Parliman ka rukn nahi ban sakta, who
aakar kafn lahra kar logoun sy kehta he keh Parliman ki ander koi dakhal
nahi ho ga ur Parliman sy bahar koi nahi jaaye ga” [A Canadian citizen who
is not eligible to become member of the Parliament of Pakistan is waving
coffin and says to the people that neither anyone will be allowed to go into the
Parliament House nor come out of it] (September 8, 2014, p. 44).
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 176
Mr Babar urged the members to pass a resolution for showing a commitment to resist any unconstitutional act. In the following excerpt, declaring the protest an unconstitutional act and invasion on the Parliament, Mr Babar placed the protest in the ODCs. He used the verb phrase “yalghar hona” (invade) and the noun phrase “ghair aaini ur ghair qanooni” (unconstitutional and illegal) to present the protest an ideological and temporal threat to the state. He said:
“Yeh jo kuch bahar ho raha he, Parliaman par jo yalghar ho rahi he, yeh nah
siyasi ihtijaj he nah siysi mukhalfat he, yeh bilkul ghair aaini ur ghair qanooni
he” [What is happening outside, the attack on the Parliament, is not a political
protest? It is absolutely illegal and unconstitutional...] (September 8, 2014, p.
51).
Mr Babar did not declare Dr Qadri or Mr Khan directly a threat to the Parliament, system or the country. He called Dr Qadri a foreign citizen who had no serious interest in the wellbeing of
Pakistani people. He also considered the protest illegal and an invasion on the Parliament. Keeping the temporal threat in view as a result of the protest, he urged the parliamentarians to pass a resolution to show their unity and commitment against any unconstitutional action.
Mr Rabbani, another PPP parliamentarian, did not directly include anyone in the ODCs rather showed his commitment against the imminent threat as the result of the protest. The following excerpt starts with an oath “Khuda ki qasm” (By God) followed by his party policy that he and his party would not withdraw from their commitment to democracy and democratic system.
He used the word “Jang” (war) and declared the joint session a war for the survival of the country and its system. He considered the protest an attack on the democratic system and warned the
“unconstitutional forces” and the Parliament that any unconstitutional act might result in the
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 177 collapse of the system. There were rumours of forming some kind of National Government (a government consisted of technocrats) after overthrowing the elected government, but the
Constitution of Pakistan does not allow this kind of act. Mr Rabbani announced that his party would not accept any unconstitutional change at any cast. The use of noun phrases “jang” (war),
“Pakistan ki baqa” (survival of Pakistan), “aamriyat” (autocracy), “73 ka aain” (constitution of
1973) and “wafaq” (federation) seems to highlight the sensitivity of the threat. Keeping the previous examples of unconstitutional and military interferences in the view, Mr Rabbani suspected that the protest was meant to pave a way for an autocracy. He believed that this time any unconstitutional act would not only put the Constitution of 1973 in danger but also the unity of the country. He attempted to urge the treasury and opposition benches to resolute against any unconstitutional act and gave the message to the “establishment” that his party would stand against such action. Unlike other parliamentarians, Mr Rabbani included “the military establishment” in the ODCs as an ideological and temporal threat and said:
“Khuda ki qasm ham is jang main compromise karny ky liye tayyar nahi hain
kiyoun keh ham samajhty hain keh yeh jang Pakistan ki baqa ki jang he. Yeh
jang Pakistan ky wafaq ki jang he. Jinab e Speaker! Agar ab yeh system ko
derail kiya giya, agar aamriyat ko kisi bhi soorat main is mulk par musallat
kiya giya tu khatra sirf 73 ky aain ko nahi, khatra Pakistan ky wafaq ko he” [By
God, we are not ready to compromise in this war because we consider that this
war is for the survival of the country. This war is the war for the
Federation/unity of Pakistan. Mr Speaker! If this time, the system is derailed, if
aristocracy is imposed, in any form, then the constitution of 1973 will not be in
danger but the unity of Pakistan will be in danger] (September 4, 2014, p. 37).
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 178
Similar to his colleagues and party fellows, Mr Rabbani called Dr Qadri a foreign citizen who did not have his loyalty to the nation and the country. He considered him an ODC which was a direct threat to the whole system. He used words “hain jo is parliman ky kabhi member nahi ban sakta” (who can never become a member of the Parliament) and “jinhoun ny malkah e bartaniya sy half e wafadari liya huwa he” (who has taken an oath of loyalty to the British Queen) to present him a threat to the country who had no real interest in the progress and prosperity of Pakistan. He feared that Mr Qadri was working on some foreign agenda and wanted to implement it in Pakistan.
Mr Rabbani, though indirectly, raised a question about his motives behind the protest saying how a person, unable to become a member of the Parliament, could be sincere to it. He referred to Dr
Qadri‟s previous statements that he did not accept the constitution and the system and had been talking about the revolution. Mr Rabbani also placed “inqilab” (revolution) in the ODCs because he seems scared with the name of revolution because political revolutions had never been peaceful and had cast uncountable lives. He felt Dr Qadri‟s slogan for the revolution a temporal threat to the system and ideology of Pakistan as well. He wanted the parliamentarians to get ready because he considered the slogan of revolution a part of the ongoing war between democratic and non- democratic forces. He further said:
“Jinab e Speaker! Doosri tarf aik ur sahib hain jo is parliman ky kabhi member
nahi ban sakty. Jinhoun ny malka e bartaniya sy half e wafadari liya huwa he.
Jin k agenda jis ko who ab aaini shakl dena chahty hain likan is sy pahly who
keh chuky hain keh main is aain, is dastoor, in aiwanoun ur is system ko nahi
manta. Main inqilab dy kar aya houn ur main inqelab laoun ga. Konsa inqelab,
kaisa inqilab...” [Mr Speaker! On another side, there is another person who can
never become a member of this Parliament. He has taken an oath of loyalty with
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 179
the British Queen. He wanted to amend the constitution according to his own agenda
but earlier he had said that he did not accept this constitution, this Parliament and this
system. [Mr Rabbani repeats Dr Qadri‟s words] “I have come with the revolution; I will
bring the revolution”. What kind of revolution…?] (September 4, 2014, pp. 42-43).
Mr Rabbani also seems very impatient with the prevailing situation. It seems that he had sensed some imminent danger to the system. He feared that the protest was either paving the way for military intervention or could result in it. He clearly announced it a war for the survival of the system and country. His speech was also a warning to the military establishment that enforcement of autocracy “in any form” would be unacceptable and it would affect the solidarity of the country, hence a temporal and ideological threat to the country.
The PPP parliamentarians placed the protestors and their leadership especially PAT‟s leadership in the ODCs and declared them a physical, a temporal and ideological threat for the state and its system. They considered that PAT‟s chief had accepted the foreign nationality and vowed to be loyal to the British Queen for his personal interests; therefore, he could not be loyal to the people of Pakistan. They used some NPs and VPs to show that he was working on the agenda of some non-democratic forces and wanted to put the solidarity of the country at risk/stake. They also intended to show that Dr Qadri‟s slogan for revolution and his act of cordoning of the
Parliament was a physical as well as an ideological threat.
Proximization by the PTI Parliamentarians
The PTI parliamentarians also used the discursive practice of proximization in their speeches. Instead of presenting the out-group as a threat, they used the practice as a counter- strategy to neutralize the effects of speeches of the opposition and treasury benches and possible
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 180 action against them. They attempted to justify their protest as well.
Table 17
Proximization by the PTI parliamentarians
Name of the NP/VP Phrases ODCs/I Intended parliamentari DCs purpose an (emphasize on)
Mr Qureshi Ham (we, the protestors), Islamabad ka IDCs As victims dharna (Islamabad sit-in), Dharna (dharna), Itizaz Ahsan, Halqy (constituencies), Imran Khan Innocent people, 14 deaths, 90 people with bullet wounds, Bullets, Lahore ki sarkain (roads of Lahore), Mazloomeen (victims), Maqtuleen (murdered persons), Hazaroun khawateen (thousands of women), Khoon behna (bloodshedding)
ROs (Returning Officers), Shafafiyat ODCs As oppressors (Transparency), Playing field, Punjab Police Punjab government, Containers, Electric poles, Pani, khana adwiyat band karna (ban water, food and medicines) Mr Hashmi Model Town ka waq‟a (Model Town IDCs Under Threat Incident), 14 afrad ki lashain (dead bodies of 13 persons)
Aap (You, he used the pronoun to refer to CM ODCs As a threat of Punjab)
Mr Qureshi used the strategy of proximization not for presenting the ODCs as a threat rather neutralize the expected action from the Parliament and the government against the protestors. He presented the counter arguments for clearing the position of the IDCs. He included his party, PTI, PAT, other parliamentary parties and the Parliament in his in-group (IDCs). In the
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 181 following excerpt, he started with a questions asking “ham yahan kayoun pahunchy? Yeh nobat kaisy aai? Yeh aik din ki kahani nahi he?” (Why did we reach here? what has brought us here?
This in not a story of a day) to urge the members to know the reasons which had brought the protesting parties on that verge. He claimed that they had been struggling for the last fourteen months for their rights and demanding to probe into the rigging allegations. He declared the rigging in the election 2013 a core reason behind their protest. He included Mr Ahsan, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, in the IDCs and compared his feelings on failing to see transparency in the election with that of Mr Khan. Here, it seems that Mr Qureshi attempted to achieve two objectives; first, to neutralize the feelings of the Opposition and secondly, to ignite the feelings of PPP against the government because it had also been complaining against the rigging in the election. He said:
“Aaj ham jis nahj par khary hain, agar ham thandy dil sy mutal‟a karain, ham
yahan kayoun pahunchy? Yeh nobat kaisy aai? Yeh aik din ki kahani nahi he?
Yeh satra din Islamabad ky dharny ka rona nahi he. Jinab e Speaker yeh
chowda maheeny ki dastan he, giyara mai ki NA-250 ki sham ko jab Lahore ki
defense main dharna huwa ur Karachi main „awam sarkoun par baith gai. Yeh
rona un din sy shuro huwa… Yeh who rona he jab Atizaz Ahsan sahib apny
halqy ka mutali‟a karty hain tu un ky jazbat bhi wohi level hoty hain jo Imran
Khan ky jazbat hain ur who samajhty hain keh nahi that. Who samajhty hain
election main shafafiyat jo ham daikhna, playing fields bhi ROs chahty thy, who
shafafiyat hamian dikhai nahi di” [Today, we have reached this stage if we try
to consider the things which have brought us here? How did this situation arise?
This is not a story of one day. This is not a complaint of Islamabad sit-in. Mr
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 182
Speaker, this story comprises fourteen months long, when on May 11, a sit- in
was held in NA-250 in Defense, Lahore and there was a public sit on the roads
in Karachi…. This story started when Mr Ahsan had a visit to his constituency
and had same feelings what Imran Khan has. He [Mr Khan] thinks that the
transparency which we expected, ROs expected in the election, was not there]
(September 3, 2014, pp. 35-36).
The following excerpt is a continuation of the justification for their protest. However, here he seems to justify the PAT‟s protest. He drew the attention of the Parliament towards the unfortunate incident of Model Town where 14 people had lost their lives and score received serious injuries. He portrayed a gloomy picture of the incident. Mr Qureshi held the Punjab government responsible for that incident. Mr Qureshi considered that attitude of the Punjab Police and Punjab government had brought PAT to that stage because FIR was not registered as PAT wanted. Mr Qureshi painted a very pathetic picture of the victims. He used noun phrases “14 deaths”, “90 bullet wounds”, “amwat” (deaths), verb phrase “sarkoun par khoon behna” (have a blood bath on the road) and an adjective phrase express the “horrific” situation which, according to him, forced the PAT workers to come on the roads for a protest. He said:
Please before you come to Islamabad consider what happened on 17th of June in
Model Town, Lahore consider what Punjab Police and Punjab government did
to the innocent people in Lahore. They were shot down, they were shot at and I
saw them in hospitals, not just 14 deaths, 83 close to 90 people with bullet
wounds on the upper portion of the body, bullets wounds. I saw those women; it
was horrific Mr Speaker, what I saw. “Understand keh jab amwat ho chuki
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 183
houn, jab Lahore ki sarkoun par khoon beh chukka ho ur jo FIR nah kari jaye tu
zihni kaifiyat kiya ho, maqtuleen ur jo mazloomeen hian un ki gham o ghussy ki
kaifiyat kiya ho gi” [imagine, when there are deaths, when blood has been shed
on the roads of Lahore and FIR is not being registered, what will be the
condition of the agony of the victims and poor people?] (September 3, 2014, pp.
49-50).
In the following lines, he informed the parliamentarians about his observations during the
Model Town incident. He told them about besiege of the Model Town protestors. To emphasize his previous claim about the helplessness of the PAT workers, he used phrases “hasar” (besiege),
“containers. ko electric poles ky sath wield kiya giya” (containers were wielded with electric poles), “hazaroun khawateen thain” (there were a thousand of women), “khana band karna”
(deprived them of the food) and “pani kahan adwiyat band karna” (water, food and medicines were not allowed) to express the condition of the workers, emotionalize the parliamentarians and present the government negatively. His use of the noun phrase “hazaroun khawateen” (thousands of women) seems an attempt to win the sympathies of his fellow colleagues. The water, food and medicines are the basic necessity of human beings and cannot be denied even during the war days. He attempted to expose the cruelty of the Punjab government and Punjab Police which had deprived them of the basic facilities. He also attempted to justify the anger and hatred behind the protest of the PAT. He continued:
“Jinab main ny kiya diakha. Main ny Model Town ky hasar main daikha jo
containers ur containers sarf rakhy nahi gaye thy, yahan tu rakhy gaye hain
wahan tu lohy ky sath un ko electric polls ky sath weld kiya giya tha, yeh
kaifiyat main ny dikhi, hazaroun khawateen thain, khana band kiya giay, jo
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 184
khana likar aata bahar jata griftar ho jata tha koi cater aata tha us ki van zabt
kar li jati thi. Pani khana adwiyat band kar di gai” [But sir what did I see? In
Model Town, in the custody where containers had been placed, here they have
been placed on the roads. There they were wielded with electric poles. I saw
this condition: there were women in thousands, food was stopped, and he who
brought food was arrested or went out was arrested. If any caterer came, his van was
taken in custody. The water, food and medicines were blocked] (September 3, 2014, p.
51).
Mr Qureshi‟s speech seems an attempt to legitimizing the protest of PTI and PAT. He explained some of the reasons which had forced both of the parties to come on the road for a protest. In the previous lines, we have seen that parliamentarians were bitterer against PAT leader,
Dr Qadri. He seems to advocate PAT‟s case more forcefully than that of his own party before the
Parliament and attempted to neutralize the feelings of the members.
Mr Hashmi, the PTI parliamentarian, also pointed out the Model Town incident and tried to draw the attention of the members towards the basic reason behind the PAT‟s protest. He questioned the response and reaction of the Punjab government at the time of the incident. He blamed Chief Minister of Punjab, whose residence was in Model Town and was ignorant of the incident. He used the phases, e.g. “chowda afrad ki lashain” (14 dead bodies), “assi logu ko goliyan lagi hu” (80 people were injured) and “action nah lain” (do not take any action) to enhance the impact of the incident and stir the emotions of the parliamentarians. Mr Hashmi did not defend his party‟s decision of the protest directly; however, he held the government responsible for their protest. He also attempted to neutralize the feelings of the members to avoid any expected action against the protestors. He said:
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 185
“…aap halat ko samjhain. Model Town ka waq‟a koi chota waq‟a nahi hy.
Chowda afrad ki lashain pari huwi houn, assi logu ko gowliyan lagi hun. Yeh
kahan ka insaf he keh aap fowri howr par us par action nah lain. Aap kayoun
nah action lain? Wazeer a‟la lka ky ghar Model Town ky sath ghar ho, wozara
ur Lahore ko aap nahi daikh sakty…” [Try to understand the situation. The Model
Town incident is not an ordinary incident. If there are fourteen dead bodies and eighty
are wounded with bullets, is this a justice to take no action? Why should you not take
any action? The residence of Chief Minister is in Model Town near the place (where
this incident took place). Can you not control the ministers and Lahore?] (September 2,
2014, pp. 72- 73).
The analysis of the selected parliamentary speeches of the PTI parliamentarians reveals that they used the discursive practice of proximization as a counter-argument against the accusation of the PML-N and PPP parliamentarians. They attempted to justify their protest and show that it was not against any institution rather it was to strengthen the public institutions. By narrating the Model Town incident in a pathetic way, they attempted to expose the cruel and arrogant attitude of the PML-N‟s federal and provincial governments which had forced them to come on the roads for protest. They also intended to justify the protest of PAT as well by portraying the helpless condition of the PAT workers and massacre of the Punjab government in
Lahore, the capital of the province of Punjab.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 186
Figure 7. Proximization by the Parliamentarians.
The use of Proximization
Present protestors as physical, Justify the protest of PAT temporal and Ideological Threat to Justify the protest of PTI the state and its institutions
Ch Nisar (PML-N) Mr Qureshi (PTI) Mr Rafique (PML-N) Mr Qureshi (PTI) Mr Hashmi (PTI) Mr Ahsan (PPP) Mr Hashmi (PTI) Mr Babar (PPP) Mr Rabbani (PPP)
187
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES
This chapter has analyzed the practice of presenting the ODCs as a physical, temporal and ideological threat to justify the in-group‟s imminent action and get the support of their colleagues and the general public. The above figure shows that the two PML-N, three PPP and two PTI parliamentarians used this practice in their speeches. It also shows that none of the
MQM parliamentarians used this practice. The PML-N and PPP presented the PTI and PAT as the ODCs which were a physical, temporal and ideological threat for the IDCs (state and its institutions). The analysis reveals that the PML-N and PPP parliamentarians included the parties sitting in the joint session, the state, public institutions and democracy in the IDCs and PTI, PAT leadership and protestors in the ODCs. They used such words for the ODCs which presented them as a physical, temporal and ideological threat for the IDCs. The PTI parliamentarians used this strategy as a counter-argument to justify their protest and defuse the propaganda of their opponents. The parliamentarians attempted to present their opponents as a threat to their in-group and justify their actions but neither of the groups seems completely successful in their objectives.
On one hand, the parties sitting in the Parliament succeeded in showing unity and harmony in their thinking and, on other hand, protesters were able to attract the attention of the public and media to highlight their demands. Both sit-ins and the joint parliamentary session ended without achieving their objectives. The session ended on October 19, 2014, PAT sit-in was called off on
October 21, 2014, and PTI ended its sit-in after an attack on Army Public School in Peshawar on
December 17, 2014. All this exercise reflected some maturity in the political leadership of
Pakistan. Another positive effect may be that democratic system in the country was able to pass this transitional phase successfully which would be helpful in maturing the democratic culture in the political parties as well as in the general public.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 188
Chapter VII
Ideology through Clusivity - Association and Disassociation
Chapter V has analyzed the way Pakistani parliamentarians presented their in-group positively by emphasizing its good actions and out-group negatively by emphasizing its bad actions. Chapter VI has investigated how the parliamentarians placed the out-group in the ODCs to present it a physical, temporal and ideological threat for the IDCs or to justify and legitimize their actions. This chapter has analyzed the discursive practice of showing association and disassociation through the use of first-person plural pronouns, i.e. ham/hamain (we/us) used in the selected Pakistani parliamentary speeches. The chapter aims to see the way the parliamentarians used the inclusive and exclusive pronouns for the representation of their in- group, i.e. their parties, party workers and other ethnic groups, and out-group in order to achieve their vested objectives.
Clusivity
Clusivity is a discursive practice of constructing linguistically the “relationship between the speaker, and in-group and out-group” (Wieczorek, 2013, p.28). It enables the interpreters to understand whether the group identity, coalitions, parties, etc. are included in in-groups or out- groups (Chilton, 2004). Initially, clusivity was limited to the inclusion and exclusion of the first- person plural we with reference to belonging or rejection (Wieczorek, 2009), but Wieczorek
(2013) has expanded its scope to the discursive representation of belongingness and disassociation using tactics of positive selves and negative others presentation. She involves legitimization, de-legitimization, association, disassociation, persuasion, manipulation, etc. in clusivity but, in this chapter, the researcher will mostly limit the analysis to the traditional
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 189 concept of association and disassociation through the inclusive and exclusive use of the first- person plural pronouns (Carvalho, 2008) by the parliamentarians in their selected speeches to unveil the possible motive/ideology behind their use.
