Zambezia (2000), XXVII (i).DEMOCRATIC DISCOURSE? REALISING ALTERNATIVESIN ZIMBABWEAN POLITICAL DISCOURSEALISON LOVE1Department of Linguistics, University of ZimbabweAbstractThis article discusses political discourse in Zimbabwe from a perspective ofdiscourse analysis. It examines two speeches presented (in English) at aseminar on Structural Adjustment and Political Democracy and subsequentlypublished. One speech was given on behalf of a government minister andthe other was presented by the Secretary-General of the Zimbabwe Congressof Trade Unions. The speeches in their published form are examined interms of their attempts to maintain or challenge hegemony in politicaldiscourse in Zimbabwe. The Minister's speech is described briefly as anexercise in rearticulating discursive hegemony at a critical point inGovernment policy formulation. The main focus of this article is an analysisof the linguistic strategies employed by the trade unionist to challenge thathegemony, by drawing the audience to consider alternative perceptions. Hisuse of adversatives, negatives and questions is analysed in detail. Thearticle concludes that the trade unionist's discourse strategies are an effectivemeans of introducing a democratic voice into Zimbabwean political discourseand of engaging an audience in 'collaborative denaturalisation' of governmentdiscourse.INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL DISCOURSEThis article is concerned with issues of political discourse in Zimbabwe,particularly possible strategies for introducing increasingly democraticvoices into political discussion. The article will examine two speeches onStructural Adjustment and Political Democracy given in the early 1990s,one by a government minister and the other by a trade unionist. Thisarticle will concentrate on the latter, discussing means by which thetrade unionist attempts to introduce alternative perceptions to thosepresented by the minister.This article draws on material presented at a Linguistics Department seminar in 1995 atthe University of Zimbabwe, and also on a paper presented at the International EuropeanSystemic Functional Workshop in Liverpool, UK, July 1998. This article is, however, a newdiscussion of the material. I am grateful to Professor M. Bourdillon for constructivecomments on an earlier version of this article.2728 REALISING ALTERNATIVES IN ZIMBABWEAN POLITICAL DISCOURSEPolitical discourse has been widely studied, particularly within theareas of Pragmatics (e.g. Wilson, 1990; Ilie, 1994; 1998) and CriticalDiscourse Analysis (e.g. Fairclough, 1989; 1992; van Dijk, 1993). Typically,Pragmatics studies have sought to describe and explain strategies ofpolitical argumentation and, particularly, persuasion. Ilie's detailedpragmatic analysis of the speeches of the Romanian dictator, Ceausescu,demonstrates the linguistic strategies he used for totalitarianmanipulation. Critical Discourse Analysis has tended to concentrate onthe ways in which much political discourse is produced by, and in theinterests of, powerful elites: the studies show the strategies by which theideologies of the powerful are presented as 'natural'. Van Dijk, in anoverview of Critical Discourse Analysis, states:We pay more attention to 'top-down' relations of dominance than tobottom-up relations of resistance, compliance and acceptance. Thisdoes not mean that we see power and dominance merely as unilaterally'imposed' on others. On the contrary, in many situations, and sometimesparadoxically, power and even power abuse may seem 'jointlyproduced', e.g. when dominated groups are persuaded, by whatevermeans, that dominance is 'natural' or otherwise legitimate. Thus,although an analysis of strategies of resistance and challenge is crucialfor our understanding of actual power and dominance relations insociety, and although such an analysis needs to be included in a broadertheory of power, counter-power and discourse, our critical approachprefers to focus on the elites and their discursive strategies for themaintenance of inequality (Van Dijk, 1993, 250).Fairclough, however, prefers to adopt Gramsci's concept of'hegemony' as a way of describing power relations, rather than'dominance'. He explains:Hegemony is leadership as much as domination across the economic,political, cultural and ideological domains of a society. Hegemony isthe power over society as a whole of one of the fundamentaleconomically-defined classes in alliance with other social forces, but itis never achieved more than partially, and temporarily, as an 'unstableequilibrium'. Hegemony is about constructing alliances, and integratingrather than simply dominating subordinate classes, through concessionsor through ideological means, to win their consent. Hegemony is afocus of constant struggle around points of greatest instability betweenclasses and blocs, to construct or sustain or fracture alliances andrelations of domination/subordination, which takes economic, politicaland ideological forms. Hegemonic struggle takes place on a broadfront, which includes the institutions of civil society (education, tradeunions, family), with possible unevenness between different levels anddomains (Fairclough, 1992, 92).Within the Zimbabwean context, despite significant differences fromWestern societies, an approach to political discourse that emphasisesA. LOVE 29the possibility of instability in hegemonic alliances seems more relevantthan one emphasising domination. While the discourse of the politicalelite in Zimbabwe, in particular the Zimbabwe African National Union(ZANU [PF]) government, has many characteristics of the discourse ofpowerful elites elsewhere, the situation is complex. As Fairclough stresses,hegemony can be conceived as leadership: in Zimbabwe, the presentpolitical elite gained their positions after a successful war of liberation.The government sees its power as validated not only in electoral terms,but also in terms of its leadership of the liberation struggle. In theimmediate post-independence years, the legitimacy of this claim wasrarely challenged, and the government was able to present itself asrepresenting a national consensus, with homogeneous assumptions andaspirations, frequently expressed in terms of Marxist discourse (see, forexample, Love and Morrison, 