Abstract
The purpose of this reserach is to figure out the changes on the rhetorical styles of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s speeches, which were given to participants of The 13th COP/3rd CMP UN Conference on Climate Change in Bali, 2007, in order to gain political legitimacy. Framed with the methodology of Political Discourse Analysis, this research focuses on The System of Transitivity in Halliday’s Systemic Function Linguistic Theory to analyze the linguistic features of the speeches. The findings reveal that there are different approaches between two speeches that are reflected through Yudhoyono’s subjectivity[1] and the ideology formation of several main issues. Finally, it demonstrates Yudhoyono’s more skillful use of rethorical strategies in second speech compared to the first one in which he embraced all participants from various nations, who were engaged in a dramatic debate, to cooperatively complete the goal of conference so that he could reach higher level of legitimacy.
Keywords: transitivity, political legitimacy, subjectivity, ideology formation.
Background
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono gave two speeches in 2007 Climate Change Bali Conference, an annual global talks climate change sponsored by United Nation. The first speech was delivered in the plenary along with Secretary-General of UN, Ban Ki Moon, heads of state and governors from various countries. It was an official speech in which the text was carefully planned and structured. The main purpose of this speech is to transfer energy to participants who were engaged in a tough diplomatic negotiation so that at the end they could achieve a new breakthrough containing multilateral consensus to work out on climate change issues. Despite the appreciation adressed to the speakers, this speech was not succesful in coping the problem of diplomacy.
The second speech was delivered in the moment of crisis in which the participants were engaged in a dramatic incident causing a low level of mutual trust among delegates. Since it is unexpected, the second speech was way shorter compared to the first one and considered unplanned speech. However, this speech surprisingly brought significant changes mediating the difficult ongoing conflict and navigating the participants to focus on the diplomatic negotiation in order to meet the targeted goal of conference.
This paper is aimed to uncover the difference of rhetorical styles in those two speeches and find out the underlying factor that makes the second speech more efective than the first one. The analysis is framed with political discourse analysis which examines the system of transitivity in both speeches as a way to explore the ideological meaning behind that. In a view to the context of the case, I intend to narrow down political discourse into political legitimacy. In other words, the system of transitivity in SBY’s speeches will be analytical device to study his political legitimacy.
Theoritical Framework
A. Political Discourse Analysis
The very common interpretation of political discourse focuses on the analysis of ‘political discourse’, but it then raises complicated issues as we firstly need to determine which discourse is political, which is not, before questioning what should be an adequate way of doing political discourse analysis. The broad definition is pointed by Dick (2000: 12 ) that identified political discourse as about the text and talk of professional politicians or political institution, both at local or international levels. It implies vast extension to the scope of political discorse if we identify such practices by all participants in the political process.
Dick then localized the broad scope by focusing the object of study on the political function and implication of the talk rather than the nature of its participants (ibid). Furthermore, the categorization of political discourse takes into account the contextualization of it (ibid). In this account, the analysis of political discourse is limited only to the participants who are acting as a political actor in communicative events such as cabinet meeting, parlementiary session, election campaign, etc, in order to generate specific political aims and goals that are not exclusively but primarily political. In other words, the study of political discourse analyzes the structural properties of talk or text, and it includes the systematic account of context and its relation to discursive structures.
The analysis of political discourse is relevant for the new cross-discipline. Such an anlysis should not merely give contribution to discourse studies but also political sciences and social sciences more generally such as political communication and rhetoric. As Dick stated that among other things, PDA should be able to answer genuine and relevant political questions and deal with issues that are discussed in political science (2000: 15).
B. Political Legitimacy
Legitimacy is not an exclusive property of any one discipline as it has been made priviledge object of research not only in political or social science but also philosophy, law, psychology, including discourse analysis. With each discipline presenting one specific way of understanding reality, discourse analysis specifically highlighting on linguistic features to analyze political legitimacy in this paper will advance different point of view compared to studies in political or social science.
There raises the question about the requirement of legitimacy – how the concept of legitimacy may apply? or when are political institutions and the decisions made within them appropriately called legitimate? Numerous scholars tried to propose their concepts. Peter presented two interpretation of legitimacy; the descriptive and normative concept as follows:
If legitimacy is interpreted descriptively, it refers to people’s beliefs about political authority and, sometimes, political obligations (2010: 1).