Ideology through the Use of the First-person Plural Inclusive/Exclusive Pronouns
In linguistics, the terms inclusive and exclusive have been being used for more than two centuries (Hass, 1969). The personal pronoun “we” is normally not used to refer to something in the text; rather, its referents are decided by the role of a speaker and hearer depending on the context (Halliday & Hasan, 1976). Generally, the term inclusive we refers to the speaker, hearers
(you) and others (S+Y+O) and exclusive we is used when “hearer/s” are not involved (S-Y+O)
(Quirk et al., 1985, Fontaine, 2006, Uzum et al., 2017). In English, both inclusive and exclusive plural pronouns are translated as “we” and are differentiated based on the intended meaning. The interpretation of inclusive and exclusive “we” depends on the context; however, sometimes information provided in the context becomes problematic and ambiguous (Uzum, et al., 2017) when it applies equally to inclusiveness and exclusiveness. Similar to English, there is no clear distinction between the inclusive and exclusive personal pronouns in European languages
(Cysouw, 2008), however, Hawaiin, Mauritian, some Australian and aboriginal languages have this distinction (Romaine, 1992). In Urdu, plural personal pronouns ham (we) and hamain (us) are used as inclusive and exclusive pronouns, and the context plays a key role in differentiating the intended meanings. In the following part, both inclusive and exclusive uses of plural personal pronouns “ham” and “hamain” have been discussed.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 190
Table 18
The use of the Plural Pronouns ham/hamain (we/us) by the parliamentarians
Party Name of the speaker Ham/hamain affiliation The plural Inclusive % age Exclusive % age personal pronouns
PML-N Mian Muhammad 24 18 75 6 25 Nawaz Sharif Raja Zafar ul Haq 7 2 28 5 72 Ch. Nisar Ali Khan 17 5 29 12 71 Khawaja Saad Rafique 50 29 58 21 42 PPP Ch. Atizaz Ahsan 26 12 46 14 54 Farhat Ullah Babar 50 30 60 20 40 Raza Rabbani 44 24 55 20 45 Syed. Khursheed Shah 19 7 37 12 63 PTI Makhdoom Shah 177 60 34 117 66 Mehmood Qureshi Nasir Khan Khattak 23 23 100 0 0 Makhdoom Muhammad 31 22 71 9 29 Javed Hashmi MQM Dr Farooq Sattar 43 30 70 13 30 Abdul Rashid Godil 44 32 73 12 27 Babar Khan Ghori 63 59 94 4 6 Total 623 357 57 266 43
The table above shows that, except Mr Khattak, all the parliamentarians used the inclusive as well as exclusive plural pronouns in their selected speeches. They chose the exclusive pronouns for the representation of their party, party workers and some other groups.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 191
Mr Qureshi, the PTI parliamentarian, used the personal plural pronouns 177 times, 60 (34%) of which the pronouns were used in an inclusive sense, and 117 (66%) times in an exclusive sense.
Mr Ghori used the pronouns 63 times and out of which 59 (94%) times he used the inclusive plural personal pronouns and the exclusive plural personal just four times. The PPP parliamentarian, Mr Babar and PML-N parliamentarian, Mr Rafique, were the third largest users of the pronouns who used them for 50 times each. They used them 20 (40%) and 21 (42%) times exclusively and 30 (60%) and 29 (58%) times inclusively respectively. Mr Rabbani was the most frequent user of the pronouns who used them 49 times out of which 28 (57%) times he used them inclusively and 21 (43%) time exclusively. The MQM parliamentarians, Mr Godil and Dr Sattar, used the pronouns for 44 and 43 times respectively. Overall, they used the plural pronouns 623 times out of which 357 (57%) times they used it inclusively and 266 (43%) exclusively. The higher ratio of the inclusive plural personal pronouns indicates that they primarily focused on the parliamentarians sitting in the Parliament for their attention, support and sharing responsibilities.
In the following part, there is a separate analysis of the exclusive and inclusive use of the pronouns in the speeches studied here.
Ideology through the Use of Plural Exclusive Pronouns Ham/Hamain (we/us)
All of the selected parliamentarians except Mr Khattak used first-person plural exclusive pronouns ham/hamain. In the next subsection, some examples are being discussed for the analysis of exclusive use of the plural personal pronouns. The parliamentarians used pronouns ham/hamain for the representation of various groups other than their colleagues sitting in the joint session. They used the pronouns for referring to their parties, party workers, the nation as a whole and their individual selves. In the coming sections, these are being discussed one by one.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 192
Table 19
The use of Exclusive pronouns ham/hamain (we/us) by the parliamentarians
Party Name of the speaker Exclusive ham/hamain (we/us) used for Affiliation Party Party- Multi- Royal use Total workers representation PML-N Mian Muhammad 3 - - 3 6 Nawaz Sharif Raja Zafar ul Haq 5 - - - 5 Ch. Nisar Ali Khan 12 - - - 12 Khawaja Saad Rafique 21 - - - 21 PPP Ch. Atizaz Ahsan 10 2 2 - 14 Farhat Ullah Babar 14 - - 6 20 Raza Rabbani 21 - - - 21 Syed. Khursheed Shah 12 - - - 12 PTI Makhdoom Shah 117 - - - 117 Mehmood Qureshi Nasir Khan Khattak - - - - - Makhdoom 4 - - 5 9 Muhammad Javed Hashmi MQM Dr Farooq Sattar 10 - 3 - 13 Abdul Rashid Godil 1 2 9 - 12 Babar Khan Ghori 4 - - - 4 Total 234 4 14 14 266
The table shows that all of the parliamentarians used first-person exclusive plural pronouns ham/hamain in their selected speeches. However, some of the parliamentarians used the pronouns just for the party representation and some for representing other groups as well.
The table also shows that none of the PML-N parliamentarians used the pronouns for representing other than their party. The PPP and MQM parliamentarians used the pronouns for referring to their party workers and other ethnic groups as well. Mr Ahsan used personal
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 193 pronouns ham/hamain to refer to the party workers and the lawyers who participated in the
Judiciary Restoration Movement (2007-2009) and the MQM parliamentarians used the pronouns to represent their party workers and some ethnic groups. The table also shows that three of the parliamentarians - one from each PML-N, PPP and PTI - used the royal pronouns as well but none of the MQM parliamentarians used them in their speeches.
The table also shows that 13 out of 14 parliamentarians used the first-person exclusive plural pronouns for referring to their parties. Mr Qureshi used the pronouns 117 times whereas all other 13 parliamentarians used the pronouns 114 times which means that he used 50% of the overall pronouns used for the party. This excessive use of the first-person exclusive plural pronouns shows his attachment and involvement with his party. He seems to clarify the position of his party and answering the allegations of violating the constitutions raised against his party. If we compare the party-wise and group-wise use of the exclusive pronouns by the parliamentarians, the table shows that the PML-N parliamentarians used the exclusive pronouns 43 times. The number of these pronouns used by the PPP parliamentarians was sixty
67 times which is higher than the number of pronouns used by the PML-N parliamentarians.
The MQM parliamentarians used these pronouns just 29 times in their speeches. The number of first-person exclusive pronouns ham/hamain used by the PTI parliamentarians is 126 times that is 47% of the total number of the pronouns by the parliamentarians. The PML-N and its supporting parties, i.e. PPP and MQM used the pronouns 53% of the total pronouns.
The PML-N, PPP parliamentarians intended to present the PTI negatively whereas, the
PTI parliamentarians did it otherwise. They also defended and tried to justify their position.
From the result, it may be assumed that people justifying their position against a large group
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 194 may use excessive use of exclusive pronouns more than the large group. Moreover, the excessive use of exclusive pronouns may be interpreted as a defence strategy in a similar situation as argued by Erbulatonva and Tinisbaevich (2015). The excessive use of the first- person exclusive pronouns by the PTI parliamentarians reveals an urge to show their internal strength as well as desperation to present their point of view in a manner in which they may justify their action.
The following part discusses the party-wise use of plural pronouns ham/hamain for the party, party workers and other groups‟ representation by the parliamentarians and attempts to unveil their intended purposes behind the use of these pronouns.
The use of plural exclusive pronouns Ham/Hamain by the PML-N parliamentarians for party representation
All of the PML-N parliamentarians used exclusive pronouns ham/hamain for their party representation and excluded all other parties and members sitting in the joint session.
This shows their loyalty and commitment of their party to democracy, their belief in the constitution and their efforts for the supremacy of the law.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 195
Table 20
Exclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain (party) by the PML-N parliamentarians
Name of the Number of the Intended purpose parliamentarian pronouns used by the speaker
Mian Muhammad Nawaz 3 Invoke unity by pointing out his party‟s Sharif contribution to democracy Raja Zafar ul Haq 5 Invoke unity by pointing out the positive and democratic attitude of his party Ch. Nisar Ali Khan 12 Share their responsibilities Khawaja Saad Rafique 21 Invoke unity by pointing out the patience of his party
PML-N leader, Mr Sharif used the first-person plural exclusive pronouns six times in his speech out of which thrice he used the pronouns for party representation. He cited some references from the past and tried to recall the collective efforts made by his party along with other parties of the opposition to prove their commitment to the supremacy of the law. He reminded his fellow parliamentarians that his party was also with them during the Judiciary
Restoration Movement (JRM) when Musharraf had fired all the Supreme Court judges and imposed emergency. For example, he said: “wokala ky long march ky sath ham bhi thy” [we were also there with the long march of lawyers] (p. 211).
In the above example, Mr Sharif used ham exclusively for his party representation which participated actively in the successful movement of the lawyers. The use of the first- person plural exclusive pronouns by Mr Sharif seems to bring unity among the parliamentarians by reminding them of their collective efforts made in the past as a proof that his party supported the supremacy of the constitution in the county. Apparently, Mr Sharif
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 196 attempted to achieve two objectives through the exclusive use of the pronouns. The first intended purpose seems to remind the members the universal gospel that “unity is a strength” and the second to invoke a unity among the members by referring to the joint efforts made by his party and others. Through the reference, he not only expressed his affiliation with his party but also urged the opposition, especially PPP to overlook Mr Ahsan and Ch. Nisar‟s clash for the greater cause (please see chapter 2 for details) and join its hands with the government.
Mr Haq, the PML-N parliamentarian, used the first-person plural exclusive pronouns five times in his speech. All of these pronouns were used for representing his party.
Acknowledging the constructive role of the Opposition, he, for example, said:
“ham isy qadr ki nigaah sy daikhty hain…agar unhoun ny hamaari khamyoun ki
nishandahi ki he tu ham isy bhi qadr ki nigah sy daikhty hain” [we honour their
opinion…if they have pointed out our weaknesses, we value it] (p. 14).
In the above example, Mr Haq used ham to represent his party. Through the use of the plural pronouns, he attempted to clarify the position of the PML-N government regarding its policy of forbearance. He aimed to develop an atmosphere of unity in the Parliament and urge the opposition to forget the clash. With the aim to cool down the two leaders and bring the atmosphere of the Parliament to normal condition, he referred to the smooth proceedings of the Senate where PML-N was in the opposition. Mr Haq used the pronouns for invoking the unity among his colleagues and winning their support by referring to his party‟s attitude in the
Senate.
Ch. Nisar, the PML-N parliamentarian, used the first-person plural exclusive pronouns
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 197
12 times in his speech. He used the pronouns only to refer to his party to show that his party believed in the democratic rights of the people and that was the reason it (his party) facilitated the protestors. It not only allowed them to come to the capital but also allowed them to have a sit-in at the place where they wanted. Ch. Nisar used the plural pronouns for representing his government, especially his party, to show its belief in the constitution and democratic rights of the people. For example, he said, “ham chahty hain keh hamari rahnumai ho” [we want to be guided] (p. 4). In this example, pronoun ham refers to his party. Here, Ch. Nisar used the pronoun ham to show the belief of his government in the authority of the Parliament by requesting the Parliament for its guidance regarding the policy to handle the situation. The use of the plural pronouns for his party shows his loyalty and attachment to his party. He used plural pronoun ham to show submissiveness of his party before the Parliament and its authority. Through the use of the exclusive pronouns, Ch. Nisar intended to share the burden and seek the support of his colleagues.
Mr Rafique, the PML-N parliamentarian, used the first-person plural exclusive pronouns ham/hamain 21 times in his speech and these pronouns were used for the representation of his party and the government. For example, he said: “…ham sun nahi rahye thy. ham sun rahye thy. Hamain yeh aahat sunai dy rahi thi” […We were listening. We were listening. We were listening to this sound] (p. 26). In this example, Mr Rafique used pronoun ham to refer to his party. In response to Mr Khan‟s accuses on PML-N and its leadership, he claimed that he and his party knew a lot of discrepancies in the dealings of Mr Khan but they were silent for the sake of democracy. Through the use of plural pronoun ham, Mr Rafique intended to take his colleagues in confidence that his party was listening to the character assassination done by the PTI leadership patiently. He also attempted to get the sympathy of
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 198 the parliamentarians and invoke a unity among the members because he considered that unity of the members would help the government in coming out of the prevailing crisis.
The royal use of ham/hamain for authority and power by the PML-N parliamentarians
The use of the royal “we” which refers to a speaker or an ambiguous number of a referent is common in many languages (Mao 1996, Kuo 1999 for English, Pyykko 2002 for
Russian as cited in Scheibman, 2004). Sometimes “we” does not refer to a collection of individual “I”s (Benveniste, 1971) rather it refers to one referent (Margolin, 1996) informally lacking inclusive/exclusive contrast languages (Benveniste, 1971). In Urdu, there is occasional use of we which refers to the individuality of the speaker. In the past, during Mughal rule in the Indo-Pak subcontinent, aristocratic families used to use ham/hamain to refer to individuality of the speaker. Nowadays, very few people use it to refer to their individual selves.
Table 21
Exclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain (royal) by the PML-N parliamentarians
Name of the Number of the pronouns used by Intended purpose parliamentarian the speaker
Mian Muhammad 3 Show authority Nawaz Sharif
Table 21 shows that one of the PML-N parliamentarians, Mr Sharif, the PML-N head, used plural pronouns ham/hamain for his self-reference. He used the pronouns thrice to refer to himself in his speech. He used it to refer to himself as a party head for mentioning his co- operation with the government when PAT had a sit-in during the government of PPP in 2012.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 199
For example, he said, “ham is ko condemn karty hain. Ham ny in ko strong possible terms main condemn kiya …. woh main ny apna farz ada kiya “[we condemn it. We condemned it in the strongest possible terms …. that I did my duty] (p. 22). In this example, the use of ham refers to Mr Sharif who took the decision of calling a meeting of the opposition parties for condemning Dr Qadri‟s sit-in against the PPP government. The use of royal pronouns shows that Mr Sharif‟s act of condemning PAT‟s sit-in and calling a meeting of the leaders of the opposition parties was a decision of his alone. Here, the use of plural pronoun ham reveals his authority as head of the party.
The use of plural exclusive pronouns Ham/Hamain for party representation by the PPP parliamentarians
All of the PPP parliamentarians used the first-person plural exclusive pronouns for their party representation.
Table 22
Exclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain (party) by the PPP parliamentarians
Name of the Number of the Intended purpose parliamentarian pronouns used by the speaker
Ch. Atizaz Ahsan 10 Invoke a sense of responsibility Farhat Ullah Babar 14 Advising the government to adopt a democratic attitude Mian Raza Rabbani 21 Show party‟s commitment Syed Khursheed 12 Show well-wisher of the government Ahmed Shah
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 200
Table 22 shows that Mr Ahsan, the PPP parliamentarian, used first-person plural exclusive pronouns ham/hamain ten times for the representation of his government (1988-1990).
He referred to the No Confidence Movement against the PPP government in 1989 launched by
PML-N which was failed by 12 votes. On the advice of Mr Ahsan, the former PM, Benazir
Bhutto, called a meeting of her party leaders to ponder over the circumstances which led to the movement. Mr Ahsan, for example, said, “hamain aik aisi meeting aapis main karni chahye. …”
[We should have a meeting …] (p. 22). In this example, Mr Ahsan recalled his advice to former
PM, Benazir Bhutto. He used pronoun hamain to refer to the leadership of PPP including the former PM. Mr Ahsan used the pronoun to point out the positive attitude of his leadership and urged the government to adopt the similar attitude and ponder over the factors which had brought it at that point so that such crisis might be avoided in future.
Mr Babar, another PPP parliamentarian, used first-person plural exclusive pronouns ham/hamain 14 times for representing his party, PPP. For example, he said, “ham ny Senate main is ki shadeed mukhalfat ki. Ham ny kaha keh khabar dar! Yeh na karna, ham ny daikha he keh is ka anjam kiya howta he” [we opposed it severely in the Senate. We said, beware! Do not call it. We have seen how does it end?] (p. 53). Here, Mr Babar used ham to refer to his party as a part of the Opposition. During PAT and PTI sit-in Islamabad, the government had invoked army under
Article 245 to control law and order situation and as an Opposition party, PPP opposed the government‟s decision because it considered this act against the true spirit of democracy. Mr Babar used ham/hamain to show that his party had always been trying to implement democracy in its true spirit.
Mr Rabbani, the PPP parliamentarian, also used the first-person plural exclusive pronouns ham/hamain 21 times exclusively to refer to his party, PPP. For example, he said,
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 201
“ham ny khud kaha he keh election main dhandli huwi he. Ham ny kaha he likan
ham ny election qabool kiya he. Ham ny election ko system kyliye qabool kiya he”
[we ourselves have said that election was rigged. We have said but accepted the
election. We have accepted the election for the sake of system] (p. 40).
In the above example, Mr Rabbani used the pronoun ham to refer to his party. Here he indirectly supported PTI‟s claim that the general election 2013 was rigged. He claimed that despite their reservations on the election, PPP did not go with PTI for a protest; rather, it supported the PML-N government. He told the Parliament that their decision of accepting the election and supporting the government was for the sake of system because his party did not want to derail the democratic system which had been being interrupted again and again. Through the use of the pronoun, he intended to show his party‟s commitment to democracy.
Mr Shah, the PPP parliamentarian, used first-person plural exclusive pronouns 12 times in his speech. His use of the exclusive pronouns was to represent his party, PPP, when he mentioned their role in convincing the government to allow PTI to come to Islamabad for the protest. He said,
“ham ny, PPP ny hakoomat sy keh diy he keh hamain patience sy aagy bharna
chahye ur aakhri fateh sabr ki hoti he” [we, the PPP, had asked the government
that we need to proceed with patience and in the end, patience wins] (p. 97).
Here, Mr Shah used ham and hamain in the same sentence. The exclusive pronoun ham refers to his party and inclusive hamain to the parliamentarians, especially government. He used the pronoun ham to tell the Parliament of his party‟s efforts in convincing the government not
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 202 use force against the protestors and allow them to protest. He intended to show that his party believed in democracy and despite their differences with PTI on their demands, they supported their democratic right to protest. He attempted to show that his party was a well- wisher of the government and had always advised it positively and seriously.
The use of plural exclusive pronouns Ham/Hamain for party workers by the PPP parliamentarians
Table 23 shows that one of the PPP parliamentarians, Mr Ahsan, used ham/hamain to refer to his party workers and excluded other parliamentarians. He used the pronouns twice for party workers.
Table 23
Exclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain (party workers) by the PPP parliamentarians
Name of the Number of the Intended purpose parliamentarian pronouns used by the speaker
Ch. Aitzaz Ahsan 2 Show solidarity with the party workers
In the past before signing the Charter of Democracy in 2006, both the parties, i.e. PPP and PML-N, were considered as enemies of each other. Due to this attitude, neither of the party succeeded in completing the constitutional tenure of five years during their previous tenures. However, during the PPP tenure (2008- 2013), PML-N did not try to sabotage the government and the first time a civilian government completed its tenure and a smooth process of power transfer took place. However, PPP had complaints that the PML-N government in
Punjab had a discriminated treatment with the PPP workers. But in 2014, when PTI announced a
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 203 movement against the PML-N government, PPP decided to support the government, however, its workers had reservations on this decision. Mr Ahsan told the Parliament that PPP supporters were inquiring about the reasons for supporting the government because of the treatment of
PML-N government with them and depriving them of their jobs and other opportunities. He said,
“guzashta panch chay sal sy unhoun ny kitna jabr ham par kiya he” [in the last five-six years, they have treated us cruelly] (p. 19).