1989).In more recent years, this 'equilibrium' has become more 'unstable',as the promises of independence have not been fulfilled. There has beenabundant evidence of corruption among the political elite and thepressures from international financial institutions to restructure theeconomy in ways vastly different from the earlier socialist rhetoric havebecome a major factor in policy formation.The speeches which will be examined in this article were presentedat a crucial point in this developing instability. The two speeches werekeynote addresses at a seminar on Structural Adjustment and PoliticalDemocracy in the early 1990s, when the government was in the processof embarking, at the behest of the International Monetary Fund, on'economic liberalisation'. While ZANU (PF) can be seen as very much amonolithic party, with little distinction between party, government andstate, the early 1990s saw a gradual separation of the organs of civilsociety, especially the trade unions, from the nationalist consensus andthe start of the voicing of separate interest groups. These speechesrepresent the discourse of this separation, and therefore provide aninteresting point at which to examine political discourse in Zimbabwe interms of potential instability in the existing hegemony.The opening speech was presented on behalf of the then Minister ofTrade and Industry, Kumbirai Kangai, and'was followed by that of theSecretary-General of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, MorganTsvangirai. The seminar was organised by the independent journal SocialChange and Development, and the speeches were subsequently publishedin the journal in 1992. I discuss the written version in this article. TheMinister's speech will be discussed briefly, with attention being focussedon the ways in which the trade unionist's speech attempts to problematisethe hegemonic discourse. Both speeches were originally presented andsubsequently published in English.30 REALISING ALTERNATIVES IN ZIMBABWEAN POLITICAL DISCOURSEHEGEMONIC DISCOURSE: THE MINISTER'S SPEECHThe speech by the Minister was characteristic of elite political discourse,assuming authority from his position. It was essentially monologic,anticipating no interaction with the audience. Indeed, at the event nosuch interaction would have been possible, as the Minister did not attendin person, but had the speech read on his behalf. More significantly, thespeech was linguistically monologic, using linguistic choices which donot invite interaction.2 For example, the entire speech is in the declarativemood. The speech is, indeed, a good example of political discourse whichstrives to naturalise a hegemonic position Š to persuade the audiencethat the government's perception of the current situation and itsinterpretation of alternatives is inevitable (Fairclough, 1992, 87). I shallnot discuss Kangai's speech at length here,3 but will give some briefindications of the ways in which it sought to naturalise the IMF structuraladjustment policies and present them as desirable for Zimbabwe.Kangai's speech, despite its apparent assumption of authority, seeksto rearticulate the government's hegemonic position, by persuading hisaudience that past support should naturally be extended to the new anddifferent economic policies being embraced by government. Kangai'sspeech is in three sections; the first dealing with the theoreticalrelationship between structural adjustment and democracy; the secondconcerned with the application of the policies in Zimbabwe and aConclusion which reflects on the current state of affairs in the country. Inthe first section, the Minister seeks to convince his audience that economicliberalisation is both inevitable and desirable for the country as a whole.This he does by authoritative assertions which presuppose the ideologyof economic liberalisation. A typical example is his defence of the marketeconomy:Another equally important element of structural adjustment is theconcept of market forces. Market forces should be given relatively greatlatitude to determine economic activities. This is appropriate becausein a market economy, the market itself, by and large, ensures that no-one gains an unwarranted advantage.Here the Minister asserts the appropriateness of market forces, andimplies that their benefits extend to everyone, assuming a homogeneoussociety, equally open to the advantages of liberalised trade. That this isnot exactly the case is conceded a little later:2 For a discussion of 'engagement' in discourse, which suggests a model based on theBakhtinian concept of 'monoglossia and heteroglossia', see White. P. R. R. (1998) 'Towardsa Grammar of Power and Solidarity Š Developments in the Linguistics of EvaluationInter-Subjectivity and Ideological Position', Paper presented at 1 Oth European InternationalSystemic Functional Workshop, Liverpool.3 For a fuller discussion of the two speeches, including an extensive analysis of Kangai'sspeech, see Love (forthcoming).A. LOVE 31A fourth characteristic of structural adjustment is the inevitable adversesocial effects it has on the poor and vulnerable groups particularly in itsearly stages.This 'exception' appears to be presented as an unfortunate side-effect, which need not be examined in depth. Further assertions concernthe nature of democracy: in countries like Zimbabwe,Democracy is evidenced by the holding of regular elections in whichpeople are free to exercise their right to vote and stand for electiveoffices.Again the assertion is presented as self-evident, and the benefit to'people' as uncontroversial.In the second section, Kangai acknowledges that structural adjustmentmay need some adaptation to the Zimbabwean context. Here he attemptsto reassure the audience that the government is continuing to work forthe advantage of all Zimbabweans, thus justifying its continuing hegemonicposition.The economy should be steered in a direction that should facilitate therole of indigenous entrepreneurs and private initiative. It is necessaryto put a significant portion of the economy in the hands of our ownpeople in order to change the productive relations of the economy.It is noticeable that these assertions are impersonal and generalised,refraining from specifying what precise policies the government