The normative concept of political legitimacy refers to some benchmark of acceptability or justification of political power or authority and—possibly—obligation (2010: 1)
Speaking about legitimacy in descriptive concept, Weber in Peter pointed out belief as the fundamental basic of it.
A political regime is legitimate means that its participants have certain beliefs or faith in regard to it: “the basis of every system of authority, and correspondingly of every kind of willingness to obey, is a belief, a belief by virtue of which persons exercising authority are lent prestige” (2010: 2).
He distinguishes among three main sources of legitimacy—understood as both the acceptance of authority and of the need to obey its commands (ibid). Faith can be derived from various reasons such as tradition, charisma, or rationality of the rule of law.
In normative concept, legitimacy is explained on the broadest view. It both explains why the use of political power practiced by a particular body—a state, a government, or a democratic collective, for example— that manages to entail obligation to obey is permissible. The answer goes far beyond faith or belief. John Rawls in Peter (2010: 2) presents such an interpretation of legitimacy as follows:
On one widely held narrower view, legitimacy is linked to the moral justification—not the creation—of political authority. Political bodies such as states may be effective, or de facto, authorities, without being legitimate. They claim the right to rule and to create obligations to be obeyed, and as long as these claims are met with sufficient acquiescence, they are authoritative. Legitimate authority, on this view, differs from merely effective or de facto authority in that it actually holds the right to rule and creates political obligations (e.g. Raz 1986). According to an opposing view (e.g. Simmons 2001), political authority may be morally justified without being legitimate, but only legitimate authority generates political obligations.
On another often held narrow view, even legitimate authority is not sufficient to create political obligations. The thought is that a political authority (such as a state) may be permitted to issue commands that citizens are not obligated to obey (Dworkin 1986: 191). Based on a view of this sort, some have argued that legitimate authority only gives rise to political obligations if additional normative conditions are satisfied (e.g. Wellman 1996; Edmundson 1998; Buchanan 2002).
The two concepts simultaneously mention the two keywords in political legitimacy; political authority and obligation, although they differ in the orign. Coicaud presented the common ground for the idea of legitimacy as the recognition of the right to govern which consists of justifying simultaneously political power and obedience (2002: 10). In this regard, legitimacy works on right-based relationship. The right of individual can only be established only with the aid of mutual limitation grounded upon spirit of compromise and concession. As the result, obligation is sanction that attest to the effectivity of right (2002: 11).
C. Systemic Functional Linguistic
M.A.K Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar described functional-systemic approach to language which explores both how people use language in different context, and how language is structured for use as a semiotic system (Egins, 2004). In this regard, SFL consists of two components; systemic and functional grammar as two inseperable parts for an integral framework for linguistic theory. Systemic grammar refers to analytical methodology which premits detailed and systematic description of language pattern (Halliday in Wang, 2010: 254 ). Functional grammar reveals that language form, as a means of social interaction, serve certain functions (ibid) that are categorized into three meta-functions; ideational, interpersonal, and textual functions. This research will explore only ideational function that is expressed by transitivity system in grammar.
The organization of clause in transitivity system conveys ideational meaning, meaning about how we represent reality in language (Egins, 2004). A same experience can be described in different representation depending on the choice of transitivity used by the speaker. This also reflects the speaker’s attitude towards a certain reality. The system of transitivity includes six types of process with each process has different focus of meaning (ibid).
1. Material
In material process, the focus of meaning is the action verb (e.g. go, eat, drink, etc.) performed by the actor (logical subject) and directed/affecting the goal (noun/pronoun). In the sentence “She gives you a piece of cake”, for example, reflects the activeness of actor “she” as the sentence focuses its meaning on the action “give”.
2. Mental
Mental process expresses mental phenomena such as perception (e.g. see, look, etc.), reaction (e.g. hate, like, etc.), and cognition (e.g. know, understand, etc.), experienced by the senser (actor in mental process).
3. Relational
This type of process consists of attributive and identifying. Attributive process explains what qualities a certain object carries. For example, “Women are weak”. Meanwhile, identifying process reveals identical properties of two entities. Unlike attributive process, sentences in identifying process are reversible (changeable to passive form). For example, “Woman is the weakest creature”.