In the above example, Mr Ahsan used first-person plural pronoun ham to refer to his party workers for complaining about the unjust behaviour of the PML-N governments with PPP workers. Here, Mr Ahsan seems to show solidarity with the party workers by pointing out injustice done with them. The use of the pronouns for representing the party workers by Mr
Ahsan shows that his party valued the party workers and their opinion. The PPP parliamentarian attempted to draw the attention of Mr Sharif and his government towards the feelings of his party workers and discriminated treatment of his governments with them. Through the use of the pronouns, Mr Ahsan intended to make the government realize of the pressure of its workers on them for supporting the government and attempted to urge it to revise its policy regarding the treatment with PPP workers.
The use of plural exclusive pronouns Ham/Hamain for representing the lawyers by the PPP parliamentarians
The result shows that one of the PPP parliamentarians used ham/hamain as exclusive personal plural pronouns for the representation of the lawyers.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 204
Table 24
Exclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain (lawyers) by the PPP parliamentarians
Name of the Number of the Intended purpose parliamentarian pronouns used by the speaker
Ch. Aitzaz Ahsan 2 Point out non-seriousness of PTI workers by comparing it with the lawyers‟ sit-in
Table 24 shows that Mr Ahsan used the pronoun twice to represent the lawyers. Mr
Ahsan had been President of Supreme Court Bar and led the movement of the lawyers for the restoration of the judiciary and led a protest throughout the country 2007-2009 against Gen.
Musharraf‟s regime. He used the pronoun to refer the lawyers during the movement and said,
“jab ham ny mulkgeer dharny ka faisla kiya ur appeal kit u 28 August ko poory
mulk main dharna diya gia” [when we decided to have a sit in the country and on
our appeal, a sit-in was held throughout the country on August, 28] (p. 26)
In the above example, Mr Ahsan used ham to refer to the lawyers. By using the pronoun, on one hand, Mr Ahsan praised the seriousness and loyalty of his fellow lawyers and on other hands, he criticized the inconsistency of the PTI sit-in where people gathered at night and disappeared in the day. He used the pronoun for showing his affiliation with the lawyers who participated in the movement and attempted to point out non-seriousness of the PTI and PAT protestors.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 205
The royal use of ham/hamain for authority and experience by the PPP parliamentarians
One of the PPP parliamentarians, Mr Babar, also used the royal pronoun in his speech.
Table 25 Exclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain (royal) by the PPP parliamentarians
Number of the Intended purpose pronouns used Name of the by the speaker parliamentarian
Farhat Ullah Babar 6 Show authority and experience
Table 25 shows that Mr Babar, the PPP parliamentarian, used the plural pronouns six times for his self-reference. He used ham to refer to himself as an experienced politician who had seen many ups and downs in politics. For example, he said:
“ham ny diakha he keh iqtidar ky aiwanoun main logoun ko dakhil huwty huwye,
un ky hatoun main pholoun ky guldasty. Ham ny daikhy hain woh surkh qaleen
par chalty thy… [We have seen people getting power; they had a bouquet in their
hands. We have seen them walking on the red carpet…] (p. 43)
The example given above shows that Mr Babar used the plural pronoun for his self- reference. It seems that he felt pride in his experience and wanted to impress upon the government, especially some of the ministers that power is not long lasting. He told them that he had witnessed people getting power and then losing it. He advised the ministers to be humble and observe patience. The use of the plural pronoun for advising the government shows his superiority over other colleagues, especially ministers whom he felt impatient and less experienced.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 206
The use of plural exclusive pronouns Ham/Hamain by for party representation the PTI parliamentarians
The following table shows that two of the PTI parliamentarians used exclusive pronouns for party representation. Table 26 Exclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain (party) by the PTI parliamentarians
Name of the Number of the pronouns Intended purpose parliamentarian used by the speaker
Makhdoom Shah 117 Point out the popularity of the party in the Mehmood Qureshi public Makhdoom 4 Point out the internal conflict of his party Muhammad Javed Hashmi
Mr Qureshi, the PTI parliamentarian, used first-person plural exclusive pronouns ham/hamain in the highest frequency. He used these pronouns for 117 times in his speech for his party when he was responding to the allegations raised against his party that PTI had been protesting on the directions of a third or non-democratic party. He rejected these allegations altogether and claimed that his party was protesting on the demands of its workers. For example, he said, “hamain ishara diya giya. Han sat June ko ham Sialkot gaye hamain ishara diya giya…” [we were directed. Yes, on 7th June, we went to Sialkot, we were directed…] (p. 38).
In the example given above, Mr Qureshi used the pronouns ham and hamain to refer to his party, especially, PTI leadership. He told the parliamentarians about their processions and public meetings where a large number of workers had assembled and on their pressure, the party had made a plan to protest against the government. Through the use of the plural personal pronouns, he attempted to clarify his party‟s position and convey the message that his party believed in democracy and was not working for the interest of any third party but for the people of Pakistan.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 207
Mr Hashmi, another PTI parliamentarian, used first-person plural exclusive pronouns ham/hamain four times to refer to his party and leadership. For example, he said, “peachy rahain gy D-Chowk ka wa‟da tha, ham aagy nahi jain gy” [our promise was of D-Chowk, we will not proceed ahead] (p. 77). In this example, he referred ham to PTI leadership which had planned to go back from Islamabad after a protest. Through this, he indirectly blamed his leader, Mr Khan, for backing out of his promise.
The royal use of ham/hamain to show his dare and commitment by the PTI parliamentarian
Mr Hashmi also used the royal ham/hamain to refer to himself. He used the plural pronoun ham five times for his self-representation in his speech. He used it while citing to his conversation with the two powerful personalities of their time: Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the founder chairman off PPP and an elected PM and a dictator Gen. Zia-ul-Haq who had overthrown the government of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto by imposing martial law in the country.
Table 27
Exclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain (royal) by the PTI parliamentarians
Name of the Number of the Intended purpose parliamentarian pronouns used by the speaker
Makhdoom Muhammad 5 Show dare and commitment Javed Hashmi
Mr Hashmi acknowledged that he had started his political career under the leadership of
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto as a student. During Bhutto‟s peak, Mr Hashmi had asked him a few questions which had made him angry. For example, he said,
“ham ny kuch sawallat kiye, woh naraz ho gaye, ham uth kar chaly gaye. Ham ny
kaha agar aap hamary leader hain, kal jab aap ko iqtedar mily ga, aap abhi
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 208
hamri bat nahi sunty tu is waqt kiya karain gain” [we asked him a few questions,
he got angry. We left. We asked him “if you are our leader, you are not listening
to us. In the future if (you?) get the government, what will you do at that time?]
(p. 66).
In the above example, Mr Hashmi used ham to refer to himself. The use of the pronoun shows his daring and dauntless nature as a student leader who was not afraid to ask hard questions to the leaders which others were afraid to ask.
The use of exclusive personal pronouns Ham/Hamain for party representation by the MQM parliamentarians
The following table shows that two of the MQM parliamentarians used exclusive pronouns for their party representation. Table 28 Exclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain (party) by the MQM parliamentarians
Name of the Number of the Intended purpose parliamentarian pronouns used by the speaker
Dr Muhammad Farooq 10 Representation of Karachi and its importance in the Sattar economy
Abdul Rasheed Godil 1 Point out injustice with his community
Babar Khan Ghori 4 Point out his party‟s belief in democracy
The table 28 shows that Dr Sattar, the MQM parliamentarian, used first-person plural exclusive pronouns ham/hamain ten times to refer to his party and people of Karachi. MQM had
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 209 been demanding the division of the country into new provinces or small administrative units. Dr
Sattar criticized other leading political parties who had adopted dual policies regarding the new provinces. For example, he said,
“ham sattar fisad revenue dainy waly log hain. Ham Pakistan ki wahdaniyat ko
qaim rakhna chahty hain. Decentralization ky zare‟ye Paksitan ko mazbooth
banana chahtynhain” [we are the people who give 70% revenue. We want to
maintain the oneness of Pakistan. (We) want to make Pakistan strong through
decentralization] (p. 63).
In the above example, Dr Sattar used plural pronoun ham to refer to his party, especially, the people of Karachi. PPP was demanding the division of Punjab and making a new province consisting of the areas of south Punjab whereas it was opposing the division of the province of
Sindh where PPP had its provincial government. In the same way, PTI was in favour of a separate province to be made in Sindh but opposed the demand of the people of Hazara within the province of KPK where PTI had its government. Similarly, PML-N was supporting the demand of Hazara people but was not ready to divide Punjab where they had their government.
Dr Sattar demanded a clear policy from the parliamentary parties. He was of the point of view that Karachi had been contributing to the GDP considerably but was not rewarded accordingly.
MQM was insisting that if the making of new provinces was not possible, at least the present provinces should be divided into small administrative units. MQM believed that this division was indispensable for the unity and solidarity of the country. Through the use of the plural pronoun, he tried to defend the right of the people of Karachi and attempted to show that it was their true representative because MQM had most of its representation in Karachi.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 210
The table 28 also shows that Mr Godil, the MQM parliamentarian, used first-person plural exclusive pronoun hamain once to represent his party. He intended to point out the discrimination done with MQM. For example, he said, “hamain kaha giya keh bahatar bari machliyoun ky khilaaf operation karna he” [we were told that this operation was against 72 fish
(a metaphor used for the criminals] (p. 22). In this example, Mr Godil used hamain to refer to his party, MQM. He claimed that his party was the true representative of common people but it had always been presented as a terrorist party. He admitted that it was a symbol of terror for feudal lords who did not give due rights to the people. He gave the example from the past when, in
1992, a grand operation was launched against the criminals. In Pakistani political context, a fish, as a metaphor, is used to refer to the people involved in corruption at a large level. Initially, the
1992 operation in Karachi was against the selected 72 corrupt persons but later on, was used to target MQM leaders as blamed by Mr Godil. The use the plural pronoun seems an attempt to highlight the injustice done with his party. He claimed that his party was the true representative of the people of urban Sindh, especially Karachi but its mandate had never been recognized.
The table shows Mr Ghori, the MQM Senator, also employed first-person plural exclusive pronouns ham/hamain four times in his speech for the representation of his party. He used the plural pronouns for expressing his party opinion on the demands of PTI. For example, he said, “ham yeh samajhty hain keh un ki dow demands najaiaz hain” [we think that their two demands are unfair] (p. 20). Here he used ham to refer to his party. He was of the opinion that his party had given the vote of confidence to the PM and it considered PTI‟s demand of the PM‟s resign unconstitutionally. Mr Ghori said that his party considered that Mr Sharif had been elected as PM constitutionally and could not be removed through an unconstitutional act. Through the use of personal pronouns, he attempted to remind Mr Sharif of the favour that his party had done
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 211 to PML-N government by giving their votes to Mr Sharif.
The use of exclusive personal pronouns Ham/Hamain for party workers’ representation by the
MQM parliamentarian
The following table shows that one of the MQM parliamentarians used ham/hamain to refer to their party workers. He excluded other parliamentarians from ham/hamain while referring them to their party workers.
Table 29
Exclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain (party workers) by the MQM parliamentarian
Name of the Number of the Intended purpose parliamentarian pronouns used by the speaker
Abdul Rasheed 2 Point out indiscipline in other parties through the Godil example of his own party
Table 29 shows that Mr Godil, the MQM parliamentarian, used the first-plural personal pronouns twice to refer to his party workers as well. He used the pronouns for his party and workers separately. When he referred to his party, probably, he meant to highlight the refined system of his party and when he referred it to his party workers, he attempted to draw the attention of other parties‟ leaders towards individual‟s answerableness to their party which was not practised in their parties. For example, he said, “ham sy party join karny sy pehly ka hisab ur party join karny kay ba‟d aaj ky asset mangy jaaty hain” [we are asked about our assets before and after of joining party] (p. 23). In this example, he used ham to refer to his party workers. He claimed that his party was based on a checks-and-balances system. Every worker had to
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 212 announce his assets before joining the party. At any time, any worker might be asked about his assets and source of income. Mr Godil, through the use of the plural personal pronoun, attempted to impress upon the parliamentarians that MQM was the only truly democratic party and urged other parties to follow the same.
The use of exclusive personal pronouns Ham/Hamain for party multi-representation representation by the MQM parliamentarians
The following table shows that two of the parliamentarians used ham/hamain as exclusive pronouns for the representation of different factions of society while excluding the members sitting in the joint session.
Table 30
Exclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain (multi-representation) by the MQM parliamentarians
Name of the Number of the pronouns Intended purpose parliamentarian used by the speaker
Dr Muhammad 3 Show care for the people outside of Sindh Farooq Sattar Abdul Rasheed 9 Point out the injustice which mohajirs Godil
Table 30 shows that Dr Sattar used the plural pronouns thrice to refer to the people of
Hazara and Sraiki belt. He criticized PML-N and PTI which were not ready to accept the demands of the people of South Punjab and Hazara, a division of KPK respectively. The people of South Punjab wanted to have their separate province, and people of Hazara were trying to upgrade their Division to a separate province. For example, he said, “ham sraiki „ilaqy ky log
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 213 hain…” [we are people of Sriaki region…] (p. 66). In this example, Dr Farooq used ham to refer to the people of Sraiki belt belonging to South Punjab, who are running a movement to have their separate province. MQM is considered as the representative of the people of Karachi and Urban
Sindh especially, mohajirs of these areas. Through the use of the exclusive pronouns, Dr Sattar seems to extending the canvas of his party to the national level politics.
The table also shows that Mr Godil used ham/hamain nine times to refer to himself as a member of mohajir community and claimed that mohajirs were being discriminated though they were equally patriotic. For example, he said, “hamain kabhi bhatta khore, kabhi dhhat gard, kabhi target killer... [We are sometimes called extortionists, sometimes terrorists, sometimes target killers...] (p. 23)”. In this example, Mr Godil used hamain to refer to the mohajirs, an ethnic community, of Urban Sindh. He used the plural pronouns to refer to the ethnic group of
Sindh to highlight their problems whom he considered to be deprived of their rights.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 214
Figure 8. Clusivity: Exclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain (we/us)
Clusivity: Exclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain (we/us)
Present their party Show authority, as a true dare and representative of Poit out popularity Show solidarity experience the people of of the party in the with the party Pakistan public workers Invoke unity of the colleagues against any invoke sense of Point out unconstitutional Show belief and responsibility indiscipline in change democratic values among the Share other parties parliamentarians responsibilities through the and political parties example of his own party
Mr Qureshi Mr Sharif Mr Sharif (PTI) (PML-N) Mr Ghori Dr Sattar (PML-N) (MQM) (MQM) Mr Haq Mr Babar Mr Shah Mr Godil (PML-N) Ch Nisar (PPP) (PPP)) (MQM) Mr Ahsan Mr Godil Mr Rafique (PML-N) Mr Ahsan Mr Hashmi Dr Sattar (PPP) (MQM) (PML-N) Mr Rabbani (PPP) (PTI) (PPP) (MQM
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 215
Figure 8 shows that almost all of the parliamentarians used the discursive practice of excluding their colleagues sitting in the Parliament while using personal plural pronouns ham/hamain. Thirteen out of 14 members used first-person plural exclusive pronouns ham/hamain for their party representation. The parliamentarians used the pronouns to refer to their own parties and excluded other parties present in the joint session of the Parliament. They intended to show their party‟s commitment to democracy, their previous efforts and contribution and their loyalty to the system for invoking the unity of the House (Parliament). The use of the pronouns for party representation reveals their concern, attachment and involvement. Two of the parliamentarians used the pronouns for the representations of their party workers as well. They intended to show solidarity with them and point out the injustice and discrimination being done with them. Three of the parliamentarians used first-person exclusive personal pronouns ham/hamain to refer to some of the fractions of the society to highlight their issues.
The results of the use of the exclusive personal pronouns reveal that the PML-N parliamentarians (figure 8) used the personal pronouns to create harmony and unity among the members by reminding them of their party‟s (PML-N‟s) contributions in the past. They tried to impress upon their colleagues that their party believed in democracy and democratic rights of the people. The intended purpose of the PML-N parliamentarians seems to get the support of the opposition parties to come out of the political crisis. They employed the personal pronouns for showing their contribution and responsible behaviour for the restoration of democracy. They also seem intended to unite the Parliament and get their support against PTI and PAT. One of the
PML-N parliamentarians, Mr Sharif, used royal pronouns as well. The royal use of these pronouns reveals his authority as a leader and head of the party. None of the PML-N
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 216 parliamentarians used the exclusive pronouns to refer to the party workers or any other ethnic group.
The analysis of the PPP parliamentarians (figure 8) shows that they used the pronouns to refer to their party to show that it was a democratic party and despite reservations and differences with the government, it was co-operating with it for the sake of democracy. The PPP parliamentarians targeted at painting the positive picture of their party by presenting it as the only party which had always supported democracy, adopted the policy of forbearance and suffered irreparable loss as a result but had not compromised on its principles. The PPP parliamentarians not only assured the government of their support but also advised the government to revise its policy which had brought it in that situation. One of its parliamentarians used the exclusive pronouns to refer to the party workers to highlight the discriminated treatment of the PML-N government with them. Another parliamentarian used the royal pronouns as well for expressing his experience and pride as a politician. The analysis reveals that the PPP parliamentarians were not happy with the attitude of the government but were forced to extend their help for the sake of democracy.
The analysis of the PTI parliamentarians (figure 8) shows that two of them used the exclusive pronouns to refer to their party. One member used the pronouns to refer to his party and attempted to show that it believed in the parliamentary system and its decision of the protest was for the rights of the people and for strengthening and depoliticizing the public institutions.
The second member used the exclusive pronouns for referring to the party leadership. He attempted to expose the internal conflict of the party and contradicted the first member and claimed that PTI‟s decisions were being made by a single person who did not stand by his words.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 217
He also used the royal pronouns in his speech which reveal his bold and undaunted nature as a politician who had never been afraid of saying the right things.
The analysis of the MQM parliamentarians (figure 8) shows that they all used the exclusive pronouns to refer it to their party to present it as the only party which had implemented democracy in it. They also presented their party to be the true representative of the lower and middle class. The intended purpose of the use of the pronouns for the party seems to assure the government that MQM was with the government in the prevailing political crisis and would always support the Parliament and the constitution. The two of its parliamentarians used the pronouns for referring to their party workers and some other ethnic groups. Referring to the party workers seems to appreciate their role in the party. They also attempted to highlight the discriminated treatment done in the past with the people of Karachi and their community, i.e. mohajirs. The use of the pronouns for referring to the other ethnic groups outside the province of
Sindh seems to show that MQM cared for their problems. None of the MQM parliamentarians used royal pronouns in their speech.
The analysis of the exclusive use of the pronouns reveals that none of the PML-N and
PTI parliamentarians used the pronouns for referring to any other ethnic group. The reason for not using the pronouns by them may be their party positions- one was in the government and other was protesting against it. The PPP and MQM parliamentarians used the pronouns to refer to their party workers to raise their issues and to convince the government to pay attention to them. Both the parties were supporting the government in that critical situation and without their support, it was not possible for PML-N to save its government. The PPP and MQM parliamentarians, assuring their support to the PLM-N government, attempted to urge it to pay
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 218 attention to the problems of their workers. The analysis also reveals that it was only MQM which represented the people of Hazara Division, the province of KPK and Sraiki belt in South Punjab who were having a movement for separate provinces. MQM is basically considered as the representative party of mohajirs living in Karachi and some urban areas of the province of Sindh.
By representing these people, it seems an attempt to extend its scope by showing that it cared for the people of Pakistan living in other parts as well. The use of first-person plural exclusive pronouns ham/hamain by the PTI parliamentarians seems to defend their party positions. Their excessive use of the pronouns may also be interpreted as an effort to show their internal strength and desperation.
Ideology through the Use of Plural Inclusive Pronouns ham/hamain (we/us)
As shown in Table 31, all of the parliamentarians used first-person plural inclusive pronouns ham/hamain in their speeches as well. As discussed previously, in inclusive use of personal pronouns, the speaker includes the audience or addresses as well. The parliamentarians included their own parties as well as other parties present in the joint session in their in-groups while using the plural pronouns. A few of them also used the pronouns to refer to the nation collectively including their colleagues representing different political parties in the Parliament.
