Democracy and rhetoric in the Arab world

Abstract

This article attempts to empirically test the relationship between the type of rhetoric dominant in the Arab world and the notion of democracy. It takes as case studies three sets of editorials written directly in the aftermath of the toppling of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak on February 11, 2011: one from the politically controlled and autocratic Republic of Syria; another from the more open, cosmopolitan, and arguably more democratic Republic of Lebanon; and the third from the United States, as an example of the most functional democracy of the three. By analyzing and categorizing the argumentative strategies adopted in these three sets of editorials into (1) presentation, (2) through-argumentation, and (3) counterargumentation, this article seeks to uncover how possible differences in the rhetorical approaches of these editorials can reflect the level of democratic practices of societies and/or governing systems in different countries. Ultimately, I test and scrutinize the hypothesis that potential differences in rhetorical strategies correspond with the level of cultural exposure and democratic tendencies that exist in Syria and Lebanon, especially in the context of current political changes taking place in the Arab world.