willfollow. The Minister also lays stress on continuity:Promotion of cooperatives will continue to be regarded as a means tostrengthen the social organisation in the economy and uplift the socialand material conditions of the people.Thus this section of the speech is designed to reassure the publicthat the Structural Adjustment Programme does not signal any majorchange of policy on government's part, and therefore need not provoke achange in popular support. The Conclusion works to maintain anundifferentiated national consensus. The Minister 'boasts' of the successesof Zimbabwe, using 'we' to invite his audience to identify with these:We have one of the most diversified manufacturing sectors in Africawith the exception of South Africa together with a well developedinfrastructure. Our country's entrepreneurial and managerial skills baseis unique in the region with the exception of South Africa.This consensus is then called upon in an adhortation to support thegovernment's policies:There is need for all of us to work closely towards a national consensusto make a success of the Economic Structural Adjustment Programmeand Trade Liberalisation. The enabling environment is there, and firmly32 REALISING ALTERNATIVES IN ZIMBABWEAN POLITICAL DISCOURSEfixed, for we are a truly democratic society and have a relatively robustand diversified economy.Thus the Minister's speech presents Structural Adjustment as a naturalpolicy with natural implications, and suggests that its benefits will extendto all, at least in the long run. It should therefore be seen as a continuationof the previously supported policies. The speech reasserts the reliabilityof government in promoting the national interest and works to maintainthe consensus that Zimbabweans should work together to make thepolicy a success. It is an attempt to paper over the cracks appearing inhegemony, by presenting government policy in terms of broad objectives,which appear uncontroversially positive.RESTRUCTURING HEGEMONY: THE TRADE UNIONIST'S STRATEGIESWithin the context of Zimbabwe in the early 1990s, where there was asyet no effective opposition party, the task of challenging such hegemonicdiscourse fell on organs of civil society. The ZANU (PF) government hadfaced no danger of immediate defeat, and therefore the most urgent taskappeared to be the democratisation of political discourse by means ofopening up debate to a wider range of voices. The most effective strategieswere likely to be those which 'denaturalised' the government discourse,questioning assumptions and presenting alternatives. The speech givenby Morgan Tsvangirai, representing the Zimbabwe Congress of TradeUnions, in response to Kangai's speech, will now be examined in detail tosee to wfcat extent it fulfils this role.The most striking feature of the trade unionist's speech is Tsvangirai'sconcern to present alternatives to the Minister's assertions. He presentsalternative agendas, alternative claims, alternative evaluations, alternativeinterpretations, and can be said to represent alternative voices. Myconcern here is not with the content of these alternatives, but with thelinguistic resources Tsvangirai utilises to engage his audience inconsideration of alternatives. Interestingly, a number of linguists havediscussed the linguistic features which may be used to raise alternativepossibilities in an audience's or reader's mind. Grimes (1975) introducesthe concept of 'collateral information', which he suggests,relates non-events to events. By providing a range of non-events thatmight take place, it heightens the significance of real events (Grimes,1975, 65).Similarly, van Dijk (1977,30) refers to linguistic features which present'alternative possible worlds'. White (1988), in his model of engagement intext, includes the category of 'counter-expectation'. AH these conceptsrefer to ways of engaging an audience in comparison with differingA. LOVE 33alternatives. Here I shall draw mainly on some of the linguistic featuresincluded by Grimes: adversatives, negatives and questions.In the Minister's speech, these features are notable by their absence.Questions do not occur, and there are very few instances of adversativesor negatives. Thus the speech creates the impression of smooth coherenceof argument, with no room for alternatives: in other words, a typicalstrategy of naturalisation.In Tsvangirai's speech, by contrast, 'collateral information' isubiquitous. Since his aim is to present alternatives to the Minister'sargument at every level, he uses a variety of types of collateral informationto invite the audience to consider alternatives to the Minister's claims,interpretations, evaluations and entire agenda.AdversativesAdversatives, such as 'but', 'however', 'instead of, hold two ideas Šwhether expressed by complete statements or by alternative elements ina clause Š in tension, producing contrasts between differing perspectives.They thus lead the audience to look at a situation from two viewpoints, orto challenge the validity of one statement in the pair. They can be seen aspart of the grammar of 'counter-expectation' (White, 1998), since anapparently completed statement is then 're-opened' by contradiction orquestioning.Tsvangirai begins his speech by using adversatives to 're-set' theagenda and offer an alternative focus to the issue of 'structural adjustmentand political democracy'. He opens with a list of the 'five pillars' of theEconomic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP), which isuncontroversial. He then goes on:But out of those, one is fundamental for the success of structuraladjustment: political reform.Thus he appears to accept the framework of ESAP, while offering adifferent sense of priorities: much of the Minister's speech had dwelt oneconomic aspects of adjustment, and had made no suggestions for politicalreform, presupposing the adequacy of the existing situation in Zimbabwe.Tsvangirai then proceeds to offer an interpretation of the effects of ESAPwhich is in marked contrast to the Minister's optimism:We accept that it [Structural Adjustment] will succeed, but it will succeedin making a few people richer and the majority of the people poor.He goes on, combining adversative and question: 'It will work, but atwhat cost?'Here, early in his speech, Tsvangirai uses adversatives to contest themeaning of 'success' of structural adjustment, and to re-set the agenda toa consideration of the negative effects. The audience are invited to34 REALISING ALTERNATIVES IN ZIMBABWEAN POLITICAL DISCOURSEconsider which 'meaning' is more likely to represent the situation as theysee it. Thus, while conceding the 'existence' of the structural adjustmentprogramme, Tsvangirai suggests a contradiction between its objectivesand its likely outcomes, and invites his audience to weigh thesealternatives.This contrast between the government's objectives and observedoutcomes occurs frequently in the speech. Tsvangirai takes thegovernment's specific objectives under the programme and makesalternative claims about the already observable outcomes:Government talks of 16% inflation, but this is already jumping to 25-30%.