They also used them to refer to the parliamentarians, other political parties and the public in general.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 219
Table 31
Inclusive use of Plural Pronouns ham/hamain (we/us) by the parliamentarians
Party Name of the parliamentarian Inclusive use of ham/hamain affiliation Parliamentarians and The nation Total political parties as a whole PML-N Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif 18 - 18 Raja Zafar ul Haq 2 - 2 Ch. Nisar Ali Khan 5 - 5 Khawaja Saaad Rafique 29 - 29 PPP Ch. Atizaz Ahsan 9 1 10 Farhat Ullah Babar 28 - 28 Raza Rabbani 28 - 28 Syed. Khursheed Shah 7 - 7 PTI Makhdoom Shah Mehmood 57 3 60 Qureshi Nasir Khan Khattak 5 18 23 Makhdoom Muhammad Javed 18 13 31 Hashmi MQM Dr Farooq Sattar 30 - 30 Abdul Rashid Godil 30 2 32 Babar Khan Ghori 56 3 59 Total 322 40 362
Table 31 shows that all of the parliamentarians in their selected speeches used inclusive first-person plural pronouns ham/hamain in their speeches. They used the plural pronouns to refer to their and other parties sitting in the joint session of the Parliament. The PTI parliamentarian, Mr Qureshi, and MQM parliamentarian, Mr Ghori, used the pronouns in the highest frequency. Mr Qureshi used the inclusive pronouns 57 times and Mr Ghori 56 times respectively in their speeches. From the PML-N parliamentarians, Mr Rafiuqe, used them 29 times and Mr Sharif 18 times to include their colleagues sitting in the Parliament whereas Mr
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 220
Haq and Mr Nisar used them two and five times respectively. The PPP parliamentarians, Mr
Babar and Mr Rabbani, used these pronouns in equal numbers, i.e. 28 times and their other two colleagues, Mr Ahsan and Mr Shah used them nine and seven times respectively. The PTI parliamentarian, Mr Hashmi, used the plural pronouns 18 times whereas his other colleague, Mr
Khattak, used them just five times to refer to the members sitting in the Parliament. The MQM parliamentarians, Dr Sattar and Mr Godil, employed the exclusive pronouns in their speeches 30 times each. The table also shows that two of the PTI parliamentarians, Mr Khattak and Mr
Hashmi included the whole nation while using the plural pronouns. They used the pronouns 18 and 13 times respectively. Mr Ahsan also used plural pronoun hamain once to refer to the whole nation. It is interesting to note that Mr Khattak did not use the exclusive pronouns in his speech but used inclusive pronouns 23 times out of which 18 times, he referred to the nation. If we look party- wise positions, the MQM parliamentarians used the pronouns in the highest numbers, i.e.121 times, PTI 114, PPP 73 and PLM-N just 54 times respectively. The larger number of the use of the pronouns by the MQM and PTI parliamentarians shows their interest in the unity of the Parliament. They attempted to invoke the unity and sense of responsibilities among the members. MQM and PTI (PTI emerged as the largest party as the result of 2018) had never been in the power to form government at the federal level. Though MQM had been part of various governments but could not prove itself a national level party. It may be concluded that the parties who had never been in the power use the first person plural inclusive pronouns in larger numbers. It may be interpreted that the parties without power, i.e. government, are in dire need of the unity of the Parliament. It may be assumed as the expression of their desperation. The following part of the report is about the intended purposes of the use of the inclusive pronouns by the parliamentarians of each of the party.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 221
The use of inclusive pronouns ham/hamain for the parliamentarians and political parties by
the PML-N parliamentarians
The PML-N parliamentarians used the inclusive ham/hamain to refer to their colleagues
particularly and the politicians generally. They used the first- person plural inclusive pronouns to
show a unity of the parliamentarians and politicians against any unconstitutional change. They
also used them to share responsibilities as well.
Table 32
Inclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain by the PML-N parliamentarians
Name of the Number of the Intended purpose parliamentarian pronouns used by the speaker
Mian Muhammad 18 Share responsibilities and invoke unity Nawaz Sharif Raja Zafar ul Haq 11 Invoke a sense of responsibility and unity Ch. Nisar Ali Khan 5 Invoke unity Khawaja Saad 29 Invoke unity Rafique
The table shows that the PML-N head, Mr Sharif, used ham/hamain 18 times to refer to
all members sitting in the Parliament to invoke their unity. For example, he said, “ham sab ko aik
bat par mukammal consensus karna chahye” [we all should make consensus on one thing…] (p.
18) In this example, Mr Sharif used ham to refer to the parliamentarians who had participated in
the joint session to ponder over the prevailing issue. He attempted to draw their attention towards
the principal objective of their gathering there. Due to the clash between the two leaders, i.e. Ch.
Nisar and Mr Ahsan (for detail, please see chapter II), the parliamentary discussion apparently
diverged from the main agenda of the session. The session had been called on the requisition of
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 222
PPP to discuss the prevailing political situation. Through the use of the pronoun, Mr Sharif tried to remind them of the purpose for which the session had been called. In the second example, he used the plural pronoun to show shared responsibilities. Through the use of the plural pronouns, he attempted to urge the parliamentarians to resolute to resist every violation for the sanctity of the constitution and stability of democracy. He intended to create unity among the members and invoke a sense of realization of the shared responsibility.
Mr Haq, the PML-N parliamentarian, used first-person plural inclusive pronouns ham only twice out of 11 times to refer to the parliamentarians and the representatives of the political parties participating in the 3rd joint session. For example, he said, “yeh hamara farz banta he keh ham is aag ko thnda karain” [it is our duty that we should cool this fire down] (p. 15). In the example, he used the pronoun ham to refer to the parliamentarians, especially PPP and PML-N parliamentarians, for invoking the sense of responsibilities among the members. Similar to his leader, Mr Sharif, he also seems to aim at the unity of the Parliament and creating harmony among the members. He attempted to urge the parliamentarians to focus on their main agenda for which they had assembled and leave side issues lest they should miss their primary objective. By doing this, he intended to invoke unity among the members and shared the responsibilities of the government.
Ch. Nisar, the PML-N parliamentarian, used first-person plural inclusive pronouns ham/hamain five times in his speech. He used the pronouns to refer to all parliamentarians sitting in the Parliament for sharing responsibilities. He used the pronouns to urge them to adopt a unanimous policy and chalk guidelines to handle the issue of dharna. For example, he said,
“hamain in logoun sy wasta he…” [we are facing these people] (p. 6). Here he used “hamain” to
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 223 refer to the parliamentarians especially and leaders of the political parties in general. He believed that the attitude of Mr Khan and Dr Qadri was against the constitution and interests of Pakistan.
He used the plural pronoun to show that parties representing the public in the Parliament were truly democratic and they were facing the parties that did not believe in the constitution and democracy. He was of the opinion that Mr Khan‟s PTI and Dr Qadri‟s PAT were having an unconstitutional protest whereas the parties who were representing the public in the House believed in the constitution and supremacy of law. He attempted, through the use of plural pronouns, to create unity and harmony and saying that the protest was not only against the government but against the Parliament. Ch. Nisar also seems to convey a message to the protesting parties and public that parliamentarians sitting in the joint session were unanimously defending democracy.
Mr Rafique, the PML-N parliamentarian, used the first-person plural inclusive pronouns ham/hamain 29 times to refer to the parliamentarians sitting in the Parliament. Mr Khan had accused the parliamentarians of corruption. He aimed to create unity by using the plural pronouns. For example, he said, “…ham sab ka media trail kar rahye hain…. ham main khamiyan houn gi ur hamari siyasat main khamiyan rahi hain” [We all are being media trailed…. we all might have shortcomings and there have been weaknesses in our politics] (p.
21). In this example, Mr Rafique referred ham to all parliamentarians participating in the joint session. By declaring the media trial a character assassination of all members and using the plural pronoun, he aimed to make a consensus among the parliamentarians against Mr Khan. He also attempted to win the sympathy of his colleagues and the public for the government against the protestors. He also seems intended to show the unity of the parliamentarians who were experienced and knew how to handle such a situation. He used the plural pronouns to show
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 224 unity, shared responsibilities and win the sympathy for his colleagues and the public.
The use of inclusive pronouns ham/hamain for the parliamentarians and political parties by the PPP parliamentarians
All of the PPP parliamentarians used the plural inclusive pronouns for the parliamentarians and political parties.
Table 33
Inclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain by the PPP parliamentarians
Name of the Number of the pronouns Intended purpose parliamentarian used by the speaker
Ch. Atizaz Ahsan 9 Show unity Farhat Ullah Babar 28 Invoke unity and a sense of responsibility Mian Raza Rabbani 28 Invoke a sense of responsibility Syed Khursheed 7 Point out effects of unity Ahmed Shah
Table 33 shows that Mr Ahsan, the PPP parliamentarian, used first-person plural inclusive pronouns ham/hamain nine times for referring to the parliamentarians to show commitment and support to the PM, Mr Sharif, on the behalf of parliamentarians against PAT and PTI. For example, he said,
“…ham sary ky sary ya‟ni 442 ya 446 arakeen e Parliman main sy har aik shakhs
is marhaly par ur is mo‟amly main aap ki kabeena ki tarah aap ky sath he [we all
442 or 446 members of the Parliament, each member, at this moment and at this
point, is with you like your cabinet…] (p. 24).
In the above example, Mr Ahsan used ham to refer to the parliamentarians except that of
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 225
PTI. He used the plural pronouns to refer to his party and other parties of the opposition. He, being a leader of the opposition in the Senate, assured the PM of their cooperation and support.
Through the use of plural pronoun ham for all of the parliamentarians including treasury and opposition benches, he intended to show a unity of the Parliament and give the message of oneness to the protestors in particular and public in general.
Mr Babar, the PPP parliamentarian, used first-person plural inclusive pronouns ham/hamain 28 times for the members of the Parliament and politicians while expressing his views in the session and declaring the situation a turning point in the history of Pakistan. For example, he said, “ham sab kehty hain keh ham sab tareekh ky nauk mor par khary hain” [we all say that we are at the most critical point of our history] (p. 40). In this example, Mr Babar used plural pronoun ham twice in one sentence to refer to the parliamentarians and the politicians.
Through the use of the inclusive pronouns, Mr Babar attempted to draw the attention of the members and the politicians to their claims they had made urged them to realize their responsibilities and be united to handle the political situation. The use of the pronouns shows his involvement and sense of responsibility.
Mr Rabbani, the PPP parliamentarian, included the members representing political parties in the Parliament in his in-group and used the first-person plural inclusive pronouns 28 times to refer to them. Contrary to his other party leaders, Mr Rabbani did not consider that war against unconstitutional forces was over. He used pronouns to warn the parliamentarians and make them realize their responsibilities which had not been accomplished. For example, he said, “hamain is bat ko madd-e-nazar rakhni chahye keh yeh pahli larai he…” [we should keep in mind that this is the first war…] (p. 35). In this example, Mr Rabbani used ham to refer to all parliamentarians
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 226 belonging to various political parties. He considered the protest a continuation of the war against political forces and a beginning of the new attack. He attempted to urge the parliamentarians to remain ready for further attacks on the Parliament and democracy. He used the pronouns for shared responsibilities and to renew the determination of all parliamentarians of resisting any undemocratic change. He not only warned the fellow parliamentarians against any imminent adventure but also urged them to be united for the sake of democracy.
Mr Shah, the PPP parliamentarian, used first-person plural inclusive pronouns ham/hamain seven times in his speech to represent the whole Parliament. He used the pronouns to show unity among the parliamentarians. For example, he said, “aaj ham yeh mahsoos karty hain keh parliament jeet gai he [...today we feel that Parliament has succeeded...] (p. 100). In this example, Mr Shah used ham to refer to all parliamentarians sitting in the joint session.
Announcing the victory of the Parliament, when Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Vice Chairman of PTI had attended the session and showed his confidence in the Parliament and political system, Mr
Shah, congratulated all the parliamentarians and political parties on their success. He considered it the result of the unity of the parliamentarians. By using the pronouns, he intended to show the unity and oneness of the parliamentarians and to urge them for keeping the unity in the future.
The use of inclusive pronouns ham/hamain for the nation by the PPP parliamentarians
One of the PPP parliamentarians used the inclusive pronouns to refer to the nation as a whole (Parliamentarians + General Public).
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 227
Table 34
Inclusive use of personal plural pronouns for the nation by the PPP parliamentarians
Name of the Number of the pronouns used by the speaker Intended purpose parliamentarian
Ch. Atizaz Ahsan 1 Show solidarity with the media
The table shows that only Mr Ahsan used the inclusive pronoun ham once in his speech.
Expressing his views about the treatment of the police with media, Mr Ahsan declared it a shameful act for the whole nation. He said, “is sy ham sab Pakistaniyoun ka sar sharm sy jhuk jaana chahye” [on this, we all Pakistanis should bend our heads with shame] (p. 21). In this example, Mr Ahsan used plural pronoun ham to refer to all citizens of Pakistan including the parliamentarians. He used the pronoun to draw the attention of the parliamentarians, especially the government to ensure the safety of the media persons. He intended to show solidarity with the media on behalf of the whole nation.
The use of inclusive pronouns ham/hamain for the parliamentarians and political parties by the PTI parliamentarians
All of the PTI parliamentarians used the inclusive pronouns for parliamentarians and political parties in their speeches.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 228
Table 35
Inclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain by the PTI parliamentarians
Name of the Number of the pronouns used by Intended purpose parliamentarian the speaker
Makhdoom Shah 57 Invoke a sense of responsibility Mehmood Qureshi
Nasir Khan Khattak 5 Show unity of the Parliament Makhdoom 18 Invoke a sense of responsibility in Muhammad Javed the political leadership Hashmi
Table 35 shows that Mr Qureshi, the PTI parliamentarian used first-person plural inclusive pronouns 57 times to represent the parliamentarians. He used the pronouns for invoking the sense of responsibility among the parliamentarians. For example, he said, “agar ham thandy dil sy mutali‟a karain, ham yahan pahunchy kayoun” [if we think carefully, why we reached this point] (p. 35). In this example, Mr Qureshi used the plural pronoun ham twice. He used the inclusive pronoun ham to refer to the political parties and the parliamentarians sitting in the joint session. Being a parliamentarian, he expressed his desire to resolve the issue through the parliamentary forum. Through the use of the pronouns, he attempted to invoke the attention of the members and the government towards the basic issues which had brought PTI on the road for protest. It seems that Mr Qureshi intended to make the parliamentarians realize of their responsibility because he considered that role of the parliamentarians in the past had not been commendable. He also considered the prevailing crisis a challenge for the politicians and feared that they might not turn out to be successful if they did not proceed carefully. The highest number the pronouns used by him shows his respect for the parliamentarians and his belief in the
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 229 authority of the Parliament. Through the use of the pronouns, he attempted to invoke the sense of responsibility among his colleagues.
Mr Khattak, another PTI parliamentarian, used the first-person plural inclusive pronouns five times for the parliamentarians with the aim to urge them to assure Chinese President of their support and request him to reschedule his visit to Pakistan by passing a resolution unanimously.
For example, he said, “ham app ky sath hain. Aap ky dost hain ur ham darkhast karty hain keh dowry kyliye nahi tareekh di jaye” [we are with you. We are your friend and we request you to give a new date] (p. 39). In this example, Mr Khattak used pronoun ham to refer to all parliamentarians. He, on the behalf of the parliamentarians, requested the Chinese President to schedule his visit anew. Mr Khattak seems sad when Chinese President cancelled his official visit to Pakistan due to the political situation. He used the plural pronoun to show a unity of the parliamentarians and used ham for all the parliamentarians. He, through the use of plural pronouns, intended to show a unity of the members and solidarity with China. Mr Khattak is the only parliamentarian who did not use the exclusive pronouns for presenting his party positively.
He used only inclusive pronouns which may be interpreted that he cared more for the unity of the parliamentarians and well-being of the country than his party. His action also reveals his detachment from the other members of his party.
Mr Hashmi, another PTI parliamentarian, used first-person plural inclusive pronouns ham/hamain 18 times to represent the parliamentarians and the politicians who had struggled and sacrificed for the restoration of democracy. For example, he said, “hamain zati panad ur napasand sy aagy jana chahye [we should go beyond our personal liking and disliking] (p. 70).
In this example, Mr Hashmi used plural pronoun hamain to refer to all parliamentarians
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 230 belonging to various political parties. He attempted to urge the parliamentarians to think beyond their personal interests and realize their responsibilities as the representatives of the people of
Pakistan. He considered the politicians responsible for the separation of Bangladesh (previously known as East Pakistan was separated from West Pakistan in 1971) due to their personal interests. He wanted the politicians to be united and forget their personal differences for a greater cause, i.e. the wellbeing of the general masses. He also attempted to urge them to think beyond their personal interests for the sake of the nation and the country. He used the plural pronoun to invoke the sense of responsibility in the parliamentarians.
The use of inclusive pronouns ham/hamain for the nation by the PTI parliamentarians
All the three PTI parliamentarians used the plural pronouns to refer to the nation as a whole including the parliamentarians and political leaders.
Table 36
Inclusive use of pronouns ham/hamain for the nation by the PTI parliamentarians
Name of the Number of the pronouns Intended purpose parliamentarian used by the speaker
Makhdoom Shah 3 Invoking unity and a sense of responsibility Mehmood Qureshi Nasir Khan Khattak 18 Invoke unity and share responsibilities Makhdoom 13 Invoke a sense of responsibility in public as a Muhammad Javed nation Hashmi
The above table shows that Mr Qureshi used first-person plural inclusive pronouns ham thrice in his speech to represent the nation as a whole. He used plural pronouns ham/hamain for urging the parliamentarians to realize their responsibilities and adopt a reasonable attitude for the
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 231 sake of the nation. For example, he said,
“ham jis nahj par aaj qowm khari he aik tareekhi mor he. Ham bhatak bhi sakty
hain ur ham rasty ko mustahkum ur mazboot hbi kar sakty hain” […we, as a
nation, are standing at the way where we may go astray or may strengthen it.] (p.
32)
In the above example, Mr Qureshi used the pronoun ham to refer to the whole nation. He declared the prevailing political situation a turning point for the nation where it needed to select a way forward keeping the future in mind. Indirectly, he used the pronoun for the parliamentarians and political leaders, as the representatives of the public, for invoking the sense of responsibility among them. He used the pronouns for invoking the sense of responsibility among the politicians and the nation as a whole. He attempted to urge them to be careful in making their decisions because he considered the situation very critical where any irresponsible act of the politicians would affect the whole nation.
Mr Khattak mostly used the plural pronouns to refer to the Pakistani nation as a whole.
Out of 23, for 18 times he referred it to the nation. He criticized the Pakistani governments including the previous ones for their foreign policies and held them responsible for bringing the country at that position. He also used the pronouns for invoking the sense of responsibility among the members and urged the government for adopting a foreign policy based on the interest of the country and the ground realities. He considered the wrong policies of the governments which had earned a bad name for Pakistan. For example, he said, “hamain dahshat gard samjha jaraha he. Koi ham par I‟tibar nahi kar raha” [we are being considered terrorists.
No one is trusting us] (p. 38). In this example, Mr Khattak used hamain to refer to the nation as a
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 232 whole. Apparently, he referred hamain to the whole Pakistanis but actually, he seems criticizing the persons and governments whose actions and policies had brought Pakistanis at the stage where no Pakistani could feel proud. Mr Khattak used the pronouns 18 times to refer to the nation which is in the highest number. This frequency reveals his impatience regarding the foreign policy of Pakistan and the concerned authorities. It may also be interpreted that inclusive pronouns may be used to express the suppressed feeling along with the loyalty and sincerity.
Through the use of the personal pronouns, he intended to invoke the sense of responsibility among the parliamentarians as well and urge them to revise the foreign policy in favour of the nation and the country.
Mr Hashmi used the first-person plural personal pronouns 13 times to represent the nation as a whole. He seems involving the nation by expressing his regret on the mistakes done by the politicians which had caused the country irreparable loss. Similar to Mr Khattak, he also criticized the previous governments though indirectly. For example, he said, “Badqismati sy ham aaj kisi baat par khary ho kar sar fakhr sy nahi utha sakty [unfortunately, now we cannot raise our head on anything with pride] (p. 63). In this example, Mr Hashmi used plural pronoun ham to refer to the people of Pakistan as a nation. He seems intended to draw the attention of parliamentarians towards the inconsistencies in the policies of the country. He considered that the whole Pakistani nation in general and politicians in particular had not played their role positively. He also regretted that as Pakistanis, they had lost 67 precious years of their history.
He used the plural pronouns for invoking the sense of responsibility among the parliamentarians particularly and politicians generally for the sake of the nation. Mr Hashmi used the inclusive pronouns 13 times which is the second highest number. This frequency also exhibits Mr
Hashmi‟s impatience with the prevailing foreign policies.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 233
The use of inclusive pronouns ham/hamain for the parliamentarians and political parties by the MQM parliamentarians
The MQM parliamentarians used the plural pronouns to refer to parliamentarians and political parties in their speeches.
