Analysis Of Syrian Presidesident Speech, Bashar Al-Assad In 2011
Please check this as it si related to the essay and it is from my teacher: https://ir(dot)uiowa(dot)edu/poroi/
Assessment
A 4 thousand-word (max) essay examining critically an example of contemporary political speech and employing the techniques learned on the module. Advice on the content of this essay is provided at the end of this guide.
Module Text:
The module text, which ought to be purchased, is Sam Leith, You Talkin’ to Me? Rhetoric from Aristotle to Obama (London: Profile, 2011). This has been more recently published as Words Like Loaded Pistols (2012). It is available in paperback and isn’t very expensive. It will be useful in introducing you to the basic rhetorical techniques taught in the first half of the course.
-----
The Essay
There is no exam for this module. 100% of your mark – and hence the test for all the outcomes indicated at the top of this guide – will come from your essay. So it is important that you are aware of what is required of you.
The essay consists of a speech analysis that examines a specific speech ‘moment’ and applies the techniques of rhetorical analysis to explore how – and how well – it works. You can choose your own speech, but it must be broadly contemporary (at least 20th C., no earlier) and of some significance in terms of its place in events (which you will need to explain). DO NOT choose a speech that has already been analysed by the tutor in the lectures/seminars.
Your essential requirements are as follows.
Deviation from these instructions may lower your mark:
1. Analyse a contemporary speech of political significance of your choice in terms of its rhetorical dimensions: that is, identify its basic claim and then characterise it by argument, arrangement and style; indicate what is at issue and what overriding conclusion(s) it seeks to support; explain its proofs, forms of appeal, correspondences to and divergences from any obvious speech conventions; and note any distinctive use of language/performance that made it effective (or not). Account for the distinctive rhetorical aspects (but not every single one) of the speech and define the rhetorical terms you employ with reference to literature from rhetorical studies, where available.
2. Explain the situation of the speech – its local and its wider contexts – and the exigencies to which it was a response. Who was the speaker and who were the audience; and what was their disposition; how did the speaker respond to the audience in the text of the speech?
3. Evaluate the effectiveness of the speech in terms of its rhetorical qualities and its intended practical effects. Consider any evidence of public response to the speech (the media, members of audience, etc), not just your own feelings about it.
4. The essay will be 4000 words in length MAX, so it needs to be clearly structured, but do not use sub-headings.
5. Explain your choice of speech in the first paragraph (not as a personal choice but in terms of its historical/political significance) and summarise your conclusions about how the speech worked (e.g. primarily through an ethical appeal). Then go on to consider context, audience, speech, etc. Conclude with a summary of what you have shown.
6. Double space your text (so I can read it without squinting), paginate it (ie put page numbers in it), and include a bibliography indicating the source of the speech. You do not need to include a copy of the speech.
7. Do quote but try not to quote excessively; select key remarks that substantiate your analysis. Use your own words to describe what is going. Always explain long quotes; don’t assume they always do the talking for you.
8. You can analyse a speech that is not originally in English. But your quotation must translate into English and the original source must still be in the bibliography
9. A bibliography is an alphabetical list of all items used. Don’t divide it up into different kind of items (the speech, articles, books, videos). One single list (in order) is sufficient.
10. Put a front page on the essay with your student number, the title of the course, date and call it ‘Speech Analysis’. Do NOT put your name on it.
11. Before you submit, do a spell check and measure the length. 4K words is the absolute limit (excluding the bibliography)!
How to do well on this module:
You may not have written an essay like the one required of you in this module. The essay is not a response to a specific question but an analysis. To do well, you will need to follow the rules of presentation indicated above (and other conventional advice in other documents such as the Undergraduate Handbook), write clearly and in a way that demonstrates particular attention to lucid and precise presentation of ideas; and you will need to show judgement in drawing attention to key rhetorical elements of the speech in question (learned in this module), drawing upon rhetorical literature, and using the available evidence to show your distinct understanding of the speech, its context and the impact it had. Above all, present an argument about the speech as a whole – not just description of parts with no overall integration.
Here is a table that indicates broadly speaking what kinds of work get which classification. Obviously, the result depends on the extent of any specific element being achieved or not. For greater detail on general grades (i.e. for all modules, not just this one), please consult the Undergraduate Handbook.