4. Verbal
The focus of meaning in verbal process is verbal action in which the activity of exchanging information in utterance is taking place (e.g. say, tell, talk, describe, speak, etc.).
5. Behavioral
Behavioral process is the combination of psychological and physiological behavior such as laughing, coughing, smiling, etc.. This type of process is hardly distinguished from material or mental process, yet it only has a single participant called behaver who is a conscious being.
6. Existential
The structure of this process involves the use of the word “there”. “There”, in this regard, has no functional label or representational meaning as it doesn’t stand as the circumstancial location or subject. Instead, it serves merely as a existential subject. For example, “there are three people in my bedroom”.
Methodology
This research will examine rethorical strategies employed in 2007 Climate Change Bali Conference’s speeches. Framed with Systemic Functional Linguistic, the attention primarily focuses on grammatical aspects (the transitivity system) as the linguistic device which serve to construct SBY’s political legitimacy in speeches. Halliday’s SFL theory belongs to Critical Linguistic which is one of several approaches in Critical Discourse Analysis (Eriyanto, 2001: 15), under which PDA is working.
This research is conducted in qualitative method. It takes 20 sample of transitive sentences which are the main idea of each paragraph in the speech’s body. The sample consists of 14 sentences in the first speech and 6 sentences in the second speech. The interpretation of transitivity in each sentence defines its contextual dimension related to how SBY builds his poltical legitimacy.
Presentation and Interpretation of Data
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono had succeeded in building his political legitimacy in second speech as it was proved from the collective response of participants that changed displaying confrontatif into cooperative manner at the moment of crisis. Climate Change Bali Conference is not a political institution in which the leader can easily exercise his power to govern. Furthermore, SBY holds the position as the host that is not lent privilage of political authority. The mobilization of participants is generated merely from his ability to handle ongoing conflict among delegates from various countries. It indicates the acceptance of his authority and participants’s conformity towards the obligation charged to them which are the complemetary conditions that have to do with the domain of legitimacy. Important instrument to achieve political legitimacy, based on the perspective of discourse analysis, depends on a well-established ideology and representation (Jaworski & Galasinski dalam Johnstone & Eisenhart, 2008). Establishing ideology here is conducted from the way SBY constructs the instruments of persuassion which subsequently reflects his subjectivity. This paper will subsequently analyze and compare the establishment of ideology and subjectivity in two speeches in order to find the reason why the second speech worked more effectively in building SBY’s political legitimacy.
A. The Instrument of Persuassion in Two Speeches
Eventhough the first and second speeches were discussing the same issue, they were composed by different discourses. The discourses become the instrument of persuassion in which SBY shapes ideology to mobilize the participant’s thought. The difference of the instruments are presented in the table below.
| First Speech |
Second Speech |
| Representation of Climate Change Bali Conference |
Representation of the conference’s delegates |
| Exploitation of dominant ideology in climate change issue in order to create an effective lobbying process |
Shaping entiativity and role to participants |
| Shaping entiativity and role to participants |
Management style performed to represent Bali Road Map. |
| Management style performed to represent Bali Road Map. |
|
Cutting the instrument of persuassion in the second speech indicates SBY’s preference that emphasizes on primary targets of this conference; the delegetas as the leading actor in the diplomatic negotiation and Bali Road Map as the ultimate goal in this conference. Furthermore, the difference in the instrument shows different approaches performed by SBY. In the first speech, he emphasizes more on ideology formation while in the second one, he focuses on building cooperative relationship among participants.
B. The Interpretation of Transitivity System in The First Speech
The following sentences are the presentation of data in each instrument of persuassion. There are 14 samples of transitive sentence consisting of 7 material, 5 relational, 1 mental, and 1 existential processes.