$200 million has been set aside for a bridging loan for buying imports,but we have overshot this sum ... Instead of liberalising trade, you arebeing forced to take measures to prevent imports coming in ...Here the contrasts are between the claims the government has madefor the structural adjustment policy and the economic reality Tsvangiraiclaims to see around him. Thus Tsvangirai uses adversatives to suggestthe essential 'unreality' of the government's optimistic predictions,presenting the audience with specific claims which challenge the potential'success' of the programme.Adversatives are further used, in combination with negatives, tocontrast what the government has done with what it has not done.' Hementions the government's intention to set up a Social Dimensions Fundwhich would cushion the effects of economic reforms on vulnerable groups:At the moment the [social] fund does not exist. There is no infrastructure... But ESAP is already in place.Thus he points out the contrasts in the government's priorities inimplementing the programme. Indeed, he points out weaknesses in thegovernment's entire approach to reform. He offers the claim:Any country that is serious about structural reform, but doesn't dealwith the historical imbalance of land reform, hasn't done anything.Here the implication is that the government is claiming to be serious,but failing to grasp the fundamental requirements. He continues:In this country we are saying that we can't institute any land reformBut what we have managed to do is that the ruling class have acquiredfarms for themselves but have failed to distribute any land to thepeople.Here, Tsvangirai cites a claim that, according to his assertionquestions the government's 'seriousness' about reform. He then uses'paired adversatives to suggest precisely what the government is seriousabout. The first 'but' suggests that the 'ruling class" has been able toA. LOVE 35institute some kind of 'land reform', despite the claim to the contrary.This is then contrasted with its failure to achieve the kind of land reformwhich was presupposed in talking about 'the historic imbalance'.Tsvangirai's use of adversatives thus presents the audience withalternative views of priorities and seriousness in addressing economicreform and invites them to choose which to focus on.Towards the end of his speech, Tsvangirai sums up his position: herealises that there has to be structural adjustment, but suggests thatthere may be alternatives to the government's approach:As to structural adjustment, we say any society has to structurallyadjust but how is it done?Thus he returns to his opening contrasts of questioning theinterpretation of structural adjustment, inviting his audience to speculateabout alternatives.It is interesting to note that, with the exception of an isolated instanceof 'instead of, Tsvangirai uses the single adversative 'but'4. This is insome ways unsurprising, since this is the most frequent adversative inspoken discourse, and the published version of Tsvangirai's speech isclearly close to its spoken form. However, it is perhaps also significantthat 'but' is a complex adversative, combining different relationships.Martin comments that 'in English "but" neutralises the distinction betweencontrast and concession as far as relations between clause complexesare concerned' (Martin, 1992, 176). It implies a concession that the claimof the preceding clause is valid, while introducing a significant contrastto it. This complexity realises the trade unionist's intention of attemptingto engage in constructive criticism of government policies. The use ofadversatives in the speech introduces alternative evaluations of thesuccess of the outcomes of the structural adjustment programme and ofthe seriousness of the government in pursuing radical reform policies.Above all, he uses adversatives to suggest alternative interpretations ofwhat structural adjustment really implies.NegativesThe use of negative statements is a particularly important strategy forchallenging and hence 'denaturalising' the claims made by others. Thesignificance of the use of the negative is that the 'opposing' claim is itselfcited, only to be denied (White, 1998, 14). Negation of a statementpresupposes that it has been made as a claim, and there is thus animplicit intertextual tension between the claim and its negation4 I am grateful to Professor M. Bourdillon for drawing my attention to this feature of thetext.36 REALISING ALTERNATIVES IN ZIMBABWEAN POLITICAL DISCOURSE(Fairclough, 1992,121; Pagano, 1994). A negation denies a claim which isalready in some ways 'on the table', either explicitly or implicitly in termsof a general experiential framework (Pagano, 1994, 256). It is discursivelyanomalous to negate a statement which nobody would expect to be true.Pagano argues that:For people to deny something, they assume that they and theirinterlocutors share a common world in which certain beliefs andexpectations are usual (Pagano, 1994, 258).Negation is one of the key categories of Grimes's collateral information.He points out:Events that do not take place have significance only in relation to whatactually does happen (Grimes, 1975, 65).Thus negation is frequently seen as a way of questioning the validityof explicit or implicit assumptions, and also of presenting alternative andcontrasting interpretations of events and situations.Negations may take a variety of forms: they