-------
Please follow this:
THE STYLE SHOULD BE LIKE THIS:
Clear writing, correct spelling and grammar
• Follows presentation rules (double- spaced lines, page numbers, full reference citations, no subheadings, etc)
• Consistent and accurate bibliography
• Stays within specified word length
• Avoids needless embellishment (eg no
italics on quotes, or quotes in capital letters) or confusion (eg lengthy URLs for citations)
CONTENT SHOULD BE LIKE THIS:
Independent assessment based on sophisticated reading of speech and analysis of its rhetoric
• Discusses speech with reflection on context, speaker, impact, general significance of issue
• Underscore a selection of key rhetorical elements according to a distinct view of its merits
• Quotes material as evidence but lightly, when appropriate
• Explores literature on rhetoric to develop analysis
https://learn(dot)gold(dot)ac(dot)uk/mod/aspirelists/view.php?id=661845
SPEECH ANALYSIS
By
The Name of the Class (Course)
Professor (Tutor)
The Name of the School (University) the City and State where it is located
The Date
ANALYSIS OF SYRIAN PRESIDESIDENT SPEECH, BASHAR AL-ASSAD IN 2011
Syrian citizens waited with bated breath for 30th march 2011 president Bashar Al-Assad's speech. This date was a momentous opportunity for Syrians to adopt revolutionary reforms in a country that had been bog down by protracted civil wars. He is the one to outline Syria’s mission and nurture national aspiration. Thus, Bashar-Al-Assad’s speech before the Syrian parliament in Damascus holds compelling implications for Syrian nationalists. When President Assad’s speech is subjected to analysis, can we conclude that he was adequately persuasive? Assad appears calm and composed in his speech. He uses phonological repetitions and accompanies it with a series of manipulative silence. This paper will examine Bashar-Al-Assad speech of 30th March 2011, which he presented in parliament. This article will explore Assad’s political rhetoric by focusing on speech styles and provide context to critical strategies and content of the speech.
In his speech, the president accused external conspirators who had contributed to anti-Syrian government movements such immediate insurgent protest against the regime in that year. The speech content was a great disappointment to those who opposed Assad’s regime; they felt the speech did not address the fundamental Syrian problems that included militarism, censorship, and oppression (Al-Saqaf, 2016 pp., 39-50). Did Assad tailor his speech in a desired political rhetoric, in relation to language and speech style?
The art of political rhetoric is crucial for any political leader. Political rhetoric is a crucial determinant of political leader’s fate and destiny. Political rhetoric is set to influence the political course of action in any country. It is a fodder upon which a nation such as Syrian ignites its aspirations, missions, and vision. Political rhetoric is an inescapable item for anybody who holds expectations to be a leader at a given time. So, what is political rhetoric?
The epicentre of political rhetoric revolves around the construction of persuasive arguments that are contextualized in public debates, conflicts, and disputes. Condor Tileaga, and Billig (2013, pp.1), observed that the analysis of public rhetoric is based on fundamental processes of democratic politics. One cannot delineate public debates and discussions from democratic practices in society. It thus means that leaders should be bestowed with the capabilities of influencing public discourses in various spheres of life that include politics, economy, and community. Leaders ought to ooze a sense of control in a country by demonstrating constant persuasions. Political rhetoric is considered a prop to grassroots political actions (Condor Tileaga, and Billig, 2013, pp.1). A democratic society is composed of intricate components that are characterized by a web of interlinkages. The enhance proper coordination and organization, a leader needs an outstanding sense of power to convince, negotiate, persuade, and to advise. People hold diverse opinions and perceptions; the art of rhetoric demands one to harmonize the heterogeneous set of ideas and perceptions in the public realm.
The art of political rhetoric spans multiple disciplines that include political theories, psychology, linguistics, and international relations, amongst others. Thus, political rhetoric is quite expansive. Condor Tileaga and Billig, (2013, pp.1) observes that due to political rhetoric discipline extensity, there have been no specific literature and cognate constructs in political rhetoric. The diversity of themes, time, contexts, disciplines, audiences, and approaches tend to overlap (Yunis, 2018, PP.1-10). This intertwining feature makes political rhetoric a fluidity arena. The culture of political rhetoric is deeply entrenched in contemporary societies. Political rhetoric is a crucial intellectual and cultural discipline that is inextricably bound to every aspect of the community engagements.
Syrian President Assad’s speech in March 2011 was a critical phenomenon for Syria. It was received with widespread condemnation across Syria. The speech dampened the majority of Syrians expectations that their president did not deliver contents that were aligned to the country’s problems. In crux, the statement did not provide a proper framework that would act as a blueprint in solving Syria’s teething problems. The Bashar Al-Assad’s address stunned Syrians, and they responded by calling for more protest against the government. The speech was not compelling and was defiant of Syrians expectations. There was any content that could spur ignite debates and offer on reform packages. The president did not address the critical issues that had been raised by Syrian citizens. Instead, he apportioned blame on ‘conspiracies, ‘which is believed to have contributed significantly to a national protest against his government. Bashar Al-Assad appeared to have rubbished the protestors’ fundamental concerns. Bashar seemed relaxed as he delivered his address to parliament. However, his speech was frequently by parliamentarians who could stand and offer messages of support and loyalty. He also received a wave of applause and standing ovation during the speech.
Assad used several rhetorical approaches to convey his message. Sterling (2014, pp., 2) observed that Assad deployed diverse types of repetitions that include syntactic parallelism, lexical repetition, word strings, and phonological repetition. These repetitions are linked to Arabic syntax. Assad’s address was characterized by a sense of manipulative silence. These speech strategies are mean to persuade the audience. Assad uses Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) to communicate; since Syria is based on Arabic nationhood, the message could resonate well with the audience when a message is delivered through MSA (Sterling 2014 pp., 13). People feel a greater sense of pride and receptivity if a leader speaks in their local dialect. Thus, leaders have exploited the potential of local dialect usage.