Table 37
Inclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain by the MQM parliamentarians
Name of the Number of the Intended purpose parliamentarian pronouns used by the speaker Dr Muhammad 30 Invoke a sense of responsibility Farooq Sattar
Abdul Rasheed 30 Point out a contradiction in the actions of Godil political parties Babar Khan Ghori 56 Show unity and invoke a sense of responsibility
Table 37 shows that Dr Sattar used first-person plural inclusive pronouns ham/hamain 30 times in his speech to refer to the parliamentarians. He used these pronouns for reminding them that being politicians and representatives of the people, they had not delivered properly, rather had ignored the main issues. For example, he said, “ham ny apni aaini zima daryan poori nahi ki hain” [we have not fulfilled our constitutional responsibilities] (p. 64). In this example, Dr Sattar used ham to refer to the parliamentarians. He attempted to make them realize their responsibilities as the public representatives. Dr Sattar considered them responsible for the risks the country was put in. He considered that the slogans chanted for the supremacy of the constitution would be shallow until anything was done practically. He seems intended to make parliamentarians realize their responsibility and demanded action instead of mere claiming.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 234
The table shows that Mr Godil included parliamentarians and politicians in his in-group.
He also used first-person plural inclusive pronouns ham/hamain 30 times to refer to them in his speech. He claimed that political parties had not supported true democracy because they had not implemented it in their parties. He used the pronouns to make them realize their responsibilities.
For example, he said, “jamhooriat ka ham sab rona peet ty hain” [we all talk of democracy…]
(p. 23). In this example, Mr Godil used ham to refer to the parliamentarians, especially the head of the political parties. He seems urging the parliamentarians that instead of demanding democracy, they needed to implement democracy in their parties. He considered that the benefit of true democracy could not be imparted to the nation until political parties opt it practically.
Through the use of the pronoun, he seems intended to convince the parties to remove contradictions in their sayings and actions.
The speech of Mr Ghori is also replete with the instances where he used the first-person plural inclusive pronouns to refer to the parliamentarians. Table 37 shows that he used the inclusive pronouns 56 times which is the second highest number used by the parliamentarians.
On one hand, he used the pronouns to show a unity of the parliamentarians and on the other hand, he attempted to invoke the sense of responsibility among the members. For example, he said, “jo shurka yahaan baithy hain hamin un ka ihtram karna chahye. Hamain un ko achy alfaz bhaijny chahye [we should respect the participants of the sit-in. We should send them a good message] (p. 28). In this example, Mr Ghori used ham to refer to the members of the Parliament and advised them to be neutral and not to go against any party. He considered the Parliament a representative body of the whole nation and its responsibility is to work for the welfare of the people beyond the party level. He said that people protesting outside the Parliament were citizens of Pakistan and the Parliament was their representative as well, therefore, the parliamentarians
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 235 sitting in the joint session should not take any step against them. He insisted that Parliament should be impartial. He argued that parliamentarians might differ with the way the protestors had adopted but they should also pay attention to their demands. Through the use of personal pronouns ham/hamain, on one hand, he showed the unity of the parliamentarians for democracy, on other hands, he attempted to invoke the sense of responsibility among the members. He also attempted to urge them to think beyond the party levels and pay attention to the problems of the opponents as they were also citizens of the country.
The use of inclusive pronouns ham/hamain for the nation by the MQM parliamentarians
The two of the MQM parliamentarians used the first-person plural inclusive pronouns for referring to the nation as a whole.
Table 38
Inclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain by the PTI parliamentarians
Name of the Number of the pronouns Intended purpose parliamentarian used by the speaker
Abdul Rasheed Godil 2 Invoke a sense of responsibility as a nation Babar Khan Ghori 3 Invoke a sense of responsibility
Table 38 shows that Mr Godil used the pronouns twice in his speech to represent the nation as a whole. He raised a very important point, which was related to the sovereignty and dignity of the country. He believed if Pakistan was divided into administrative units, it could progress by leaps and bounds. He emphasized the parliamentarians and government to act upon the suggestions of his party so that the country could become stronger and more powerful. For example, he said,
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 236
“hamain kisi sy kuch maangna na pary. Hamain har saal bheek mangna na
pary…. hamain apny dil ko bara karna pary ga. Hamain yeh sochna pary ga” …
[We will not have to ask anything from anyone. We have not to beg for help. We
will have to have courage. We will have to think that …] (p. 28).
In the above example, Mr Godil used hamain to refer to the Pakistanis as a nation, especially, parliamentarians. He seems to urge them to introduce democracy at local levels. He believed that issues faced by Pakistan and its people were due to the untrained and irresponsible political leadership. Through the use of the personal pronouns, he attempted to invoke the sense of responsibility among the parliamentarians for the betterment of the country.
Table 38 shows that Mr Ghori also used first-person plural inclusive pronouns ham/hamain thrice for referring to the nation as a whole. Commenting on the effects of dharna on the Pakistani economy, he said that it had cost billions of rupees which would affect the life of every person. For example, he said, “is say bhi hamain arboun rupaye ka nuqsan huwa” [this has cost the loss of billions of rupees] (p. 21). In this example, Mr Ghori used hamain to refer to the nation as a whole which had been suffering as the result of the sit-ins. He used the pronoun to make PTI and PAT realize the negative effects of their sit-ins on the economy of the country. He also attempted to invoke the sense of responsibility among the protestors.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 237
Figure 9. Clusivity: inclusive use of personal plural pronouns ham/hamain (we/us)
Clusivity: Inclusive use of personal plural ronouns ham/hamain (we/us)
Invoke unity and a Point out a sense of responsibility Share contradiction in Show Show unity Point out effects of Show unity of the the actions and among colleages and responsibilities unity parliamentarians impatience and political parties saying of political depression parties
Mr Haq (PML-N) Ch Nisar (PML-N Mr Babar (PPP) Mr Sharif Mr Mr Mr Rabbani (PPP) (PML-N) Ahsan Mr Shah Khattak Mr Mr Khattak Mr Qureshi (PTI (PPP)) (PPP) (PTI) Godil (PTI) Mr Khattak (PTI) (MQM) Mr Hashmi Mr Hashmi (PTI) (PTI) Dr Sattar (MQM) Mr Godil (MQM) Mr Ghori (MQM)
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 238
The figure given above shows the inclusive use of the first-person plural pronouns by the speakers for the representation of the parliamentarians, political parties and the nation as a whole. Through the use of the pronouns for the parliamentarians and political parties, they seem aiming at showing their unity, creating harmony among the members, sharing their responsibilities, invoking the sense of responsibility and showing their commitment against any unconstitutional change. The figure shows that maximum parliamentarians used this practice to invoke unity of the Parliament and make the members realize their responsibilities as the representative of the people. The PTI parliamentarians also attempted to point out the contradictions in the sayings and actions of the political parties.
The parliamentarians belonging to the four parties seem to have different objectives while using the inclusive pronouns for referring to the parliamentarians and political parties. The objectives of the PML-N parliamentarians (figure 9) seem to get the sympathy of their colleagues and urge them to support their government. They seem employing this practice for invoking the sense of responsibility and unity among their colleagues and sharing their responsibilities for releasing the pressure of the protesting parties. They also seem aiming to urge the parliamentarians for their support against any other imminent unconstitutional adventure. The figure shows that Mr Sharif used the inclusive pronouns to refer to the parliamentarians to involve them and share his burden with them. His intended purpose seems to unite the
Parliament against the movement and urged them to support him in the critical time. Mr Haq used inclusive ham/hamain to refer to the parliamentarians and political parties to unite them and realise them of their responsibilities. Ch. Nisar used the pronouns for urging his colleagues to adopt a unanimous policy to handle the situation. He attempted to create unity among the
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 239 members by sharing his responsibilities, as an Interior Minister, with them. The intended purpose of Mr Rafique also seems to unite the members and show the protesting parties that the government was not alone but was duly supported by the opposition parties.
The PPP parliamentarians, through the use of this practice, attempted to invoke the unity among the parliamentarians and show their commitment to democracy (figure 9). They also seem intended to make them realize their responsibilities as well. The figure shows that Mr Ahsan, Mr
Babar and Mr Babar used the inclusive pronouns for invoking the unity and sense of responsibility among the members. Mr Shah used the pronouns for the members for pointing out the effects of unity. The PPP parliamentarians attempted to unite the Parliament in the name of democracy and supremacy of the constitution.
The PTI parliamentarians (figure 9) attempted to invoke a sense of responsibility among the members. They seem using the inclusive pronouns to make parliamentarians realize that they all were united against any unconstitutional change. They also attempted to urge their colleagues to realise their responsibilities. The figure shows that PTI parliamentarians, Mr Qureshi and Mr
Hashmi used the pronouns for invoking a sense of responsibility among the parliamentarians and political parties. Mr Khattak employed the pronouns to show the unity of the Parliament.
The MQM parliamentarians (figure 9) seem using the inclusive ham/hamain mostly to refer to the parliamentarians to draw their attention towards the public issues, invoking the sense of responsibility and observe forbearance. They attempted to attract the attention of the members especially the government towards the public issues and invoking the sense of responsibility among them. Dr Sattar used the inclusive ham/hamain for invoking the sense of responsibility among the members. Mr Godil used the pronouns for pointing out the contradiction between the
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 240 claims and actions of the political parties. Mr Ghori used the pronouns for proving the unity and invoking the sense of responsibility among their colleagues.
Analysis of the first-person plural inclusive pronouns (figure 9) also reveals that six out of fourteen members used the plural pronouns for referring to the nation as a whole. The two
MQM parliamentarians involved the nation for highlighting public issues. Mr Godil insisted on the division of the country into small administrative units for the welfare of the people and unity of the country, whereas Mr Ghori used the pronouns to draw the attention of members especially the protestors towards the effects of dharna on the lives of people of Pakistan. The involvement of the whole nation by the MQM parliamentarians seems an attempt to show that they had a concern with the public issues and wanted to solve them. Only one of the PPP parliamentarians used the pronouns for the nation as a whole. Mr Ahsan represented the feelings of the nation on the inhuman treatment of the police with the media. He expressed his regret on behalf of the whole nation on the misbehaviour of police with the media. None of the PML-N parliamentarians used the inclusive pronouns for the nation. PTI and MQM were the third and fourth largest parties in the National Assembly and both have never been able to form their government. The results (figure 9) show that both PTI and MQM used first-person plural inclusive pronouns ham/hamain in the maximum numbers for parliamentarians and political parties. They also used the pronouns to refer to the whole nation to the maximum numbers. The use of this practice, i.e. using inclusive pronouns in maximum numbers, may be interpreted as the expression of depression or suppressed feelings. The reason for these feelings may be owing to their political positions. PTI had succeeded in forming its government in the province of KPK but could not win expected seats of the National Assembly. It was protesting against PML-N government because it considered that PTI was deliberately deprived of 30-35 seats. MQM
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 241 formed a coalition with PPP in the province of Sindh and was not on the influential position at the federal level. There is another thing common between these parties that they had never been in a position to form government at the federal level.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 242
Chapter VIII
Discussion
In chapter V, the in-group vs the out-group presentation has been analyzed. Chapter VI has analyzed the practice of proximization used by the Pakistani parliamentarians in their speeches and Chapter VII has analyzed the practice of association and disassociation using the plural personal pronouns ham/hamain. This chapter discusses the salient findings of these chapters and sees if the effects of the ideologies of their parties were reflected in the selected speeches of the parliamentarians of the four leading parties.
In Pakistan, as no previous study has investigated the parliamentary discourse, however, a few researchers, e.g. Naz, et al., (2012), Mehdi (2012), Nasir‟s (2013), Nawaz, et al., (2013),
Anwer, et al., (2015), Iqbal (2015), Hussain (2015), Qadeer and Shehzad (2017) and Hassan
(2018) have analyzed the political speeches of some leading Pakistani political leaders. The results of these research efforts show that politicians use rhetoric to exploit political situations and emotional words to attract the attention of the public, especially their voters by appealing to their feelings. The present study is an effort to unveil the political ideology embedded in the selected parliamentary speeches of Pakistani politicians for presenting their in-group positively and out-group negatively.
The analysis of the selected speeches of the parliamentarians in chapter VI shows that their focus was centred more on the negative out-group presentation than the in-group positive presentation. During political activities, politicians divide themselves into two groups (Wirth-
Koliba, 2016) but the results of the study reveal that, unlike most of the political debates/discussions, the Pakistani parliamentarians divided themselves into more than two
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 243 groups and their affiliation within groups varied from one individual to another as well as from one topic to another topic under discussion. Apparently, there was one group sitting in the
Parliament and other was on the road having a sit-in opposite to the Parliament House. Within these two groups, especially in the Parliament, a further division was observed. The PPP parliamentarians, the leading opposition party in the National Assembly, on one hand, included
PTI and PAT, the protesting parties, in the out-group, reproached them severely and declared their protest unconstitutional even a conspiracy against the state. On another hand, they included the PML-N government in the out-group and presented it negatively by holding it responsible for the prevailing political crisis. Similarly, PTI parliamentarians included their co- protesting party, PAT, along with PPP and other parliamentarians in their in-group and at the same time they included PAT in the out-group. Some of the parliamentarians used very harsh lexicons and idiomatic phrases to emphasize their (out-group) negative actions than our (in- group) positive ones.
In-group Positive vs Out-group Negative Presentation
In-group positive presentation and out-group negative presentation are the fundamental properties of political ideology (van Dijk, 1998, 2006). The results reveal that the Pakistani parliamentarians used the discursive practice of in-group positive presentation to highlight their efforts and sacrifices for the revival and strength of democracy in the country. They presented their in-group positively in two ways. They presented, on one hand, their in-group positively by highlighting their positive actions directly, and on another hand, by presenting the out-group negatively as is argued by the Political Discourse Analysts (also see van Dijk, 1993, 1997;
Lauk, 2002). Politicians usually include the groups or members doing the same duty or having
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 244 the same interest (Andersonn 1983) in their in-group. During the protest of PTI and PAT against the PML-N government, especially the PM; PPP, though being a part of the opposition, joined the ruling party and condemned the protest declaring their demands unconstitutional. The
PML-N parliamentarians included PPP and other parliamentary parties, except PTI and PAT, in their in-group. They presented their in-group as the followers of democracy and out-group otherwise. Analysis of the speeches reveals that the PPP parliamentarians included PML-N, the ruling party, and PTI, the protesting party, in their in-group as well as in the out-group; however, they excluded PAT because they considered it a non-democratic party. The PPP parliamentarians presented their own party as the followers of democracy which believed in the supremacy of the constitution and the Parliament. They presented their party positively by assuring the government of their support against any unconstitutional demand of PTI and PAT in order to strengthen democracy and the Parliament. On one hand, they, as an in-group member, they defended PTI‟s right to protest, and on another hand, opposed its demands.
Similarly, they supported PML-N‟s stance against the protesting parties as well as rebuked its incapability of handling the political issues and inhuman treatment with the PAT workers. In the same way, the PTI parliamentarians, on one hand, included PAT in the in-group while defending its decision of protest and claiming that it was protesting for justice and, on the other hand, they disowned it by declaring it a non-democratic party and holding it responsible for the attack on the Parliament and PTV buildings.
Political actors present their out-groups negatively (van Dijk, 1993, 1997, 2006). The
Pakistani parliamentarians used this discursive practice to present the out-group and its leadership negatively. They emphasized the out-group negative actions to present it undemocratic, an enemy of the state, cruel and irresponsible. Sometimes aggressiveness in
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 245 communication helps people to make it more effective (Centre for Management and
Organization Effectiveness, n.d.) and this more effective narrative helps them to get the support of their fellows (Wirth-Koliba 2016). The PML-N and PPP parliamentarians used an aggressive and reproaching strategy in their speeches to make their narrative effective so that they might gain the support of their colleagues. They presented PTI and PAT as a part of the conspiracy against democracy and the Parliament and called their protest unconstitutional and an attack on the institutions of Pakistan. They portrayed the workers as trained terrorists and enemies of the state. Wirth-Koliba (2016) argues that politicians use the out-group negative strategy to present their opponents insincere and unreliable. The parliamentarians of both PML-
N and PPP presented the PTI and PAT leadership immature and insincere to show them unreliable and untrustworthy. The PTI parliamentarians used the practice to present the PML-N government negatively. They accused it of rigging in the election and depriving PTI of some seats of the National Assembly. They also portrayed the PML-N‟s federal and provincial governments cruel and irresponsible. The MQM parliamentarians did not present any party negatively, though they held PML-N responsible for the prevailing political situation.
The parliamentarians attempted to achieve their vested objectives. Through the use of the practice of the in-group positive presentation, the PML-N parliamentarians intended to unite the parliamentarians and get their support against the protestors by presenting their party positively which is in the line of Wirth-Koliba‟s (2016) stance that politicians use positive in- group strategy to unite the people and get their support. The PPP parliamentarians attempted to present their party as the defender and supporter of democracy. They also attempted to urge the parliamentarians to be united against and unconstitutional efforts against the Parliament and democracy. Through the positive presentation of their party and leadership, the PTI
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 246 parliamentarians attempted to defuse the negative propaganda being made against them. The
MQM parliamentarians used the discursive practice of presenting in-group positively as an image-building strategy. They seem intended to show that their party was the only democratic party which not only protected the rights of the people of Karachi – as it was usually perceived
- but also of other people living across the country.
By presenting the out-groups negatively, the PML-N parliamentarians intended to get the support of political parties, especially the parties sitting in the Parliament and the public by making it realize that PTI and PAT were not their well-wishers as is claimed by the study of
Wirth-Koliba (2016) in the similar situations. The parliamentarians of both PML-N and PPP attempted to show that PTI and PAT were undemocratic and against the state. They also attempted to prove that the leadership of these parties was immature, insincere and incapable to lead the nation which is also in the line with Wirth-Koliba‟s (2016) stance that politicians use this practice to present their opponents insincere. The PTI parliamentarians attempted to show that their protest was not against the state and its institutions but for making them strong and autonomous. They also attempted to make their fellow parliamentarians and the public realize that it was the PML-N government which had forced PTI and PAT to come on the roads for protest.
Proximization: ODCs as a Threat to IDCs
Proximization is another discursive practice of the negative representation of an out- group as a threat to an in-group (Cap, 2013). The construction of the threat based on the discursive representation of the conflict between in-groups and out-groups is one of the key arguments of CDA (Cap, 2018). Cap (2018) opines that the threat may be based on
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 247 conceptualization or fear of the distant or abstract entities, i.e. out-group. Politicians use the in- group as a member of the deictic centre (IDCs) and the out-group (ODCs) as a threat to the in- group (Wirth-Koliba, 2016). The analysis of the results shows that the Pakistani parliamentarians also used this discursive practice of presenting the out-group as a threat to the in-group as it is argued by Cap (2013). The PML-N and PPP parliamentarians presented the protestors as the ODCs and threat to democracy, the Parliament, the state and the public institutions as the IDCs. The PML-N and PPP parliamentarians presented PTI and PAT‟s protest as an ideological, physical and temporal threat to democracy and the state. The PML-N parliamentarians presented the protestors, their entering into the Parliament House, PTV building and stealing cameras as a physical threat to the state. They also interpreted Mr Khan‟s statement of “raising umpire‟s finger” as an ideological and temporal threat to democracy and the Parliament. They also presented Dr Qadri‟s announcement of occupying the public institutions, cordoning off the parliamentarians, weaving coffin and metaphors of a grave as a physical threat to the parliamentarians and an ideological and temporal threat to the state. They also portrayed the success of the protestors, if they succeeded in implementing their agenda with force, as a temporal and ideological threat to the nation. The PPP parliamentarians also presented the protestors as a threat to democracy, the Parliament and the state. They presented the protestors‟ demands, Dr Qadri‟s foreign nationality, and his announcement of not accepting the constitution as a physical, temporal as well as ideological threat to the country and its institutions.
Proximization - as an act of legitimization
Poximization is also used to legitimize its in-group actions or to neutralize the impact of
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 248 the actions or policies of the out-group (Cap, 2018). The PTI parliamentarians used proximization as a discursive practice to legitimise theirs and PAT‟s protest. During the protest, some of the protestors entered forcefully into the premises of the Parliament and PTV building.
They also attempted to march towards the PM House. The protestors were having clubs with nails, catapults, cutters, etc. There were also clashes between the protestors and the police.