may deny the validity ofa claim; they may make negative predictions or they may focus on thenon-performance of a potential act. In all these cases, the effect is likelyto be to present an alternative view of events for consideration, and leadtowards an alternative evaluation.Tsvangirai makes extensive use of negatives. It is interesting that hedoes not make many simple denials of government claims about thestructural adjustment process. Rather, as in his use of adversatives, heaccepts the basic framework of the need for some form of structuraladjustment, but questions the success of what is actually happening, andchallenges the priorities which have been chosen by the government.Above all, he uses negatives to draw attention to the contrast betweenthe government's claimed intentions and the prevailing reality.For example, he makes negative predictions based on prevailingconditions: 'The social initiatives will fail because they don't exist.'Here the prediction is lexically negative, in that the word 'fail' onlyhas meaning in terms of its tension with its positive antonym 'succeed'.This prediction is based on a claim of simple logic: the social initiativescannot succeed because 'they don't exist'. Tsvangirai wishes to drawattention to prevailing, negative reality, in contrast to the broad, positivepredictions of the Minister.In his discussion of economic stabilisation, Tsvangirai argues, again,that the conditions are unsuitable for government to achieve its objectives.Unpredicted inflation has produced conditions which will obstructeconomic objectives:When 60-70% of our manufacturing industry is dependent on rawmaterial imports it means some of our industries are not going to runbecause they can't import what they need.A. LOVE 37The negative prediction is a confident one, implying certainty (highmodalisation), while the grounds for the prediction take the form of aconfident claim of a prevailing negative condition. This implies thatgovernment has not taken into account the specific conditions ofZimbabwean industry, and hence their plans will not be successful. Infact Tsvangirai predicts that the economic conditions will require policiestotally opposed to those government is embracing: 'We will need morecontrols, not less.'Here the linguistic realisation of the negativity is in the disjunctiveadjunct 'not', which contrasts 'less' with 'more'. The effect of this is todraw attention to the word 'controls' which both adjectives modify, thusemphasising the contrast between the approaches of the trade unionistand the Minister.Many instances of Tsvangirai's use of negatives focus on 'absence' ofdesirable outcomes or the 'non-performance' of desirable actions. In hisdiscussion of the social dimensions fund, the emphasis on absence isstrong.At the moment the social fund does not exist. There is no infrastructure,there is no set-up as to how the $20 million is to be distributed or howthey are to make social programmes with it. But ESAP is already inplace; there is no institution to counter the impact that is already there.The social initiatives will fail because they don't exist...Kangai had merely remarked, at the end of a section of his speech:Aware of the inevitable negative social effects that our EconomicStructural Adjustment Programme will engender, a number of safetynet schemes for-the poor and vulnerable groups have been proposed.Tsvangirai comments on the social fund (one of the 'safety netschemes') using a sequence of five negative clauses. The first and last usethe form 'do not exist'. Tsvangirai's choice of 'exist' as the negated verbis significant, as he wishes to emphasise the contrast between thegovernment's objectives, as propounded in Kangai's speech, and whatexists at the time. Thompson, using Halliday's terminology (Halliday,1994), describes the verb 'exist' as 'best analysed as a material process'which 'reflects at least partly a choice to represent the entity ... asinvolved in a "going-on" (which happens to be that of existing)'(Thompson, 1996,101). In other words, in this case Tsvangirai has chosento give prominence to the 'activities' of the proposed social fund/socialinitiatives by making these schemes the grammatical subject of the openingand closing clauses of this section, thus implying that they should beperforming effective action, whereas in fact their only 'action' is to 'notexist'. In the intervening sentences, Tsvangirai employs three existentialclauses Š clauses of the form 'There is ...' (Halliday, 1994). Thompsondescribes existential clauses thus:38 REALISING ALTERNATIVES IN ZIMBABWEAN POLITICAL DISCOURSEWhat is happening with existential processes is that the speaker isrenouncing the opportunity to represent the participant (the Existent)as involved in any 'goings-on'; andthe distinctive structural patternprovides an explicit signal of this renunciation (Thompson, 1993, 101).Thus the existential clause represents the opposite choice to theclause with 'exists' as the verb: mere existence, rather than potentialaction, is the focus, thus drawing attention to the Existent. However, inthe case of the clauses used by Tsvangirai, the Existents are negative,modified by negative adjectives: 'no infrastructure', 'no set-up', 'noinstitution'. Thus he emphasises the 'existence of negativity', as if onewere looking for something expected and failing to find it. Thesecontrasting patterns effectively draw attention to the 'absence of success'of key expectations of government policy: government has not got beyondthe stage of 'schemes' and 'proposals', while the major economic policiesof ESAP have been acted upon. Thus he suggests a negative evaluation ofthe government's priorities in carrying out its policies. Similarly, whendiscussing the prospects for workers retrenched because of ESAP,Tsvangirai uses negative existential clauses to emphasise the absence ofpolicies which might have alleviated the situation:As there has not been adequate resettlement and the informal sector islargely illegal and receives very little if any aid from the Government,there is nothing the retrenched workers might fall back on.Here the first existential clause, which provides the grounds for thelater claim, is negative in form. The second existential clause, whichprovides the claim, uses