It is ironic and contradictory for the parliament to applaud Assad. The parliament is supposed to represent the public interest, but they appear to represent those of the president. It shows that parliament can be problematic when it comes to contentious issues. In most of the cases, parliamentarian constitutional work of representations is hampered by bipartisan interests and personal interests (Toye, 2014, pp.271-274). It may also mean Assad had earned parliamentary loyalty. Loyalty may undermine the performances of public organs like parliament (Api.parliament.uk).
Bashar clarified that not all protestors are ‘conspirators.’ He told the parliament that such a time was an exception, and the demonstration is evidence of conspiracies against the country. The president said God would assist them in overcoming ‘the plot.’ He acknowledges the observation that the reforms have been on slow pace; he cites several destructions that have featured over the decade, which include civil wars and conflicts in Afghanistan, Palestinian, and Iraq. Bashar noted that the state has not to manage citizens’ aspirations. He acknowledges that Syria would advance to the next phase, but without any reforms, it would be disastrous for Syria. The president promised to initiate strategies that would mitigate corruption and enhance unity, but these plans were to be announced later. The cabinet had been dissolved, and the new one was yet to be formed. The precise argument of Assad is the protests were just as a result of external plots that are not driven by the genuine desires of Syrians.
There were mixed reactions to Assad’s address. Despite the applause and standing ovation that Assad received from the parliamentarians, many Syrians felt that the speech did not meet the core expectation, especially on reforms. Protesters had raised various concerns that they expected the government to address via reforms. The demonstrators were advocating for the repeal of the emergency laws that allows arrest without warrant and allocation of excessive powers to state security systems. The protesters wanted to enjoy the expansion of democratic spaces that would enable the formation and the growth of the opposition groups. On this issue, Assad told the parliament through the speech that the emergency law has been under study; he promised that the reforms on emergency law were on the path and would be announced later time frame.
There was also an international response to Syria’s situation. Global leaders call upon the Syrian leadership to cease the use of violence. The Syrian state was widely encouraged to embrace reforms that would spur development. The U.S White House said that Syrian must enact a progressive plan for its citizens. The U.S government called upon the Syrian president, Assad, to institute concrete reforms that respect the people’s aspirations. Furthermore, a suggestion was made to the Syrian government to bring to halt the violent crackdown on civilians. The European Nations describe Assad’s speech as ‘disappointing.’
The 30th march 2011 public address was the first speech since the spate of protest took center stage in Syria. Thus, Syrian held high hopes that the presidential speech could outline the critical reform agenda in Syria. The citizens were hopeful that the president could reveal critical strategies that could set new democratic space, terminate state emergency, alleviate media and citizen censorship, restructure security systems, release political prisoners and look into human rights abuses and violations. Assad’s statement did not provide any solution to any of these problems. In his speech, which irked most Syrians, the president assured the Syrian parliament, his government would overcome the ‘plot’ hatched by conspirators against Syria. He terms Syria problems at that time as fruits of external forces but reassures Syrians that the reformation part was on course. The president, in his address to parliament, argued that the Syrians had been duped into going to streets to demonstrate. He said the Deraa, which was one of the demonstration epicenters, is in the hearts of Syrians, and it took an enormous role in protecting Syria against Israel. He further said that he supports reforms in Syria but would not succumb to unnecessary pressure. Many assumed that the speech was devoid of any genuine efforts that would bring meaningful reforms to Syrian nationalists.
Assad’s speech was in response to protest against his government. The demonstrations hit Damascus, which is a Syrian state Capital and Aleppo. Other cities that witnessed protests include Hama, Latakia, Homs, and Tel.it must be noted that the spate of demonstration seemed to have originated from the southern city of Deraa and spread to the rest of the cities in Syria. The Syrian held demonstrations to highlight their rights amidst shrinking freedom of expression. The Syrian government took ‘militarized’ efforts to control the demonstrations. The security troops were unleashed to man the streets and quell the protests. The state security intervention let to the deaths of some protestors because it is believed that the troops opened fire in some instances. Many critics believed that authorities that oppressive have subtle underlying fragilities in relation to the management of the state.
It must be noted that Assad’s government is ordinarily intolerant to critics and protestors. Any arising protest or is associated planning was usually broken up by the security agents. There is a usual clash between anti-government demonstrators and pro-regime agents, who are President Assad’s loyalists. It appears that there is a well-organized counter-demonstrations effort being mounted by the security forces and government loyalists.
Taking into account the concerns that were raised by protestors, why did Bashar Al-Assad evade the core of the issue? But instead, said that the demonstration and displeasure in the streets were occasioned by ‘conspiracies.’ Did Assad know more than anybody else? Did the demonstrators have a solid foundation to stage displeasure against the state? Where did Bashar Al-Assad's support that bolstered his ideologies?
Presiden...