1. Representation Climate Change Bali Conference
a) Whether they will live in a world 2 degrees Celsius warmer, or catastrophically, 5 degrees Celsius hotter, will very much depend on what we decided to do here in Bali. (Material)
b) There is a high spirit of cooperation here in Bali. (Existential)
2. Exploitation of dominant ideology in climate change issue in order to create an effective lobbying process
c) But the plain truth is that there IS a very simple formula to resolve it: LESS EMISSIONS, MORE SINKS! (Relational)
d) But we ARE here to chart a new course, to formulate a clear path towards a more comprehensive framework on climate change under the UNFCCC. (Relational)
e) NOW is the time that we specify more clearly how to best implement this concept of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”, beyond generalities, beyond promises, into concrete numbers, concrete programs, concrete schemes and concrete road map. (Relational)
e) Thus, ten years after Kyoto, the world has seen neither reduced emissions, nor more carbon sinks. (Mental)
3. Shaping entiativity and role to participants
f) Developed countries, due to their historical responsibility for global warming which they themselves have accepted, MUST do more. (Material)
g) Developing countries too must do our part. (Material)
h) I commend those countries, and regions within countries, that have pro-actively established ambitious commitments and targets, without waiting for others to come forward. (Material)
4. Management style to represent Bali Road Map.
i) To preserve these natural assets, we have established, along with Malaysia and Brunei, an ambitious “Heart of Borneo” program, which aims to conserve 22 million hectares of tropical rainforests in Indonesia alone. (Material)
j) We must now give it our most careful consideration, and come to an agreement over it. (Material)
k) I do believe that the wording in the text that you are considering already point us in the right direction. (Material)
l) Therefore, it is absolutely critical for this Conference to produce, at the end of our gathering, the Bali Road Map. (Relational)
m) And that road map will have a clear timeline of work and completion of work. (Relational)
The interpretation of data above can be classified into four points.
1. Lack of personal involvement
In building his political legitimacy, SBY performs a lack of personal involvement. He creates his identity as an observer of conference. This self potrait is captured from his choice of material and existential process while exploring the first instrument of persuassion (while he was constructing the representation of Climate Change Bali Conference).
As explained in theoritical framework, material process has focus of meaning on the action verb performed by the actor. In the following sentence, SBY’s chosing material process indicates his lack of control to shape the essential meaning and spirit of cooperativeness in the conference because the subject of sentence is occupied by a fact about the life of generation in the future (Whether they will live in a world 2 degrees Celsius warmer, or catastrophically, 5 degrees Celsius hotter) instead of him as the spokeperson.
a) Whether they will live in a world 2 degrees Celsius warmer, or catastrophically, 5 degrees Celsius hotter, will very much depend on what we decided to do here in Bali.
His lack of personal involvement also can be seen from the choice of existential process. In existential process, the focus of meaning is subjected to the phenomenon of a certain entity. The absence of actor indicates that the core phenomenon (a high spirit of cooperation) occured without SBY’s being involved in that. Referring to the supporting details[2], a high spirit of cooperation is sourced from the activeness of participants, not SBY as the actor who produces it.
b) There is a high spirit of cooperation here in Bali.
2. Imposing Pressure of Duties
The first speech focuses on SBY’s efforts to produce political power. This is reflected from the constant pressure he imposed to the participants in the second instrument of persuassion (while he was conducting lobbying process by exploiting the dominant idelogy of climate change). The imposing pressures are performed in the choice of relational processes.
c) But the plain truth is that there IS a very simple formula to resolve it: LESS EMISSIONS, MORE SINKS!
Relational process juxtaposes two entities in a single sentence (Halliday in Eggins, 2004). In the sentence above, paralelism composed between the two phrases “plain truth” and “simple formula” implies the meaning that climate change is not a complex issue because there is a simple formula to handle it. Thus, for its direct linking between two entities, paralellism serves the function as the tool that deconstruct a dominant ideology, climate change is a complex issue, in a direct manner.
Direct pressure is also created by increasing the level of urgency to find the solution in climate change’s problems. It is reflected from the heavy use of rhetorical deixis and visual metaphor. Visual metaphor helps to create the sense of ‘present’ in a sentence because the audience is directed to mental activity such as see, look, etc. (Johnstone, 2002: 213). The entire sentences below visualizes the presence of audience in the present context because those sentences are structured in present tense. Rhetorical deixis is subjected to the use of circumstancial devices such as here, now, this, working in the domain of space and time in reference to a certain idea that helps to create the sense of interpersonal involvement (Lakof dalam Johnstone, 2002: 213). Interpersonal involvement is created among the participants of conference. In other words, the focus of meaning for the entire sentences shows that we as one unity exist at the moment in a certain place to accomplish a certain mission. Focus of meaning we as one unity creates a high degree of agency among participants.
d) But we ARE here to chart a new course, to formulate a clear path towards a more comprehensive framework on climate change under the UNFCCC.
e) NOW is the time that we specify more clearly how to best implement this concept of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”, beyond generalities, beyond promises, into concrete numbers, concrete programs, concrete schemes and concrete road map.