The police used batting, teargasing and water cannon to disperse the protestors and stop them from advancing. During this scuffle, many people were injured and a couple of casualties were also reported. The PML-N parliamentarians attempted to legitimize the action of the police by portraying the protestors as trained terrorists belonging to some militant wings and presenting their actions as an attack on the Parliament and the public institutions.
Proximization: as a neutralizing strategy
The PTI parliamentarians adopted proximization as a counter- argument strategy to neutralize the effects of PPML-N and PPP parliamentarians which is also claimed by the Cap‟s study (2018). They held PML-N‟s provincial and federal governments responsible for the crisis and bringing the political situation at that verge. Through the counter-arguments, they attempted to neutralize the feelings of the opposition parties and the public in general. They also seem intended to ignite the feelings of the opposition parties against the government. They also attempted to justify PTI and PAT‟s decisions of protest.
The PTI parliamentarians held the PML-N governments responsible for not accepting the PTI and PAT‟s demands and forcing them to come on the roads for their rights. Justifying the reasons for PTI‟s protest, the PTI parliamentarians claimed that they had been demanding the investigation of the rigging in the general election 2013 for the whole year. They had
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 249 requested for the investigation of the results of only four constituencies to verify their claims.
They had appealed to the courts and Election Commission as well but in vain. In the end, they were left with no choice except for going to the public and exercising their democratic right of protest. They claimed if their demands had been accepted, they would not have come at that stage. They further claimed that their protest was not against any institution but they wanted to make the Parliament more effective and autonomous. This claim seems to be an attempt to justify their decision to protest which is a common practice among the politicians throughout the world as discussed by Cap (2018). They also rejected the allegation that they were paving the way for some non-democratic forces and announced that their party would resist any unconstitutional act and would stand with the Parliament for the sake of democracy. Justifying the PAT‟s protest, the PTI parliamentarians held the PML-N‟s provincial government responsible for the Model Town incident and putting hindrances in registering FIR against the political and the police personnel nominated by PAT. They claimed that by registering an FIR as demanded by it, the PAT would have been stopped from protesting against the government.
The Use of Inclusive vs Exclusive Pronouns
Politicians employ personal pronouns to show their involvement, commitment, authority and to share their responsibilities (Karapetjana, 2011) and this is similar to the findings of this study. Politicians use the personal plural pronoun we to refer to multiple referents (Chilton &
Schaffiner, 1988) depending on their objectives. They use it for group membership and constitutional identity (Bramley, 2001). The Pakistani parliamentarians used the personal plural pronouns ham/hamain (we/us) inclusively and exclusively. While using the inclusive pronouns, they referred them to the parliamentarians sitting in the Parliament, political parties of the
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 250 country and the general public. This is in line with Hassan‟s (2013) argument that politicians use inclusive pronouns to show closeness and unity with the in-group members. They use the pronouns to show their association and highlight commonalities to convince their audience
(Dadugblor, 2016).
The results of plural inclusive pronouns ham/hamain used by the Pakistani parliamentarians in their selected speeches reveal that they employed the pronouns to achieve their vested objectives. The PML-N parliamentarians targeted at the two objectives. First, they aimed to unite the House against the protesting parties and secondly, they aimed to urge the members to support them in dealing with the prevailing situation and any other imminent unconstitutional adventure. The protest was against the PML-N government. Perhaps, this was the reason that the PML-N parliamentarians used the plural pronouns to involve other opposition parties so that they may lessen their pressure by sharing their responsibilities with them. They seem very well aware of the fact if they lost the support of the opposition, it would not be possible for them to save their government and complete the constitutional tenure of five years. They had bad experiences in the past when all of the opposition parties turned against their governments and they had to lose their governments (in 1993 and 1999 PML-N government were overthrown, for details, please see chapter 2). They used the pronouns to refer to the common efforts of PML-N and PPP for the restoration of democracy and supremacy of the constitution during the tenure (2008-2013) of PPP government. They intended to get the support of PPP against the protesting parties. They also used the inclusive plural pronouns for the parliamentarians to show their opponents that they were united. According to Dadugblor
(2016), inclusive pronouns are also used to show the unity of the nation. In a similar vein, the
PPP, PTI and MQM parliamentarians used the inclusive pronouns to refer the general public for
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 251 expressing the feelings of the nation as a whole.
The inclusive pronouns - a strategy of showing involvement
The politicians use plural inclusive pronouns to show their involvement (Karapetjana
2011), Commitment (de Fina, 1995) and share their responsibilities (Beard, 2000). The
Pakistani parliamentarians used the plural inclusive pronouns ham/hamain to show their involvement and share their responsibilities. The study reveals that the PML-N parliamentarians, through the use of the pronouns, attempted to share their responsibilities to lessen the pressure of the protestors. They also seem to using this strategy to create harmony among the members of the House and invoke their support for the government which is also claimed by the study of Tradie (n.d.). The main focus of the PPP parliamentarians seems to show their involvement, make the members realize their responsibilities, and urge them to be united and get ready against any possible unconstitutional action. They also attempted to assure the government of their support and to show solidarity with the PM. The PTI parliamentarians used the plural inclusive pronouns to draw the attention of their colleagues towards the issues, make the members realize of their responsibilities and making them think beyond their personal interests and show unity and solidarity with China. The MQM parliamentarians also attempted to invoke the sense of responsibilities among their fellow parliamentarians by urging them to do something practical instead of merely raising shallow slogans. They also attempted to draw their attention towards the need of implementing democratic values within their parties; adopting neutral and non-discriminatory procedures.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 252
The inclusive pronouns - as an image-building strategy
The MQM parliamentarians also used the plural inclusive pronouns as an image-building strategy for their party. They attempted to shun the label of a merely local and ethnic political party by raising the issues of some other ethnic groups struggling for their right across the country.
Thus, it may be concluded that findings of the use of inclusive plural pronouns ham/hamain in the selected speeches of the Pakistani parliamentarians support the findings of previous studies (see Karapetjana, 2011; Hassan, 2013; Dadugblor, 2016) that politicians use the pronouns for showing their involvement, sharing their responsibilities and showing their closeness and unity with the addressees.
The exclusive pronouns - a persuasive strategy
To persuade others is one of the goals of ideologies (Fairclough, 1989). The results of the study show that the parliamentarians used the plural exclusive pronouns as a persuasive strategy to influence the opinion of their colleagues and the general public. The exclusive personal pronouns may be used as a strategy to convince the listeners (Lauk, 2002) by referring to their previous efforts (DeCastro, 2019). Both the PML- N and PTI parliamentarians attempted to convince their fellow parliamentarians as well as the general public by making them believe in their sincerity and loyalty to the country and its institutions. The PML- N parliamentarians used the plural pronouns to remind their fellow parliamentarians of their party efforts done for the restoration of the democracy and the judiciary. They intended to unite their fellow parliamentarians and the public against the protestors by showing their loyalty to the
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 253 country. In this way, they attempted to win their sympathy and support to overcome the political crisis. Similarly, the PTI parliamentarians also attempted to get the support of the
Parliament, especially, the opposition parties by realizing them of their responsibilities and urging them to think beyond their personal interests. The PPP parliamentarians used the exclusive pronouns as a persuasive strategy to make their colleagues believe, by mentioning their sacrifices, that their party had always supported democracy. They also attempted to assure them that PPP would neither accept any unconstitutional change nor would compromise on its democratic principles.
The exclusive pronouns - as an expression of internal strength and defence strategy
The use of the plural exclusive pronouns by the PTI parliamentarians also reveals their desperation on the accusation of conspiring against the country and internal strength of the party. They used the pronouns in maximum numbers (i.e. 121 out of 234) to refer to their party.
They attempted to refute the allegations and defuse the negative propaganda against them.
Erbulatonva and Tinisbaevich (2015) argue that exclusive pronouns may be used as a defence strategy. The PTI parliamentarians used the exclusive pronouns as a defence strategy and attempted to defend their party position by reminding PML-N and PPP of their common efforts made for the restoration of democracy. They also used the pronouns to defend their protest and attempted to show that their party and leadership were sincere and loyal to the country and respected the public constitutions. They also attempted to show that their protest was not against the state or its institutions but to strengthen them. The PPP and MQM parliamentarians also used the pronouns for highlighting the problems of their party workers and other ethnic groups from the various parts of the country who were struggling for their political rights. The
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 254 use of the pronouns for referring to party workers and other ethnic groups reveals the attachment and concern of the political parties. The PML-N, PPP and PTI parliamentarians used the plural pronouns to refer to themselves as well. This royal use of the plural exclusive pronouns reveals their authority, experience, boldness and courage.
The findings of the use of plural exclusive pronouns ham/hamain (we/us) support
Dadugblor‟s (2016) view that politicians use the exclusive pronoun we to dissociate them from other politicians to take some political advantages and show their authority (Karapetjana 2011).
Findings of the study also support the claims that politicians use the plural exclusive pronouns to share their responsibilities (Hassan, 2013) and convince the listeners by mentioning their previous efforts (Luke, 2002). Furthermore, the findings also show that exclusive pronouns may also be used to express internal strength, authority, experience, boldness and courage.
Reflection of the Parties’ Ideologies in the Speeches of the Selected Parliamentarians
The political system in Pakistan has not yet succeeded in attaining maturity and stability
(Azam, 2008). Same is the case with the political parties which operate without any clear and sustainable political ideology. In Pakistan, the political parties contest elections not based on their ideologies but on political manifestos which change repeatedly keeping in view some popular trends and public sentiments (Malik, 2018). Usually, a party manifesto is a public declaration of a party‟s intentions of achieving some goals (APNA Pakistan, 2013). A manifesto differentiates one party from the other party and hence can be taken as a reliable source of information of its political ideology and stance on other particular issues (APNA Pakistan, 2013, p. 6). In Pakistan, political parties use their manifestos mere as a political stunt to attract public attention and gain its support in the elections (Faruqi, 2018). The Pakistani political history
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 255 shows that parties‟ manifestos presented before the general elections have seldom followed particularly by these parties once they gain power. In the following lines, the effects of the ideologies of the four political parliamentary parties, based on the analysis of the speeches of the parliamentarians, have been discussed.
The reflection of PML-N ideology in the selected parliamentary speeches
The party manifesto presented before the general election of 2013 claimed that PML-N would revive the confidence of people by instilling hope, restoring national dignity and resurrecting Pakistan as a progressive and prosperous nation. It also claimed that the party would build a strong dimension of democratic governance by building institutions including an effective parliament, independent judiciary, election commission and a vigilant media (“Nawaz announces”, 2013). The analysis of the discursive practices used in the selected speeches of
PML-N‟s parliamentarians reveals that the parliamentarians presented themselves as followers of democracy who believed in the supremacy of the constitution and the Parliament. The PPP parliamentarians considered that PML-N leadership and ministers were arrogant. They also considered that the indifferent attitudes of the PM and ministers were responsible for the prevailing political crisis. If the accusation of The PPP parliamentarians is considered true, then the democratic attitude of the PML-N parliamentarians may be interpreted as a pretention to save their government which seems opposite to their ideology stated in the PML-N‟s political manifesto. The PPP parliamentarians had complaints against the PML-N government as they had blamed it of being unjust to the PPP workers, arrogant and illegible for making a timely and proper decision.
According to Cheema (2017), PML-N‟s religious stance has changed to liberal
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 256 democratic. The selected speeches of the PML-N parliamentarians show that they objected the free mixing of young girls and boys and their dancing in the party meetings and processions.
They also accused PTI of spreading vulgarity which also indicates their (the PML-N parliamentarians) inclination towards religion. These findings seem opposite to the findings of
Cheema (2017) and close to the claim of Paracha (2013) that PML-N is a right-wing political party.
The overall analysis of the speeches of the PML-N parliamentarians reveals that they, instead of focusing on their party manifesto, attempted to prove that they were believed democracy and respected the Parliament and the constitution. The ideology deduced from the analysis of the parliamentary speeches of the PML-N parliamentarians may be claimed that
PML-N is a right- wing political party that believes in the parliamentary system, and is against any unconstitutional act ready to defend the Constitution of Pakistan.
The reflection of PPP ideology in the selected parliamentary speeches
The party manifesto presented before the general election 2013 showed that the PPP government (2008-2013) had “laid down foundations for a sustainable, accountable and robust democracy in Pakistan” (“Manifesto Unveiled”, 2013). Its manifesto also claimed of taking
Pakistan into a future based on social justice, peace and prosperity for all. The analysis of the
PPP parliamentarians shows that instead of propagating their party ideology or party manifesto, they seem to satisfy themselves by showing their commitment to democracy and mentioning their party sacrifices given for it.
PPP is believed to be a semi-secular, semi-religious party (“Manifesto Unveiled”, 2013).
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 257
There seems no other indication in the speeches of the PPP parliamentarians which may be interpreted as their religious inclination. Thus, it may be claimed that analysis of the selected speeches does not completely support the party‟s stance presented in the party manifesto and seems close to Paracha‟s (2013) claim that PPP is a democratic left-liberal party. Based on the analysis of the selected parliamentary speeches of the PPP parliamentarians, it may be concluded that PPP is a left-wing political party that believes in democracy and constitution of
Pakistan. It has given many sacrifices and suffered irreparable loss for the sake of democracy and will defend the constitution at any cast.
The reflection of PTI ideology in the selected parliamentary speeches
Before the general election 2018, PTI had not succeeded in gaining the power to implement its manifesto at the national level. The analysis of the discursive practices used in the selected speeches of the PTI parliamentarians shows that PTI is a democratic party which honours the Parliament and is against any unconstitutional act. The speeches also show that the aim of their protest was to make the public institutions autonomous. The free mixing and dancing of young males and females in its public meetings and processions of PTI was accused of spreading vulgarity by the PML-N parliamentarians. PTI President, Mr Hashmi, also expressed his disliking for the free mixing of male and female participants. The analysis of the selected speeches shows that instead of propagating their party ideology, the PTI parliamentarians focused on justifying their protest and assuring their colleagues that PTI respected the Parliament and the constitution. For the above-said reason, PTI may be called a centre-left political party which is in the line with Paracha‟s (2013) claims that PTI was initially considered a centre-right/populist party but now it has become an amalgamation of left-wing
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 258 and right-wing leadership. Based on of the analysis of the speeches of the PTI parliamentarians, it may be summed up that PTI is a centre-left political party that believes in the democratic system and wants to strengthen and depoliticize the public institutions.
The reflection of MQM ideology in the selected parliamentary speeches
MQM is a liberal political party (Paracha, 2013). Its (official ideology) claims to be a realistic and practical party which represents 98% of the lower and middle-class population of
Pakistan which has been deprived of its social and political rights. The analysis of the discursive practices used in the selected speeches of the MQM parliamentarians reflect their party‟s ideology. Their speeches reflect that MQM is the only true democratic political party of
Pakistan which represents the middle class. The analysis of the speeches also reveals that MQM wants to introduce democracy at grass root levels and make the country strong by setting up small administrative units. The analysis also show that MQM realizes the feelings and problems of the poor and helpless people and it aims to give democratic rights to the different ethnic groups in Pakistan who are struggling for their political rights. There is found no example in their speeches which may be interpreted as an indication towards religious mindedness. Based on the analysis of the selected speeches, it may be claimed that the MQM parliamentarians are the only parliamentarians who represented their party in the true sense because their speeches reflect the party‟s ideology. The findings of the study also support the claims of Paracha (2013) that MQM is a liberal political party.
This chapter has revised the salient findings presented in the last three chapters. The three of the discursive practices analyzed in the study reveal that all of the PML-N, PPP and
PTI parliamentarians emphasized the negative actions of the out-group and positive action of
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 259 the in- group. The PML-N and PPP parliamentarians used the proximization to present the out- group as a physical, temporal and ideological threat whereas the PTI parliamentarians used proximization for justifying their and PAT‟s protest. The MQM parliamentarians focused on their positive presentation and did not directly present any group negatively. All of the parliamentarians used inclusive and exclusive plural personal pronouns to show their unity, involvement, sense of responsibility and sincerity to the Parliament.
The study has also tried to find out the reflection of the parties‟ ideology in the selected speeches of the parliamentarians. The findings of the discursive practices analyzed in the study show that the parliamentarians of three main parties i.e. PML-N, PPP, and PTI did not make any direct effort to promote their parties‟ ideology. Instead of using the discursive practices for the promotion of their ideology, they focused on the negative presentation of the other parties. The
PML-N and PPP parliamentarians presented PTI and PAT‟s protest unconstitutional and a war against the state and attack on its institution. They also seem intended to show that protesting parties were playing in the hands of non-democratic forces and wanted to wrap up democracy from the country whereas their parties had made great efforts and laid sacrifices for the revival of democracy in the country. The PTI parliamentarians attempted to show that they wanted to make the public institutions strong and independent and their protest was not against the state and its institutions but for strengthening them. The MQM parliamentarians focused on showing that theirs was the only party which represented the middle class and cared for their problems. They also attempted to show that their party wanted to make the country strong by setting up new small administrative units. Thus it can be summarized that only MQM ideology was reflected in the selected speeches of the parliamentarians. The PML-N, PPP and PTI parliamentarians attempted to present their positive image by the negative presentation of their opponents. In the
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 260 end, it can be said that political discourse can not only be used to reflect the political ideology, but it serves as a construct for establishing ideology as well.
This chapter has discussed the way the discursive practices of in-group positive and out- group negative presentation, proximization and clusivity used by the selected Pakistani parliamentarians have served to promote their political ideologies. The chapter has also discussed if their selected speeches reflect the ideologies of their respective parties presented in the party manifestos presented before general election 2013. The study reflects that only MQM parliamentarians attempted to promote the ideology of their party. The study concludes that the
PML-N, PPP and PTI parliamentarians focused on presenting themselves and their parties as loyal to the constitution, parliament and country, and the opponents otherwise.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 261 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES Chapter IX
Conclusion
This study has analyzed the selected parliamentary speeches of the Pakistani parliamentarians made during the third joint parliamentary session (2013-2018) held from
September 1, 2014, to September 19, 2014. It was the time when PTI and PAT held their sit-ins in the capital, Islamabad, demanding the resignation of the PM of Pakistan. The aim of the study was to analyze the discursive practices used for the promotion of political ideologies in the selected parliamentary speeches. The analysis has focused on the three homogeneous aspects of in-group positive vs out-group negative presentation, i.e. ideological square, proximization and association vs disassociation. The study also aimed to see if the parliamentary speeches reflected the ideology of their parties.
To achieve the aims, the context of the speeches in which the session was called was reviewed in detail. The major CDA approaches were reviewed theoretically and it was found that no single approach would be sufficient to cover all the discursive practices examined in political discourse. In the present study, comparatively new models of Political Discourse
Analysis (a sub-genre of CDA) were used to analyze the speeches. To investigate the ideology vested in the speeches, three aspects of homogeneous approaches, i.e. van Dijk‟s ideological square (2006) for in-group positive presentation and out-group negative presentation; Cap‟s
Theory of Proximization (2006, 2008, 2010, 2013, 2016) to know the way parliamentarians had presented their opponents as a physical, ideological and temporal threat, and Wieczorek‟s
(2013) Clusivity for association and disassociation through inclusive and exclusive use of plural personal pronouns were used.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 262 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES The results of the previous studies on Pakistani political speeches show that Pakistani politicians use emotional words to exploit political situations and to attract the attention of their colleagues, the public, especially their voters by appealing to their feelings (Faruqi, 2018). The selected parliamentary speeches had been made in a controlled atmosphere on a very serious issue. In the words of a leader of one Pakistani political party, there is a difference in saying something on a stage before a crowd and saying something in the Parliament. A parliamentarian is an elected representative of people of his constituency whom they have elected on the basis of his political thoughts and affiliation with a political party with a certain manifesto. He/she, in the
Parliament, is supposed to represent his/her voters and party in his/her speeches. The study investigated the political ideology of the parliamentarians vested in their parliamentary speeches.
The study aimed to find the answer to the questions (Q. No. 1) how the discursive practices, i.e. in-group positive vs out-group negative presentation, proximization and association vs disassociation, used in the 3rd joint parliamentary session unveil the underlying ideologies of the political parties. It also aimed to analyze (Q. No. 2) how the discursive practices used by these parties differ from one another and reflect the ideologies of the respective parties.