a strongly negative Existent, 'nothing theretrenched workers might fall back on'. Again this produces the effect ofemphasising the absence of something expected, intensified by the lexicalnegatives associated with the description of the informal sector, 'illegal'and 'very little if any aid'.Issues of priority are also at stake when Tsvangirai uses negatives toraise issues where effective action might have been taken and has notbeen: 'For the past twelve years we have not changed Rhodesian laws: wehave not even examined them.'Here the repeated negatives draw attention to the verbs, with thesuggestion that 'not even examining' the old laws is an amazing omission.In an associated criticism, Tsvangirai uses a negative grammatical subject:So you have a board which is totally foreign-dominated that isresponsible for selling our tobacco. No-one has examined the effect ofthis on the flight of capital.This choice of subject raises the question of who might have examinedthis issue, and therefore implicitly criticises government's lack of action.A. LOVE 39In these examples the audience is again invited to focus on the 'non-action' of the government, in areas in which, Tsvangirai implies, differentpriorities would have produced very different results. Taking up a specificissue, that of the encouragement of co-operatives (a point mentioned byKangai), Tsvangirai uses negatives to evaluate the manner in which thisapparently positive policy has been carried out:The other problem we face is the position of co-operatives. They arecaught in this problem: here was a white man, with a farm he didn 't payfor, with access to financial resources and government support. Nowyou expect the co-operatives to achieve the same productive levelwhen they have to pay for the land. They have no capital, no skills, nopolitical or financial support. .. there is a clause in the law which saysthat if the co-operative does not achieve the same production as theprevious landowner, then that co-operative must be turned over forresettlement. How can you expect them to compete?The first negative clause reminds the audience, almost casually (giventhe contraction) of the fact that colonial settlers did not pay for theirfarms, and lists their other benefits. The condition of the co-operatives isthen contrasted with this, by repeated negative adjectives whichemphasise the absence of such benefits, and by the strong negativeconditional clause. Thus the negatives produce a forceful contrast betweenthe new policies and the past (colonial) conditions in agriculture.Finally, towards the end of the paper, Tsvangirai uses negatives toadopt a more directly confrontational stance towards the representativeof government:And the peasants have their own interests, but these groups are notbeing heard in policy formulation. How can you say Zimbabwe is ademocratic state? Elections are not a reflection of democracy. We arerunning policy formulation on foreign consultants; there is no place forindigenous intelligentsia who know the conditions of the country toparticipate.The negative clauses here are each in direct contrast to their precedingclauses. The first involves the presupposition that an interest group insociety should be consulted on policy, a presupposition which is beingviolated by the government. The second negative clause provides a directcontradiction to the Minister's 'claim that Zimbabwe is a democraticstate'. The final negative clause in the sequence contrasts a presupposeddesirable situation with the one prevailing.Tsvangirai closes his address in open confrontation expressed throughnegatives:It [the programme] cannot be imposed for society to accept or leave.We cannot accept that government alone has the national interest at40REALISING ALTERNATIVES IN ZIMBABWEAN POLITICAL DISCOURSEheart ...It is not government alone that knows what the people wantand expect.Here the negations presuppose a paternalistic attitude on the part ofgovernment. Tsvangirai anticipates that his audience will agree thatgovernment's actions in general and the Minister's speech in particularreveal a paternalistic attitude to civil society, which he proceeds tochallenge directly. He uses the strong negative 'cannot', which in thiscontext acts as high modulation (Halliday, 1994), expressing effectiveprohibition This suggests the inevitability of conflict if the governmentpersists in its paternalistic practices. The final negative clause producesemphasis by negative 'predicated theme', a structure 'which allows thespeaker to pick out a single element and give it emphatic theme status'(Thompson, 1996, 128). In other words, the negative attention drawn to'government alone' leads the audience to reflect on who else does 'knowwhat the people want and expect'. Again, this challenges Kangai's appealfor a nationalist consensus behind the government.Thus Tsvangirai uses a variety of negative structures to lead theaudience to evaluate alternative perceptions of prevailing conditions,likely outcomes, potential policies and possibilities for participation inpolicy making.QuestionsQuestions are a frequent feature of political discourse, particularly of anadversarial nature. Wilson (1990) has discussed the pragmatics of politicalquestioning and answering, reviewing the literature on types of questions.Questions made in the context of a public forum, where a politician hasdelivered a prior speech, are likely to be complex, in that they will beaddressed to at least two potential addressees, the previous speaker andthe audience. In the case of Tsvangirai's speech, the range of addresseesis probably wider, in that any questions addressed to the previous speakershould be taken as addressed to the government, while the audience asaddressee can be assumed to represent the general public. These widerroles become more significant when the speeches appear in print.Moreover, few questions in political speeches are true open questions,seeking information. While many are rhetorical questions, as will bediscussed below, others may act to raise issues not previously mentionedŠ to raise collateral information Š in order to justify points to be madeby the speaker. The different types of questions used in Tsvangirai'sspeech will be discussed in terms of the differing ways in