Mental process is used to describe the failure of Kyoto Protocol. Fairclough in Johnstone and Eisenhart (2008) stated that in mental process, senser is the entity who undergoes mental experience so that they become the direct target of that experience. Presenting the failure of Kyoto Protocol in mental process implies the meaning that the world community is the direct target from that failure. This suggests the fact that the failure is communal experience. As the result of this sentence construction, the meaning of failure is reinforced because it is represented from the world community’s point of view.
f) Thus, ten years after Kyoto, the world has seen neither reduced emissions, nor more carbon sinks.
3. SBY’s exclusive position and participants’ disintegration in discourse
SBY’s position in discourse is exclusive which is apart and higher than the other participants. There is a weak integration in forming the participants’ entiativity (the third instrument of persuassion). He classified the participants of Climate Change Bali Conference into two groups; developed and developing countries and adressed them separately.
g) Developed countries, due to their historical responsibility for global warming which they themselves have accepted, MUST do more.
h) Developing countries too must do our part.
The sentences above described what becomes the duties of developed and developing countries in conference. Those sentences are instruction that are packaged in declarative material process form. The choice of material process focuses the meaning of sentences on the actor, developed and eveloping countries, for conducting action verb do. The nuance of instruction here is tuned down as SBY doctrinized the duties of those groups of countries instead of clearly mandating it to the participants.
SBY’s exclusive position is then reflected from the way he adressed himself as I. From the word command, the following sentence is explicitly expressed another SBY’s instruction to participants. However, the instruction is clearly and explicitly stated in relation to himself as the instructor. His using individuality in instruction confirmed his political superiority above the other delegates.
i) I commend those countries, and regions within countries, that have pro-actively established ambitious commitments and targets, without waiting for others to come forward.
When it comes to adressing the cooperation, SBY didn’t unite himself, developed, and developing countries as a single entity instead he adressed we, as in the following sentence, that refers to another cooperation. We consist of Indonesia (with SBY as the president), Malaysia, and Burunei as one agent who established Heart of Borneo program, a successful program to preserve tropical rainforest in Indonesia. This implies the meaning that SBY can’t discharge his exclusive position in discourse in which he stands higher than the delegates.
j) To preserve these natural assets, we have established, along with Malaysia and Brunei, an ambitious “Heart of Borneo” program, which aims to conserve 22 million hectares of tropical rainforests in Indonesia alone.
4. Issue focus in the formation of Bali Road Map ideology
In forming the ideology of Bali Road Map, SBY focuses on the issue that includes the explanation of an ideal achievement and detailed agenda to participants. He developed formalistic style of leader which means that the main focus of leader is on the ideology formation, not the personality of a certain individual (Cottam, Uhler, Mastors, and Preston, 2004: 99). As can bee seen in the follwoing sentences, this sentence talks about Bali Road Map as the ultimate goal of conference with relational process is chosen to represent it. Focus of the meaning is located in the relation it and absolutely critical without the presence of speaker’s perspective. The clause it is absolutely critical is equipped with the reference for this conference instead of to me (SBY) standing as the speaker. Thus, the absence of his presence is aimed to validate the atmosphere of opinion by concealing his point of view.
q) Therefore, it is absolutely critical for this Conference to produce, at the end of our gathering, the Bali Road Map.
Furthermore, SBY’s focusing on the issue is represented from the way he imposed duties to participants about the breakthrough they must accomplish. Relational process in this sentence focuses its meaning on the relation of a road map and a clear timeline of work and completion of work. It generates an ideal picture of how Bali Road Map should be. This choice of process conceals the atmosphere of instruction in sentence so that his opinion is validated for the absence of his point of view.
r) And that road map will have a clear timeline of work and completion of work.
C. The Interpretation of Transitivity System in The Second Speech
The following sentences are the presentation of data in each instrument of persuassion. There are 6 sample of transitive sentences consisting of 5 material, 1 relational processes.