The answer to the Q. No. 1 reveals that the parliamentarians of four leading political parties exploited the political context in their own interest and tried to achieve their vested objectives. The PML-N and PPP parliamentarians used in-group positive vs out-group negative presentation and proximization as reproaching (attacking) and aggressive strategies. The PML-
N parliamentarians employed the practices to focus on the unity of the House and to win the support of their colleagues by presenting their party as a believer in democracy and the
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 263 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES parliamentary system. They also used the practices to present themselves to be well-wishers of the country and custodian of the public institutions. One of the objectives of the PML-N parliamentarians seem to ignite the feelings of hatred of their colleagues against the opponents by presenting them as enemies of the country who had revolted against the state and attacked its institutions. They also attempted to show a unity of the Parliament and share their responsibilities to lessen the pressure of the protestors. The PPP parliamentarians also used the in-group positive vs the out-group negative presentation to present themselves as the custodians of democracy who had given great sacrifices and suffered irreparable loss for the sake of democracy. They used the practices to present theirs as a party that had always supported the institutions. They assured the government of their support for the revival and strength of democracy and confirmed their commitment to resist any unconstitutional change. They presented the protest as a sequel of an ongoing war between the democratic and non-democratic forces. Declaring the protest, a war against the institutions of the state, they seem to urging the members to be united and remain ready for this war in the coming years as well. The PPP parliamentarians, on one hand, attempted to present the protest an attack on the Parliament and public institutions, and on the other hand, declared the governments an ineligible and responsible for the political crisis. They also presented the ministers proud and arrogant.
The PTI parliamentarians employed the discursive practices of in-group positive and out-group negative presentation, proximization and clusivity as defence strategies to express their desperation and internal strength of the party and feelings of disassociation. They used them to refute the allegations raised against them and to present themselves as loyal to the country and the system. They declared their protest a struggle for strengthening the public institutions and making them autonomous and authorized. They held the PML-N federal and
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 264 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES provincial governments responsible for the prevailing political situation. They also presented the governments as cruel that had smeared the roads with the blood of innocent people.
The MQM parliamentarians seem taking separate lines. They used the discursive practices of in-group positive presentation and clusivity as image building strategies. They employed them to present their party as the only political party that had genuine public representation and had introduced educated leadership from the middle class. They also used the practices to present themselves as the true representatives of the poor and middle class of the country by raising their voice for them. They also attempted to present their party as the representative of various ethnic groups living in the different parts of the country. They showed their support to the system but avoided presenting any group negatively.
The results further show that the parliamentarians of both PML-N and PTI used the discursive practice of clusivity as a persuasive strategy to make their fellow parliamentarians believe in their sincerity and loyalty to the country and its institutions. They also attempted to win the support and cooperation of their fellow parliamentarians.
When effects of the parties‟ ideologies in the selected speeches were studied (Q. No. 2), it was found that the parliamentarians, except MQM, did not go with the political ideologies or manifesto of their parties. As discussed in the previous chapter, PML-N did not have a clear political ideology. The analysis of the selected speeches reveals that the PML-N parliamentarians presented themselves to be the followers and believers of democracy who were against any unconstitutional change. Their criticism on the free mixing of male and female
PTI workers and their dancing in the public gatherings supports the claim of PTI being a right- wing political party.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 265 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES The analysis of the speeches of the PPP parliamentarians reveals one point of their party ideology or manifesto that their party was the follower of democracy and believed in reconciliation. The parliamentarians reiterated that their party had given great sacrifices for the sake of democracy and suffered irreparable loss. Their speeches also reveal their party‟s commitment to democracy and determination of not compromising at its principles. The absence of the criticism of PPP parliamentarians on the free mixing of males and females in
PTI‟s public gathering may be taken as evidence that PPP is a semi-religious party. The analysis of the speeches support the claim that PPP is a democratic left-liberal party.
The selected speeches of the PTI parliamentarians also show that they were also focusing on proving themselves to be the followers of democracy who respected the Parliament and were against any unconstitutional change. One of its parliamentarians expressed his disliking for the free mixing of young men and women in the public meetings as well, which support the claim of PTI being a centre-left political party.
The selected speeches of the MQM parliamentarians reflect their party manifesto and ideology. The speeches support their claim that MQM represents the lower and middle class of the country and has concerns with the issues of the general public. The absence of any other religious inclination in the speeches supports the claim that MQM is a secular political party.
Limitations of the Study
The study has some limitations as well. First, it has analyzed a discourse from one context relating to a particular political situation when PTI and PAT held a dharna (sit-in) against the
PML-N government in 2014. Secondly, three discursive practices, i.e. in-group positive vs out-
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 266 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES group negative presentation, proximization and one aspect of clusivity, were used to discover the ideology of the four leading political parties vested in the selected speeches. Thirdly, the transcribed speeches were downloaded from the official website of the National Assembly that can be taken as an authentic data; however, the researcher has observed some discrepancies in the transcription regarding punctuations which may have affected the results.
Implications of the Study
The study contributes in various ways. First, being the first study on Pakistani parliamentary discourse, it contributes, though at a very small scale, to the national and international literature on Political Discourse Analysis. It focuses on exposing the political ideologies embedded in their speeches and offers new insights into the field of Pakistani political discourse analysis. While previous studies on Pakistani political discourse considered the speeches of political leaders taken from various communicative contexts, the present study has undertaken the analysis of 14 parliamentary speeches made by the parliamentarians belonging to the four leading political parties from a single context. It has attempted to explore the underlying ideology and see the way each party presented the political crisis for its own interest. However, the canvass of parliamentary speeches may also be spread to other parliamentary sessions to expose the underlying political ideologies of other political parties.
Secondly, the present study integrates the different aspects of three approaches, all belonging to the broad area of CDA, to have a deeper insight into the underlying ideologies of party politics. Furthermore, these aspects were applied to a sample of the political discourse taken from one context to have a closer look at their political ideologies. The model of the study may also be applied to the discourses of other contexts and parties to unveil the political
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 267 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES ideology embedded in them.
Thirdly, the study sets a course for future researchers, especially for Pakistani researchers who are interested in political discourse, to investigate the political ideology vested in the parliamentary speeches in various contexts. In contrast to this study, which has analyzed speeches made during a 17-day period in 2014, of four leading political parties made during one joint parliamentary session called on the one political issue, i.e. PTI and PAT sit-in in
Islamabad (i.e. 3rd joint session, from September 2, 2014, to September 19, 2014), the researchers may apply this model to other political discourses.
Fourthly, the study may help to understand and teach how political discourse is used/manipulated in Pakistani or other similar contexts. In this way, we may train our young learners not only for becoming aware of the manipulative uses of language but also for the future leadership roles in the country.
Fifthly, the study may be beneficial for common readers/public. As democracy is believed to be a government of the people, for the people and by the people, therefore, a common person, being a voter or supporter, is an essence of the democratic system. His/her participation and contribution is a key factor for the survival and the maintenance of the democratic political system. Therefore, he/she needs to know the intricacies of the system.
Since politicians run the system, it is important to understand the discourse in order to know the various workings of the system. The voter/supporter also needs to know how political leaders exploit his/her feelings for their personal or party interests. This study may help common people, especially the Pakistani public to know the tricky discourse of Pakistani politicians and thus help them to understand the overall structure of the political system.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 268 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES It may be recommended, keeping the limitations of the study in mind, that future studies may select parliamentary speeches of one or more political parties from other sessions and compare the findings with the results presented in this study. The studies may also have data from different contexts or tenures for further deeper insight into the ideologies of political parties. Similarly, the ideologies of other minor parties may also be uncovered by analyzing the speeches of the parliamentarians representing these parties. This study was limited to the application of three of the discursive practices for unveiling the political ideologies. In future studies, other discursive practices, i.e. starting and ending of the speeches, intertextuality, etc. may be undertaken for further investigation.
As for the applications of this study are concerned, the model of this study may be applied to other discourses for unveiling the political ideologies embedded in them. Such studies may be conducted to know how political parties manipulate the discourses to serve their objectives. The model of this study may be applied to longitudinal studies for ideological analysis, and reveal the way demagogues play with the sentiments of people. The study may also be used in teaching classes for developing the sense among the grown-up students for understanding the way language is manipulated for the out-group and the in-group presentation in political discourse.
This final chapter of the thesis sums up the study by recalling its objectives, the research methodology employed to achieve these objectives and answers to the questions. It also discusses the implications, applications and limitations of the study. The chapter ends with some recommendations for future studies.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 269 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES
References
Al-Faki, I. M. (2014). Political Speeches of Some African Leaders from Linguistic Perspective.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 4(3), 180-198.
Akram, M. (2014, August 16). Azadi march Attacked in Gujranwala. DAWN. Retrieved from
https://www.dawn.com.
Allen, W. (2007). Australian political discourse: Pronominal choice in campaign speeches.
In Annual Meeting of the Australian Linguistic Society. School of English, Media & Art
History, University of Queensland.
Ali, K. (2014, August 24). Pessimistic PTI terms dialogue dead. DAWN. Retrieved from
https://www.dawn.com.
Anwar, M. N., Ullah, R., Ahmad, N., & Ali, M. (2015). Critical Discourse Analysis of Quaid-e-
Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah's (11th August, 1947) speech in the first Constituent
Assembly of Pakistan. South Asian Studies, 30(1), 159.
Asghar, R. (2014, August 22). NA rejects demand for Sharif‟s resignation. DAWN. Retrieved
fromhttps://www.dawn.com.
Asghar, R. (2014, August 28). Sharif vows to defend Constitution. DAWN. Retrieved from
https://www.dawn.com.
Asghar, R. (2014, August 30). NA little enthused by belated Lahore FIR. DAWN. Retrieved
from https://www.dawn.com.
Azam, M. (2011). Radicalization and Media Who influences whom and how in
Pakistan? Online: web] Accessed, 19
Badran, D. (2002). Ideology through modality in discourse analysis. (Doctoral dissertation).
University of Nottingham.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 270 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES Bahaa-eddin, M. M. (2014). CDA and PDA Made Simple: Language, Ideology and Power in
Politics and Media. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Balfaqeeh, M. A. (2007). A Critical Discourse Analysis of Arabic and English Political
Speeches Delivered During the War in Iraq. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of
London.
Bayram, F. (2010). Ideology and Political Discourse: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Erdogan‟s
Political Speech. Arecls 7, 23-40
Bayley, P. (Ed.). (2004). Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse (Vol. 10). John
Benjamins Publishing.Beard, A. (2000). Language of Politics. London: Routledge
Beard, A. (2000). The language of politics (pp. 1748-1752). London: Routledge.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. Harlow:
Longman.
Blackledge, A. (2005). Discourse and power in a multilingual world (Vol. 15): John Benjamins
Publishing.
Bramley, N. R. (2001). Pronouns of Politics: the use of pronouns in the construction of „self‟
and „other‟ in political interviews. Retrieved from
https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/46225/5/01front.pdf [April 10, 2016]
Butt, A. (2015, December 25). Jinnah's Pakistan: Islamic State or Secular Democracy. The
Nation. Retrieved from https://nation.com..pk
Caldas-Coulthard C.R., & Moon R. (2010). Curvy, Hunky, Kinky: Using Corporal as Tools for
Critical Analysis. Discourse and Society, 21(2): 99-133.
Perez, M. C. (Ed.). (2003). Apropos of Ideology. St Jerome Publishing.
Cap, P. (2006). “Extending the Boundaries of (Persuasive) Discourse Analysis: A Cognitive
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 271 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES Grammar Contribution.” In Bridges and Barriers in Metalinguistic
Discourse, edited by Anna Duszak & Urszula Okulska, 323-239
Cap, P. (2008). Towards the Proximization Model of the Analysis of Legitimization in Political
Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1), 17-41.
Cap, P. (2013). Legitimisation in Political Discourse: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective on the
Modern US War Rhetoric Second Edition. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Cap, P. (2016). The Language of fear: Communicating Threat in public discourse. Springer.
Carvalho, A. (2008). Media (ted) discourse and society: Rethinking the framework of critical
discourse analysis. Journalism studies, 9(2), 161-177.
Charteris-Black, J. (2006). The communication of leadership: The design of leadership style.
Routledge.
Cheema, Q. (2017, November 16). PML-N‟s ideology. Daily Times. Retrieved from
https://dailytimes.com..pk
Chilton, P. (1990). Politeness, politics and diplomacy. Discourse & Society, 1(2), 201-224.
Chilton, P. (2004). Analyzing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice, London: Routledge.
Chilton, P., & Ilyin, M. (1993). Metaphor in Political Discourse: The Case of theCommon
European House'. Discourse & Society, 4(1), 7-31.
Chilton, P. & Schäffner, C. (1997). Discourse and Politics, in T. van Dijk (Ed.). Discourse as
Social Interaction, (pp. 206-230). London, UK: Sage Publications.
Chilton, P. & Schäffner, C. (1998). Discourse and Politics. Discourse as Social Interaction.
Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Volume 2. Ed. by Teun A. van Dijk.
London, Thousand Oaks, (218). New Dehli: SAGE Publications.
Chilton, P. & Schaffner, C. (2002). Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic approaches to political
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 272 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES discourse Amsterdam: Benjamin Pub. Co.
Choullaraki, L. & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical
Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Court moved for inclusion of terror law in FIR. (2014, August 30). DAWN. Retrieved from
https://www.dawn.com.
Cysouw, M. (2008). Inclusive/exclusive distinction in independent pronouns. The World Atlas of
Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. See http://wals. info.
Dant, T. (1991). Knowledge, ideology & discourse: a sociological perspective.
London: Routledge.
Dadugblor, S. K. (2016). Clusivity in presidential discourse: A rhetorical discourse analysis of
State-of-the-Nation addresses in Ghana and the United States. de Fina, A. (1995). Pronominal choice, identity and solidarity in political discourse.
Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse Text 15 (3): 379-410
Dirven, R., Bruce H. & Sandikcioglu (eds). (2001) "Language and
Ideology', Current Issues in Linguistic theory, series IV.
Erbulatovna, B. Z., & Tinisbaevich, R. K. (2015). Tactics of Verbal Defense Strategy in Youth
Discourse and Their Representation in Modern Talk Shows. Asian Social Science, 11(6),
132.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (1992b) Critical Language Awareness London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London and New York: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Media Discourse. London: Arnold.
Fairclough, N. (1995b). Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 273 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Psychology
Press.
Fairclough, N. (2003b) Analyzing discourse: textual analysis for social research,
London, Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2011). Semiotic aspects of social transformation and learning. In An introduction
to critical discourse analysis in education (pp. 147-155). Routledge.
Fairclough, N. and Wodak, R. (1997). “Critical discourse analysis”. In van Dijk, (1997),
pp. 258-84.
Fairclough, N., Pardoe, S., & Szerszynski, B. (2006). Critical discourse analysis and
citizenship. Analysing citizenship talk, 98-123.
Fairclough, N. (2001). The dialectics of discourse. Textus 14(2), 231-242.
Fairclough, N. (2001a). Language and Power. (2nd edition). Harlow: Pearson
Education Limited. .
Fairclough, I. & Fairclough, N. (2012). Political Discourse Analysis: A Methods for Advanced
Students. London: Routledge. ISBN: 978–0415499231 (pp), pp.226.
Fairclough, N., Jessop, B., & Sayer, A. (2002). Critical Realism and Semiosis. Journal of
Critical Realism, 5(1), 1-9.
Faruqi, S. (2018, August 20). Slogan and songs: The parties and times that made them. Herald.
Retrieved from https://herald.dawn.com.
Fiske, J. (1994). Media matters: everyday culture and political change. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
Fontaine, L. (2006). Where do „we‟ fit in? Linguistic inclusion and exclusion in a virtual
community. In K. Bührig, & J. D. ten Thije (Eds.), The linguistic reconstruction of
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 274 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES intercultural communication (pp. 319-356). Amesterdam: John Benjamins.
Forchtner, B. (2011). Critique, the Discourse–historical approach and the Frankfurt School.
Critical Discourse Studies, 8(1), pp. 1-14.
Fowler, R. (1985). 'Power' in Van Dijk, Teun. Handbook of Discourse Analysis,
Vol 4. London: Academic Press.
Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G. and Trew, T. (1979). Language and Control. London:
Routledge
Gadavaniji, S. (2002). Discursive Strategies For Political Survival: A Critical Discourse
Analysis Of Thai No-Confidence Debates. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). The University of
Leeds Department of Linguistics and Phonetics/ POLIS.
Gee, J. (1990). Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses. London: Fa1mer Press.
Geis, M. (1987). The Language of Politics. New York: Springer Verlag.
Ghilzai, S., Ayaz-ud-din, M.A. (2017). A critical discourse analysis of Imran Khan's first speech
in the Parliament. Perspectives in language, Linguistics and Media. 2. 149-167.
http://sienajournals.com./images/docs/pllm/CDA-imran%20khan%20speech.pdf Accessed
4 December 2018.
Ghumman, K. (2014, August 30). Army as „facilitator‟ was Nisar‟s brainwave. DAWN.
Retrieved from https://www.dawn.com.
Ghumman, K. (2014, August 29). Politicians decry army‟s role in politics. DAWN. Retrieved
from https://www.dawn.com.
Ghori, H. K. (2014, August 26). Derailment of democracy may threaten federation: PPP. DAWN.
Retrieved from https://www.dawn.com.
Ghumman, K. (2014, August 26). PTI seeks support for „in-house change‟. DAWN. Retrieved
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 275 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES from https://www.dawn.com.
Ghumman & Asad (2014, August 22). Govt, PTI back to square one. DAWN. Retrieved from
https://www.dawn.com.
Ghumman, K. (2014, August 19). Govt‟s response not fast enough. DAWN. Retrieved from
https://www.dawn.com.
Gouldner, A. W. (1976). The dialectic of ideology and technology (Vol. 976). London:
Macmillan.
Graber, D. A. (1981). Political languages. In: D. D. Nimmo, & K. R. Sanders (eds). Handbook of
Political communication: (pp.195-223). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prision notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. Lawrence and
Wishart.
Haas, M. R. (1969). 'Exclusive'and'Inclusive': A Look at Early Usage. International Journal of
American Linguistics, 35(1), 1-6.
Haider, I. (2014, September 3). Imran, Qadri join hands against govt. DAWN. Retrieved from
https://www.dawn.com.
Haider, I. (2014, August 28). Imran sees hope, delays „important announcement‟. DAWN.
Retrieved from https://www.dawn.com.
Haig, E. (2004). Some observations on the critique of critical discourse analysis. Studies in
language and culture, 25(2), 129-149.
Halliday, M. A. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and
Meaning/Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A, & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. English Language Series. Longman,
London.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 276 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES Hassan, A. (2018). Language, media, and ideology: Critical discourse analysis of Pakistani news
bulletin headlines and its impact on viewers. Sage Open – Research Paper, July-
September: 1-15. https://journals.sagepub.com./doi/pdf/10.1177/2158244018792612
Accessed 4 December 2018.
Hanif, I & Ghumman, F. A. (2014, August 29). Model Town case registered against PM,
Shahbaz. DAWN. Retrieved from https://www.dawn.com.
Hardman, D. (2008). Political Ideologies and Identity in British Newspaper Discourse.
(Unpublished doctoral thesis). The University of Nottingham.
Haspelmath, M., Michaelis, S. M., Meeuwis, M., & APiCS Consortium. (2013).
Inclusive/exclusive distinction in independent personal pronouns. In The atlas of pidgin
and creole language structures (pp. 58-59). Oxford University Press.
Hirst, P. (1979). On Law and Ideology. London: Macmillan.
Hodge, R. & G. Kress (1993). Language as Ideology (2nd ed.), London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
Haig, E. (2003). Some Observations on the Critique of Critical Discourse Analysis
http://www.lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp/proj/genbunronshu/25-2/haig.pdf (downloaded on 23
September 2016).
Hasan, J. M. (2013). A Linguistic Analysis of In-group and out-group Pronouns in Hosni
Mubarak's Speech. Journal of Basra researches for Human Sciences, 38(2), 5-24
Husnain, K & Tahir, Z. (2014, August 24). Zardari advises PM to handle crisis „politically‟.
DAWN. Retrieved from https://www.dawn.com.
Hussain, M. (2015). Power dynamics of State institutions in Pakistan, discourse analysis of
bureaucracy and the Legislature (1971-1977). South Asian Studies: A Research Journal of
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 277 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES South Asian Studies 30(2), July-December: 177-186.
http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/csas/PDF/11%20Mahboob%20Hussain_30_2.pdf Accessed
4 December 2018.
Hutcheon, L. (1988). A Poetics of Postmodernism. London and New York: Routledge.
Ilie, C. (2006). Parliamentary Discourses. In Keith Brown (ed.). Encyclopedia of Language and
Linguistics. 2nd Edition. Vol. 9, 188-197. Oxford: Elsevier.