which they takeissue with the government's policies and record.The first type of question Tsvangirai uses is apparently open,beginning with 'What?' Such questions normally require an answer.However, Tsvangirai's questions of this type are so wide that it is clearA. LOVE 41that they are meant to set the agenda for his speech: he will proceed toanswer the questions. In his introduction he asks two questions of thistype:What are the political reforms that we in the labour movement thinkare necessary in order for structural adjustment to have some chanceof success? ... It [structural adjustment] will work, but at what cost?The first question establishes clearly that Tsvangirai will be speakingfrom a different perspective from that of the Minister, that of thelabour movement. It also emphasises the focus on 'political reforms',which had not been considered necessary by the Minister. Thus thequestion acts to set the agenda of Tsvangirai's speech. The secondquestion could be treated as rhetorical, as it implies that there will be asubstantial cost, and therefore can be said to convey 'an evaluation ofinformation assumed to be already known' (Hie, 1994, 38). However, itcan also be responded to as an open question, with the audience doubtlesskeen to offer contributions to its answer. Potential answers are taken upin Tsvangirai's speech, and thus this question, too, announces his agenda.One effect of using questions to introduce the points on which he wishesto focus is to invite the audience to consider their potential answers tothe questions, and therefore engages them in the ongoing discourse. Afurther point is that, if the questions are seen as addressed to the previousspeaker, there is an implication that issues have been neglected, sincethe questions imply that they still need raising. Thus these questions, inaddition to introducing Tsvangirai's agenda, serve as a negative evaluationof the Minister's speech. The final question of this type occurs close tothe end of the speech, when Tsvangirai asserts: 'As to structuraladjustment, we say any society has to structurally adjust but how is it tobe done?'Thus at the end of the speech he again suggests that the entire issueof structural adjustment needs to be looked at differently: the governmentcan have no answer to this question other than already stated policy, butthe other groups within the potential audience may have a wide range ofideas. It is precisely the government's failure to access this pool of ideasby democratic, participatory discussion which Tsvangirai is attacking.The use of questions to raise issues ignored by the Minister is takenfurther by a different type of 'What?' question which appears semi-rhetorical:To what extent can they [laws] impinge on the economic factors, toensure our people have access to production? Then to what extent isstate policy formulation supported by the social sectors of the society?What inputs are these institutions [private institutions] making?42 REALISING ALTERNATIVES IN ZIMBABWEAN POLITICAL DISCOURSEAgain, such questions presuppose the importance of considering theissues they raise, and stress that government has not seen them asworthy of discussion. The first relates to Tsvangirai's negative assessmentof reform of laws, mentioned above, and thus repeats his point that thegovernment has neglected a potential route to achieve their claimedobjectives. For government, this is a trap question: if they were to attemptany positive answer, they would be conceding their lack of action. If theywere to deny the efficacy of laws in affecting the economic situation, theywould be conceding their irrelevance in policy formation. For the labourmovement, the implied answer is that laws can be effective, but have notbeen so to date, thus providing a negative evaluation of government'srecord. The second question again has two potential answers: governmentclearly believes that 'the social sectors' fully support government policyformulation, since Kangai's speech has appealed to a broad consensus.The answer implied by Tsvangirai, and anticipated as the audience'sresponse, is clearly negative, since he stresses the paternalistic impositionof policies without participant discussion from civil society. The finalquestion in this group is slightly different. It appears to be asking forinformation about the role of private institutions in policy making. Herethe government is capable of giving a reply, but the context suggests thatthe question is here directed to the audience, whose response is likely tobe an assumption that such institutions are making contributions whichthe labour movement and civil society would not be happy with. Thus thequestion serves the double purpose of stressing the secrecy of the policymaking processes and raising suspicions about their content. Each ofthese questions attempts to re-set the agenda of issues under debate, byraising alternatives for the audience Š and, hopefully, the government Što consider.Other questions are more clearly rhetorical, and constitute directchallenges to the government. In the earlier part of the speech, they areused to challenge the logic of government policies:... so how can anyone invest in these circumstances? But how can weget that if devaluation means that our products are actually cheaperoutside? How do you expect them [co-operatives] to compete?Each question clearly assumes a negative answer. It is a commoncharacteristic of rhetorical questions to 'exhibit opposite polarity: apositive rhetorical question is like a strong negative assertion' (Hie, 1994,42). It is significant that the pronouns vary in these questions: hereTsvangirai is not necessarily taking up a fully adversarial position, but isquestioning the efficacy of policies in areas where he sees the labourA. LOVE 43movement as an involved stakeholder, and therefore is pleading with thegovernment to see the weaknesses of their policies.5Tsvangirai then gradually shifts to questions addressed directly tothe government as challenges.How can you come out with a programme that only supports one socialinterest group at the expense of everybody else? How can you sayZimbabwe is a democratic state? How can you achieve developmentobjectives when you don't even examine how the plans will reach theobjectives