1. Representation of the conference’s delegates
a) We made significant progress on many issues, but we need to do more to make it complete package (Material)
b) We are now nearing the climax of our deliberations, and we must make the last mile in this exhaustive marathon-the most difficult mile! (Material)
2. Shaping entiativity and role to participants
c) We must therefore do what we sincerely recognize to be our duty, our moral obligation (Material)
d) For the sake of our future generations, we must make that breakthrough to which we pledged ourselves (Material)
e) We must now give it our most careful consideration, and come to an agreement over it. (Material)
f) I do believe that the wording in the text that you are considering already point us in the right direction (Mental)
3. Management style performed to represent Bali Road Map.
g) This is political commitment that we all share (Relational)
h) Thus, here and now, we must produce a Road Map-the Bali Roadmap-that will effectively guide us in the most concrete terms to a firm and effective agreement in Copenhagen (Material)
The interpretation of data above can also be classified into four points.
1. Motivating personal involvement
SBY performed more personal involvement in the second speech in which he manages a crucial position in discourse. It is performed by his choice of material processes that are very different from the material process in the first speech. The core meaning of the two sentences below convey instruction to participants to optimalize their efforts. However, it is interesting that SBY always anticipates the instruction tone by palcing the focus of meaning on the representation of participants as an agent who have made progress and walked closely to the final goal (We made significant progress on many issues, We are now nearing the climax of our deliberations). Therefore, unlike the first speech in which he represents himself as an observer, SBY dives into audiences’s perspective in order to elevate their value.
a) We made significant progress on many issues, but we need to do more to make it complete package
b) We are now nearing the climax of our deliberations, and we must make the last mile in this exhaustive marathon-the most difficult mile!
2. Participants’s Partnership
SBY changed his focus in the second speech from pressure of duties to participants’ partnership. There is deconstruction of the previous identity that classified participants into developed and developing countries. In the second speech, SBY teared down the curtail that places themselves to that different categorization and united them as one agent. This is reflected from the actor we (SBY and all participants) in material processes that creates a sense of unity and equality.
c) We must therefore do what we sincerely recognize to be our duty, our moral obligation
d) For the sake of our future generations, we must make that breakthrough to which we pledged ourselves
3. Equal position and participants’ integration in discourse
SBY is no longer to hold on his individuality in the second speech. From the dominance of material process with we as the actor, he lines up with other participants in a paralel position. According to Dijk in Eriyanto (2001: 254), pronoun we grows a sense of solidarity, alliance, public’s attention, and diminishes critics and opposition to one self. This kind of sentence construction strengthens sense of unity and sense of belonging that creates cohesitivity of group.
e) We must now give it our most careful consideration, and come to an agreement over it.
Once he used individuality, he used it to support the participants. The choice of mental process in the sentence below places SBY as the target of mental experience believe. The core of meaning in the sentence is the wording in the text that you are considering already point us in the right direction had not happened in reality.Adding the phrase I do believe creates stimulus to participants because SBY transfers the responsibility to participants.
f) I do believe that the wording in the text that you are considering already point us in the right direction
4. Personality focus in the formation of Bali Road Map ideology
In the second speech, the representation of Bali Road Map is strongly attached to the existence of delegates. SBY develops collegial style, a leadership style that focuses on teamwork, shared responsibility, and problem solving in a group (Cottam, Uhler, Mastors, and Preston, 2004: 100). The two sentences below are the main idea of paragraph that talk about Bali Road Map as the political commitment of world community. The first sentence is composed by one dependent (that we all share) and one independent clauses (this is political commitment). Relational process is executed to represent the independent clause and material process for dependent clause. This kind of sentence construction brings the audience to a picture in which political commitment stands as a single entity that comes first before action verb share. Thus, the whole meaning emphasizes on the existence of political commitment as one responsibility for participants. A different meaning will be generated if the order is switched around, we all share this political commitment. This material process implies the meaning that focuses on the action verb share so that the sense of responsibility is not represented.
g) This is political commitment that we all share
Material process that is chosen in the second speech is different from that in the first one. In the first speech, it is used to describe the ideal picture of Bali Road Map. In the second speech, with its focus of meaning on the action of we, it is used to emphasize participants’ main duties to formulate Bali Road Map.
h) Thus, here and now, we must produce a Road Map-the Bali Roadmap-that will effectively guide us in the most concrete terms to a firm and effective agreement in Copenhagen
Conclusion and Recommendation
In conclusion, the second speech of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in Climate Change Bali Conference has a higher degree of legitimacy because it contains a weaker need of self authority and a lower sense of obligation to participants.