Ike-Nwafor, N. G. (2016). Critical Discourse Analysis of Selected Political Campaign Speeches
of Gubernatorial Candidates in South-Western Nigeria 2007-2014.
Iqbal, J. (2013, May 5). The Ideology of Pakistan. The Nation, Retrieved
from https://nation.com..pk.
Iqbal, A. (2015). Discourse Analysis of Prominent Politicians‟ Public Speeches: Pre and Post-
Election 2013, Pakistan. Linguistics and Literature Review (LLR). 2(1), 1-14.
Iqbal, N. (2014, August 21). Imran, Qadri summoned by Supreme Court. DAWN. Retrieved
from https://www.dawn.com.
Iqbal, N. (2014, August 22). PTI workers will remain peaceful, SC assured. DAWN. Retrieved
from https://www.dawn.com.
Iqbal, N. (2014, August 26). SC wants Constitution Avenue cleared. DAWN. Retrieved from
https://www.dawn.com.
Iqbal, N. (2014, August 28). SC fears civil war if revolt becomes norm. DAWN. Retrieved from
https://www.dawn.com.
Jackson, M. (2007). Systems approaches to management. Springer Science & Business Media.
Jacobs, K., & Manzi, T. (1996). Discourse and policy change: the significance of language for
housing research. Housing studies, 11(4), 543-560.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 278 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES Johannesson, N. L. (1976) The English Modal Auxiliaries: A Stratificational Accoullt,
Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International.
Jones, J. and Peccei, J. S. (2004) 'Language and politics', in Thomas, L.(ed), Language, society,
and power. New York: Routledge.
Joseph, J. E. (2006). Language and Politics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Juswik, M. (2012). Spoken narrative. In J. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge
handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 326-342). Oxon: Routledge.
Karapetjana, I. N. D. R. A. (2011). Pronominal choice in political interviews. Baltic Journal of
English Language, Literature and Culture, 1, 36-45.
Khalique, H., (2018, April, 4). Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto: Pakistan‟s most Divisive Political Leader.
Herald. Retrieved from: https://herald.dawn.com.
Khan, I. A. (2014, September 2). Hashmi opens Pandora‟sbox. DAWN. Retrieved from
https://www.dawn.com.
Khan, I. A. (2014, August 28). ECP rejects rigging allegations. DAWN. Retrieved from
https://www.dawn.com.
Khan, I. A. (2014, August 23). Minister warns marchers, again. DAWN. Retrieved from
https://www.dawn.com.
Khan, I. A. (2014, August 18). Multi-party panels being set up for negotiations. DAWN.
Retrieved from https://www.dawn.com.
Khan, M. F. (Khan, Muhammad Faiz). (2014, August 18). ANP asks PM to take vote of
confidence. DAWN. Retrieved from https://www.dawn.com.
Kress, G. (1985). Ideological structures in discourse. Handbook of discourse analysis, 4(1), 22-
42.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 279 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES Kress, G. (1993). Against arbitrariness: the social production of the sign as a foundational issue
in critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 169-191.
Kücükali, C. (2014). Understanding discursive hegemony in Turkish politics: discursive
strategies as instruments of hegemonic projects. Lancaster University.
Kumar, A. (2018, December 17). Promises to waive farm loans: a political game. DAWN.
Retrieved from https://www.dawn.com..
Kuo, S. H. (2001). From solidarity to antagonism: The uses of the second-person singular
pronoun in Chinese political discourse. TEXT-THE HAGUE THEN AMSTERDAM THEN
BERLIN-, 22(1), 29-56. Retrieved 10th January 2013 from
http://www.hss.nthu.edu.tw/~fl/faculty/shkuo/Secondperson%20singular%20pronoun.pdf
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical
democratic politics. Verso.
Lakoff, R. T. (1990). The Politics of Language in our Lives. New York.
Lakoff, G. J., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago London: University of
Chicago Press.
Lande, I. (2010). The role of critical discourse analysis in the translation of political
texts. Unpublished Master Thesis, Department of Language and Business Communication,
Aarhus University, Denmark.
Leezenberg, M. (2002). Power in communication: implications for the semantics-pragmatics
interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(7), 893-908.
Lauk, M. (2002). Econometric analysis of the decisions of the German Cartel Office.
Larrain, J. (1979). Concept of ideology. Philpapers, Retrieved from https://philpapers.org
Lauk, E. (2002). Use of us-them polarization in constructing ideological discourses (Estonia
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 280 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 1940-1989). In History, Media and Identity II: 23 IAMCR Conference and General
Assembly (pp. 21-26).)
Malik, A. (2014, August 16). Azadi march attacked in Gujranwala. DAWN. Retrieved from
https://www.dawn.com.
Manifesto unveiled: PPP vows to increase minimum wage (2013, March 15). The Express
Tribune. Retrieved from https://tribune.com..pk
Marchers breach red zone, hold sit-in outside parliament. (2014, August 20). DAWN.
Retrieved from https://www.dawn.com.
Maybin, J. (2001). Language, struggle and voice: the Bakhtin/Volosinov writings. Discourse
theory and practice: A reader, 64-71.
Mayr, C., Richter, K., Lilie, H., & Buchner, J. (2000). Cpr6 and Cpr7, two closely related
Hsp90-associated immunophilins from Saccharomyces cerevisiae, differ in their functional
properties. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 275(44), 34140-34146.
Mehdi. (2012). Pakistan: Politics of rhetoric. Retrieved September 2013, from www.opinion-
maker.org.
Mehmood, A. (2014, August 15). Ditched Qadri overtakes PTI march. DAWN. Retrieved from
https://www.dawn.com.
Mehmood, A. (2014, August 28). PAT offered inquiry under governor‟s rule. DAWN. Retrieved
from https://www.dawn.com.
Mey, J. (1998). Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Meyer, M. (2001). Between theory, method, and politics: positioning of the approaches to CDA.
Methods of critical discourse analysis, 5, 14-31.
Montgomery, M. (1992) An Introduction to Language and Society London: Routledge.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 281 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES Mullins, S. (2013). Narrative, Education Policy And The Newsprint Media: A Critical Discourse
Analysis Of The Construction Of Young People‟s Participation In Education Or
Employment. Unpublished Ph. D Thesis. Queensland University of Technology.
Naeem, W., & Rafi, M. S. (2019). Linguistic Realization of Legitimation of Power by Zia ul Haq
and Pervez Musharraf during the Afghanistan Wars. Journal of Political Studies, 26(1), 31-
57.
Nasir, M. B. (2013). The Dawn of Imran Khan: The Electoral Failure of Islamism and Pakistan's
Post-Islamist Turn. Research Discourse. 7
Nawaz, S., Naqvi, B., Mehmood-ul-Hassan, U. Z., Akram, S., & Jabeen, H. I. (2013). Analyses
of Quaid-E-Azam‟s Speech of 11th August, 1947. Global Journal of Human-Social
Science Research, 13(2).
Nawaz Announces PML-N Manifesto (2013, May 7). The Nation. Retrieved from
https://nation.com..pk
Naz, S., Alvi, S. D., & Baseer, A. (2012). Political language of Benazir Bhutto: A transitivity
analysis of her speech 'Democratization in Pakistan'. Interdisciplinary journal of
contemporary research in business, 4. 137.
Okulska, U. & Cap, P. (2010). Analysis of Political Discourse. Perspectives in Politics and
Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 3-20.
Orwell, G. (1969) Politics and the English language. In W. F. Bolton and D. Crystal (eds.), The
English Language Vol. September 5, 2014, pp. 14-16, lines Essays by Linguists and Men
of Letters, 1858–1964. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 217 19.
Osgood, K. A. (2002). Propaganda. Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy, 2.
Oyeleye, A. L., & Adeyinka, I. A. (2014). Rhetoric and Lexicalization as Aspects of Persuasive
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 282 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES Strategy in the Language of Insurance Advertising in the Nigerian Print
Media. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3(5), 276-286.
Pakistan Economic Survey 2017-18. (2018). Economic Adviser‟s Wing, Finance Division,
Government of Pakistan. Retrieved from http://www.finance.gov.pk
Pakistan protesters storm secretariat, PTV office. (2014, September 1). The Hindu South Asia. Retrieved
from http://www.thehindu.com
„People‟s parliament‟ to be held today: Qadri (2014, August 19). DAWN. Retrieved from:
https://www.dawn.com.
Palmer, F. (1986). Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paracha, N. F., (2013, May 2). Political parties in Pakistan: Roots, fruit & juice. DAWN.
Retrieved from https://www.dawn.com.
Paracha, N. F. (2015). Pakistan's Ideological Project: A History. Dawn.com.. Uploaded on July
31, 2015.
„People‟s parliament‟ to be held today: Qadri. (2014, August 19). DAWN. Retrieved from
https://www.dawn.com.
Perkins, M. R. (1983) Modal Expressions in English, London: Frances Pinter
Publishers.
Philo, G. (2007). Can discourse analysis successfully explain the content of media and
journalistic practice? Journalism studies, 8(2), 175-196.
Poorebrahim, F., Zarei G. R. (2012). "How is Islam portrayed in western media? A critical
discourse analysis perspective." International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and
Research 1(2), 45-62.
PTI unveils 12-point „matchless‟ manifesto (2013, April 10). The Nation. Retrieved from
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 283 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES https://nation.com..pk
Purvis, T., & Hunt, A. (1993). Discourse, ideology, discourse, ideology, discourse,
ideology... British Journal of Sociology, 473-499.
Qadeer, A. & Shehzad, W. (2018). Language and power nexus: A critical study of Pakistani
political discourse. International Journal of English Linguistics 8(2): 207-214.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322031652 Language and Power Nexus A
Critical Study of Pakistani Political Discourse Accessed 4 December 2018
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the
English language. New York: Longman.
Rashidi, N., & Souzandehfar, M. (2010). A critical discourse analysis of the debates between
republicans and democrats over the continuation of war in Iraq. The Journal of Linguistic
and Intercultural Education, 3, 55-82.
Raza, S. I., Ghumman, K. & Ali, K. (2014, August 23). All sides brace themselves for war of
nerves. DAWN. Retrieved from https://www.dawn.com.
Raza, S. I. & Haider, I. (2014, August 22). Talks stall as Imran, Qadri look to regroup. DAWN.
Retrieved from https://www.dawn.com.
Raza, S. I. (2014, August 21). Inauspicious start with PAT. DAWN. Retrieved from
https://www.dawn.com.
Raza, S. I. & Haider, I. (2014, August 19). Imran move to break out of dead-end street.
DAWN. Retrieved from https://www.dawn.com.
Riaz-ud-Din, I. (2018, March 24). Military and Politics in Pakistan. Jahangir‟s World Times.
Retrieved from http://jworldtimes.com.
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 284 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES Antisemitism. London: Routledge.
Reisigl, M. (2008). Analyzing political rhetoric, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Riot zone mob storms PTV. (2014, September 2). DAWN. Retrieved from
https://www.dawn.com.
Rogers, R. (2004). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. In An introduction
to critical discourse analysis in education (pp. 31-48). London. Routledge.
Romaine, S. (1992). The inclusive/exclusive distinction in Tok Pisin. Language and Linguistics
in Melanesia, 23, 1-11.
Rousseau, J. J., & Betts, C. (1999). Discourse on political economy and the social contract.
Oxford Paperbacks.
Saleem, M. (2014, December 25). Mohammad Ali Jinnah the man that he was. The Nation.
Retrieved from https://nation.com..pk
Sarfo, E., & Krampa, E. A. (2013). Language at War: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Speeches
of Bush and Obama on Terrorism. International Journal of Social Sciences &
Education, 3(2), 378-390.
Seliger, M. (1979). The Marxist conception of ideology: A critical essay. New York. Cambridge
University Press.
Sheikh, W. A. (2014, August 17). Lahore judge orders FIR against Sharifs. DAWN. Retrieved
from https://www.dawn.com.
Shaikh, W. A. (2014, August 27). LHC dismisses writs against court‟s order on Model Town
FIRs. DAWN. Retrieved from https://www.dawn.com.
Sheikh, W. A. (2014, August 17). Lahore judge orders FIR against Sharifs. DAWN. Retrieved
from https://www.dawn.com.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 285 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES Shaikh, W. A. (2014, August 27). LHC dismisses writs against court‟s order on Model Town
FIRs. DAWN. Retrieved from https://www.dawn.com.
Simpson, P. (1993). Language, Ideology, and point of view. London: Routledge.
Skenderi, E. (2014). We the Balkanians: A critical analysis of the political discourse. (Master's
thesis). The University of Bergen.
Speaker says won‟t hurry through processing PTI resignations. (2014, August 25). DAWN.
Retrieved from https://www.dawn.com.
Steiner, E. (1985). The concept of context and the theory of action. Language and the nuclear
arms debate, 213-230.
Stam, R. (1989). Subversive Pleasures: Bakhtin, Cultural Criticism and
Film. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press
Syed, R. I. & Ghumman, K. (2014, August 17). Imran, Qadri begin sit-ins for PM‟s ouster.
DAWN. Retrieved from https://www.dawn.com.
Syed, B. S. (2014, August 20). Army asks both sides to exercise restraint. DAWN. Retrieved
from https://www.dawn.com.
Syed, B. S. (2014, August 26). Waving burial shroud, Qadri issues ultimatum. DAWN.
Retrieved from https://www.dawn.com.
Syed, B. S. (2014, August 27). Army wants immediate political settlement. DAWN. Retrieved
from https://www.dawn.com.
Syed, B. S. (2014, August 28). Govt negotiators „non-serious‟: Qadri. DAWN. Retrieved from
https://www.dawn.com.
Syed, B. S. (2014, August 31). Blood, sweat and tears on Constitution Avenue. DAWN.
Retrieved from https://www.dawn.com.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 286 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES Syed, B. S. & Ghumman, K. (2014, September 1). Army edict calms explosive situation. DAWN.
Retrieved from https://www.dawn.com.
Syed, B. S. (2014, September 2). Move likely to break deadlock. DAWN. Retrieved from
https://www.dawn.com.
Tahir, Z. (2014, August 31). No anti-democracy move to be tolerated, says PM. DAWN.
Retrieved from https://www.dawn.com.
Taiwo, R. (2007). Language, Ideology and Power Relations in Nigerian Newspaper
Headlines. Nebula, 4(1).
Taylor, S. (2004). Researching educational policy and change in 'new times: Using critical
discourse analysis. Journal of Education Policy, 19(4), 433-451.
Teo, P. (2000). Racism in the news: A critical discourse analysis of news reporting in two
Australian newspapers. Discourse & society, 11(1), 7-49.
Thompson, J. B. (2013). Ideology and modern culture: Critical social theory in the era of mass
communication. John Wiley & Sons.
Titscher, S.; Meyer, M.; Wodak, R.; & Vetter, E. (2000) Methods of text and
discourse analysis. London: Sage.
Treimane, L. (2011). Analyzing parliamentary discourse: systemic functional
perspective. Kalbotyra, 63(63), 78-94.
Tyrwhitt-Drake, H. (2005). A critique of critical discourse analysis. (Doctoral thesis). University
of Reading.
Uzum, B., Yazan, B., & Selvi, A. F. (2017). Inclusive and exclusive uses of we in four American
textbooks for multicultural teacher education. Language Teaching Research, 1, 23. van Dijk, T. A. (1985). Handbook of discourse analysis. Paper presented at the Discourse and
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 287 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES dialogue. van Dijk, 1998. Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage. van Dijk, T. A. (1991). Racism and the press. London: Routledge. van Dijk, T. A. (1993a). 'Principles of critical discourse analysis.' Discourse and Society 4(2),
249-283. van Dijk, T. A. (1993b). Analyzing racism through discourse analysis: Some methodological
reflections. Sage Publications, Inc. van Dijk, T. A. (1995). Discourse analysis as ideology analysis. Language and peace, 10, 47-
142. van Dijk, T. A. (1995b). Ideological discourse analysis. In In. van Dijk, T. A. (1997). What is political discourse analysis? Belgian journal of linguistics, 11(1),
11-52. van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach (1st ed.). London: SAGE
publications. van Dijk, T. A. (2000). On the analysis of parliamentary debates on immigration (pp. 85-103).
na. van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical Discourse Analysis” dalam Schiffrin, DeborahTannen, and Heidi
E. Hamilton (eds). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. van Dijk, T. A. (2002). Political discourse and political cognition. Politics as text and talk:
Analytic approaches to political discourse, 203. van Dijk, T. A. (2004). Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage Publications Ltd. van Dijk, T. A. (2004b). 'Ideology and Discourse Analysis' Second draft of a paper for a
colloquium on ideology: Oxford. To be published in the Journal of Political
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 288 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES Ideologies. Retrieved from http://www.discourse-in-societv.org/MainPage.htm van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Politics, ideology, and discourse. Elsevier Encyclopedia of Language and
Linguistics. Volume on Politics and Language (Ruth Wodak, Ed.), pp. 728-740. Retrieved
from www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Politics van Dijk, T. A. (2006a). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society 17(3): 359-383. van Dijk, T. A. (2006b). Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2),
115–140. van Dijk, T. A. (2007) "Critical discourse analysis." In: T. A. van Dijk, Discourse and Power:
Contributions to Critical Discourse Studies (pp. 108-125).
doi:10.1080/13569310600687908 van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Eemeren, F. H. (2004). A systematic theory of
argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach (Vol. 14). Cambridge University Press. van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse &
Communication, 1(1), 91-112. van Leewen, T. (1996). The representation of social actors In CR Caldas-Coulthard & M.
Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 32-70). van Leeuwen, T. (1993). Genre and field in CDA: a synopsis. Discourse and Society, 4(2): 193-
225.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., Brady, H., & Nie, N. H. 1993. Citizen Activity: Who Participates:
What Do They Say. American Political Science Review 87(2): 303-318.
Waqas, F. (2016, December 25). Quaud-e-Azam‟s teachings and today‟s world. Daily Times.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 289 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES Retrieved from https://dailytimes.com..pk
Thomas, L., & Wareing, S. (2004). Language, society and power: An introduction. Routledge.
Weber, J. J. (1992). Critical analysis of fiction: essays in discourse stylistics (Vol. 85). Rodopi.
Weiss, G., & Wodak, R. (2003). Introduction: Theory, interdisciplinarity and critical discourse
analysis. In Critical discourse analysis (pp. 1-32). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Wheeless, L. R., Barraclough, R. & Stewart, R. (183). "Compliancegaining and power in
persuasion." In: R. Bostrom (ed.), Communication Yearbook, 7 (pp. 105-145). London and
New Delhi: Sage.
Wieczorek, A. E. (2009). This is to Say You're Either In or Out: Some Remarks on Clusivity.
Critical Approach to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines, 3(2) 118-129.
Wieczorek, A. E. (2013). Clusivity: A New Approach to Association and Dissociation in
Political Discourse. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Williams, R. (1976). Keywords: a vocabulary of society and culture. Fontana/Croom Helm,
London.
Wilson, J. (2001). Political discourse. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 2, 775-794.
Wilson, J. (1990). Politically Speaking. Oxford, Blackwell.
Wirth-Koliba, V. (2016). The Diverse and Dynamic World of „Us‟ and „Them‟ in Political
Discourse. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines, 8(1), 23-37.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Methods for critical discourse analysis: Sage.
Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. Methods of critical discourse analysis, 1,
63-95.
Wodak, R., & Weiss, G. (2003). Critical Discourse Analysis. Theory and Interdisciplinarity.
Palgrave Macmillan.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 290 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES Wodak, R., & Ludwig, C. (1999). Challenges in a Changing World. Passagen Verlag.
Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M. and Liebhart, K. (1999). The Discursive Construction of
National Identity, trans. A. Hirsch and R. Mitten, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Woodside-Jiron, H. (2004). Language, power, and participation: Using critical discourse analysis
to make sense of public policy. In R. Rogers (Ed.), New directions in critical discourse
analysis: The role of language and learning in social transformation, (pp. 173–206).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Yasin, A. & Ali, K. (2014, September 1). Hungry protesters determined to fight it out. DAWN.
Retrieved from https://www.dawn.com
Zaher, A. (2009). A critical discourse analysis of news reports on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict
in selected Arab and western newspapers. Nottingham Trent University.
CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES 291 CDA OF PAKISTANI PARLIAMEANETARY DEBATES Appendices
Appendix A Source of the speeches analysed: http://www.na.gov.pk/en/debates.php
Appendix B The Right of Access ti Information Act 2017 – National Assembly of Pakistan
(copy attatched, please see next page)