set?Such 'How can you . . . ?' questions are clearly rhetorical. Thepresuppositions involved make an answer impossible. Such questionspresuppose a) that the specific addressee has performed the actionwhich is being challenged and b) that the rest of the audience considersthe action wrong or the claim invalid. Hie states:What is specific about the message conveyed by the rhetorical questionis the addresser's commitment to the propositional content of its impliedanswer. It is this commitment that the addresser wants the addresseesto become aware of, so as to reconsider their beliefs, assumptions orconvictions accordingly (Hie, 1994, 38-9).The 'How can you?' type of question also suggests an interpersonalelement of reproach. Thus, while attacking the government directly forits policies and claims, Tsvangirai also appears to be appealing to themto consider the alternatives present in his implied answers, and act in theinterests of the people.Tsvangirai's use of questions works to raise alternative issuesneglected by government or to present other perspectives from whichhis audience can approach the subject of structural adjustment anddemocracy. It thus assists in 'denaturalising' the Minister's policypresuppositions, claims and assumptions of a national consensus.CONCLUSION: DEMOCRATIC DISCOURSE?Tsvangirai's speech can be seen as an attempt to transform the discursiveevent of the seminar from a reception of top-down government policystatement to an interactive critique of policy and a formulation ofalternatives. It could not, of itself, of course, be effective, since theMinister himself was not present. It could, however, be significantdiscoursally, in the trade unionist's willingness to problematise theMinister's speech and engage the audience in critique, drawing partly on5 For a more wide-ranging discussion of pronoun use in the two speeches, see Love(forthcoming).44 REALISING ALTERNATIVES IN ZIMBABWEAN POLITICAL DISCOURSEtheir own awareness of prevailing conditions (cf Fairclough, 1992, 97).Tsvangirai is thus contributing to the 'instability' of hegemony.Tsvangirai makes extensive use of the strategies of collateralinformation Š adversatives, negatives and questions Š to achieve thiseffect. He makes alternative claims for the audience to compare with theMinister's. He suggests alternative priorities, which he believes hisaudience will prefer. Thus he questions the Minister's presuppositionsabout desirable policies and about likely outcomes. He leads his audienceinto alternative evaluations of the government's achievements and of itsintentions. By so doing, he rejects the presupposition of a nationalconsensus, and involves the audience in evaluating policies and prevailingconditions from their own diverse positions. Thus his speech could beviewed as an exercise in 'collaborative denaturalisation'.However, Tsvangirai is careful not to make his speech crudelyoppositional. His aim appears to be to open up dialogue with theGovernment if this is possible, through problematising its position andquerying the effectiveness of its policies. Moreover, he confrontsgovernment from a position of participation in an attempt to 'reform'national policies. He provides clear evidence to back his claims, andinvites the audience to reflect upon their own experience. He thus presentsGovernment with an expression of alternative views and interpretations,which simultaneously encourages others to make their voices heard. Hereaches a point of direct confrontation with the Government preciselywhen he accuses them of refusing to listen to such voices.Tsvangirai's speech appears to employ effective strategies forengaging in hegemonic struggle, as the nationalist consensus in post-independence Zimbabwe is replaced by differing interest groups whowish their voices to be heard in policy formulation.6 Analysis such as thatemployed in this article is intended to draw attention to ways in whichpolitical discourse in Zimbabwe may be made more democratic.ReferencesFAIRCLOUGH, N. (1989) Language and Power (Harlow, Longman GroupLtd.).Š (1992) Discourse and Social Change (Cambridge, Polity Press).FINANCIAL GAZETTE, 19 November 1998 (Harare).GRIMES, J. E. (1979) The Thread of Discourse (The Hague, Mouton).HALLIDAY, M. A. K. (1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar, SecondEdition (London, Arnold).Interestingly, at the end of 1998 Tsvangirai was 'voted the Rothmans of Pall MallCommunicator of the Year for his efforts aimed at improving the working conditions ofemployees in Zimbabwe' (The Financial Gazette, Nov. 19, 1998), 2.A. LOVE 45ILIE C. (1994) What Else Can I Tell You? A Pragmatic Study of EnglishRhetorical Questions as Discursive and Argumentative Acts (Stockholm,Almqvist and Wiksell International).Š (1998) 'The ideological remapping of semantic roles in totalitariandiscourse, or, how to paint white roses red', Discourse and Society 9(i), 57-80.KANGAI, K. M. (1992) 'Paper presented at seminar on structural adjustmentand political democracy', Social Change and Development, 28, 3-4.LOVE, A. (Forthcoming) 'Politicians adjusting their structures', in S. Makoniand N. Kamwangamalu (eds.) Language and Institutions: Current Trendsand Future Prospects (Cape Town, Centre for Advanced Study ofAfrican Societies).LOVE, A. and MORRISON, A. (1989) 'Readers' obligations: An examinationof some features of Zimbabwean newspaper editorials', EnglishLanguage Research (University of Birmingham), 3, 139-174.MARTIN, J. R. (1992) English Text (Amsterdam, John Benjamins).PAGANO, A. (1994) 'Negatives in written text' in M. Coulthard (ed.)Advances in Written Text Analysis (London, Routledge).THOMPSON, G. (1996) Introducing Functional Grammar (London, Arnold).TSVANGIRAI, M. (1992) 'The effects of ESAP on the workers', Social Changeand Development, 28, 5-6.VAN DIJK, T. (1977) Text and Context (Harlow, Longman Group Ltd.).Š (1993) 'Principles of critical discourse analysis', Discourse and Society,4 (ii), 249-83.WHITE, P. R. R. (1998) 'Towards a Grammar of Power and Solidarity ŠDevelopments in the Linguistics of Evaluation, Inter-Subjectivity andIdeological Position', Paper presented at 10th European InternationalSystemic Functional Workshop, Liverpool.WILSON, J. (1990) Politically Speaking (Oxford, Basil Blackwell Ltd.).