A weaker need of self authority is reflected from the way he represents himself in discourse. To get a closer look at this, the comparison of his subjectivity in the first and the second speeches are presented in the following table.
| First speech |
Second speech |
- An observer to 2007 Climate Change Bali Conference
- Holding exclusive position as a spokeperson.
- Having tendency to be more superior in political power.
- A formalistic-style leader which focuses on the problem solving in his leadership.
|
- A motivator to participants of conference.
- Holding paralel position with other participants.
- Having tendency to be equal with other participants in political power.
- A collegial-style leader which focuses on building teamwork in his leadership.
|
A lower sense of obligation to participants is reflected from the way he imposes duties to them. The comparison of that detail in the first and the second speeches are presented in the table below.
| First speech |
Second speech |
- SBY focuses on a constant pressure of duties.
- He concentrates to build rationality as he tried to pay attention on the construction of issue.
|
- SBY focuses on participants’s partnership.
- Building a teamwork is more important approach than solving problem.
|
The comparison above shows that there is a reversed ratio between the gained authority and the need of that as well as the level of obligation and its success. The stronger SBY feels the need of self authority, the lesser actual authority he gains. The same pattern goes to obligation he imposes. The higher level of obligation he creates will generate less successful result. The best method to gain political legitimacy in this case is by emphasizing on partnership which is embracing all participants from various nations to cooperatively complete the targeted goal of conference as well as by placing everyone in equal position.
The analytical methodology above is applicable only for textual analysis. However, the model of discourse analysis doesn’t limit its scope to textual dimension, but it also includes suprasegmental elements such as intonation, audience responses, setting, etc. Therefore, the advanced discourse analysis needs to take account on non-textual dimension to generate a more accurate findings. Furthermore, there should be more exposures and expansions for discourse analysis applied to rhetoric to enrich perspectives in the study of diplomacy, communication, political, or social sciences.
Bibliography
Coicaud, Jean-Marc. Legitimacy and Politics: Contribution to Study of Political Right and Political Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Cottam, Martha, et al., ed. Introduction to Political Psychology. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher, 2004.
Dijk, Teun A. van. “What is Political Discourse?”. Website Teun A. van Dick. 2000. (n.p). June 05, 2012. URL= http://www.google.com/gwt/x?hl=en&u=http://www.discourse.org/OldArticles/What%2520is%2520Political%2520Discourse%2520Analysis.pdf&client=ms-rim&q=what+is+political+discourse+van+dijk+bibliography&sa=X&ei=J61AUL7lIqPLyAHbiYDYBw&ved=0CBgQFjAA
Djalal, Dino Patti. HARUS BISA!: Seni Memimpin ala SBY. Jakarta: R&W Publisher, 2008.
Egins, Suzzane. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics (2nd ed). London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004.
Eriyanto. Analisis Wacana: Pengantar Analisis Teks Media. Yogyakarta: PT. LkiS Pelangi aksara, 2001.
Johnstone, Barbara. Discourse Analysis. Massachusetts: Blakwell Publisher Inc, 2002.
Johnstone, Barbara dan Christopher Eisenhart. Rhetoric in Detail. Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing, 2008.
Peter, Fabienne, “Political Legitimacy”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/legitimacy/>.
Rapp, Christof, “Aristotle’s Rhetoric”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/>.
Pemerintah Republik Indonesia. Kesekretariatan Negara. Keynote Address at The High Level Plenary Session of The 13th COP/3rd CMP UN Conference on Climate Change. (n.d.). <http://presidenri.go.id>
Wang, Junling. “A Critical Discourse Analysis of Barack Obama’s Speeches”. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 1:3: (2010): 254-261
[1] This term was mentioned by Ritivoi in Johnstone and Eisenhart defined as an identity of someone that is constructed from political and social interaction (2008).
[2] See the 6th paragraph of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s Keynote Address at The High Level Plenary Session of The 13th COP/3rd CMP UN Conference on Climate Change
Peny Rahmadhani 