Abstract
The article investigates the motivation behind the prevalent use of the subtypes of ad hominem (personal attacks) arguments in Zimbabwe political discourse in the build-up to the 2023 harmonised council, parliamentary and presidential elections. This qualitative case study research looks at the use of ad hominem arguments by Zimbabwean politicians. Using analytical tools and concepts from informal logic and pragma-dialectical argumentation theories, this article focuses on identifying, analysing, and evaluating ad hominem arguments used in Zimbabwean political discourse, particularly in parliamentary debates and broadcast interviews. Data were purposively sampled and gathered from Hansard records, and a television interview transcript. It emerged that ad hominem arguments are used by interlocutors to attack others or to defend themselves when attempting to resolve differences of opinion. We conclude that Zimbabwean politicians use ad hominem arguments fallaciously at times, and rhetorically at other times.
Recommended Citation
Mutsvairo, Jack and Dlali, Mawande
(2024)
"Ad Hominem Arguments in Zimbabwean Political Discourse: An Analysis of Political Argumentation,"
Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences: Vol. 13:
No.
2, Article 19.
DOI: 10.56279/13/2/8
Available at:
https://commons.udsm.ac.tz/jhss/vol13/iss2/19
Included in
Comparative Politics Commons, Other Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration Commons, Policy History, Theory, and Methods Commons, Social Policy Commons