Kolovos, K. & Samaras, Ath. N. (2015). Past Campaigns Trigger Present Attacks: The Impact of the 2004 Annan Plan Campaign Upon the Use of Ad Hominem Arguments During the 2013 Presidential

Past Campaigns Trigger Present Attacks: The

Impact of the 2004 Annan Plan Campaign Upon

the Use of Ad Hominem Arguments During the

2013 Presidential Elections in Cyprus

Kyriakos S. Kolovos Junior Researcher, Advanced Media Institute, Open University of Cyprus [email protected]

Athanassios N. Samaras Assistant Professor, International and European Studies Department University of Piraeus, [email protected] This is a part of an ongoing research project on Cypriot political rhetoric conducted by the

Advanced Media Institute

Sheffield, 30 March-1 April 2015

The Annan Plan • The “pro-Vs-anti Annan Plan” split, the latest facet of the

“Concessionist-Vs-Rejectioninst” cleavage, which was primed into importance by the 2004 referendum campaign, posed a challenge to the “Right-Vs.-Left” cleavage as the organizing element of the Greek Cypriot party system (Samaras and Kentas, 2005).

• The interplay of the “Concessionist-Vs-Rejectioninst”

with the “Right-Vs.-Left” cleavage gave to the Greek-Cypriot party politics the shape of an inverted U-shape.

The Inverted U – Shape Effect of

Cyprus Issue Upon Party Politics

AKEL

SOLUTION ABOUT CYPRUS ISSUE

DISY

DIKO

EDEK EYROKO Rejectionists

Concessionists

Unified Rejectionist Party at the Center

The Presidential Candidates of 2013

Stavros Malas •Left-wing •Pseudo-Incumbent Christofias’ Minister (2011-2012) •Supported by incumbent AKEL •Supporter of the Annan Plan.

Giorgos Lillikas •Centrist •Papadopoulos’ Minister (2003-2008) •Supported by EDEK •Strenuous rejectionist of the Annan Plan.

Nicos Anastasiades •Right-wing •Leader of oppositionist DISY (1997-2013) •Supported by DISY, DIKO and EVROKO •Strenuous supporter of the Annan Plan

Historical Context

During the 2004 Annan Plan referendum campaign and henceforth Anastasiades was a strenuous supporter of the Plan and a major proponent of the consensionist camp.

The solution of the Cyprus problem had a negative instrumental actualization for Anastasiades.

The blame for the financial crisis of Cyprus fell primarily on the previous president Christofias, who was supported by AKEL.

At the time of the election campaign Anastasiades was perceived as part of the solution of the financial crisis, and thus the financial crisis of Cyprus had a positive instrumental actualization for him.

Anastasiades was elected President because the financial crisis primed out the Cyprus’ Issue at both the news agenda and the campaign agenda.

Case Study: The second debate of 2013

about the Cyprus’ Issue • This research examines the employment of ad hominem

arguments against Anastasiades during the 2nd televised presidential debate in 2013.

• In this project qualitative – rhetorical analysis is employed.

• Every type of ad hominem argument during the Debate is identified independently by the two co-authors.

• Source and theme of the attack as well as the premises and the conclusions for each ad hominem argument is identified. Then, a list of all ad hominem arguments is constructed.

• Quantification emerges from this list of arguments rather than from a quantitative content analytical process. In this presentation data that have emerged qualitatively are analysed in a quantitative manner.

Definitions

• Ethos: The character of the rhetor (Aristotle)

• Negativity is any criticism leveled by one candidate against another during a campaign (Geer 2006: 23)

• Ad Hominem or Negative Ethotic Argument: A rhetorical strategy that combines attack with ethos in order to deconstruct the credibility of the opponent.

• The rhetoric is pertained by ethos and negativity.

• The situational and rhetorical context of the particular debate is ideal for analyzing the employment of the ad hominem argument where negativity is employed at a personal level in order to undermine the ethos of a political subject.

Subtypes of AH Arguments*

Ad Hominem Arguments

Circumstantial

AH

Pragmatic Inconsistency

Logical Inconsistency

Double Standard

Universal Circumstantial

Group Circumstantial

Logical Circumstantial

Situationally Disqualifying

Bias AH

Group Bias

Poisoning the Well

Poisoning the Well by Alleging Group Bias

Guilt by Association

Tu Quoque AH

The Two Wrongs AH

Abusive AH

By Veracity

By Prudence

By Perception

By Cognitive Skills

By Morals

*Walton (1998)

Ad Hominem Arguments

1. Abusive Ad Hominem Argument

Occurs when one party in a discussion criticizes of attempts to refute the other party’s argument by directly attacking the second party personally.

Argument Structure

Premise: A is a person of bad character.

Conclusion: Therefore, the X argument of A should not be accepted.

Abusive ad Hominem Argument by Veracity

Example Mr. Malas: “I am sorry Mr. Anastasiades but you are lying because you haven’t read my interview. I have here the original copy. Will it be reasonable to reintroduce the Annan Plan knowing that it can be rejected by the Cypriot people?”

Argument Structure

Premise: Anastasiades has a bad character for veracity

Conclusion: Therefore, Anastasiades’ argument should not be accepted.

2. Circumstantial Ad Hominem Argument

• Some “circumstances” of the arguer, other than his character, are used to attack his argument.

Argument Structure

Major Premise: Person A advocates argument X, which has proposition Y as its conclusion. Minor Premise: A has carried out an action or set of actions that imply that A is personally committed to not Y (the opposite of Y). 1st Conclusion: Therefore, A is a bad person 2nd Conclusion: Therefore, the X argument of A should not be accepted.

Circumstantial Ad Hominem Argument Example • Lillikas: “Mr. Anastasiades is talking about the human

rights but he was the one who suggested to Mr. Talat, after the referendum, to utilize the two thirds of refugees’ property in the occupied area”.

Major Premise: Anastasiades suggests that the solution of Cyprus’ Issues must ensure the human rights. Minor Premise: Anastasiades suggested to the Turkish Cypriot leader to utilize the two thirds of the occupied properties. 1st Conclusion: Therefore, Anastasiades is a bad

person 2nd Conclusion: Therefore, Anastasiades’ argument which refers to a solution based on human rights should not be accepted.

3. The Poisoning the Well by Alleging

Group Bias Argument (Group Bias AH)

Argument Structure 1st Premise: Person A has argued for thesis X. 2nd Premise: But A belongs to or is affiliated with group G 3rd Premise: It is known that group G is a special interest

partisan group that takes up a biased (dogmatic, prejudiced, fanatical) quarreling attitude in pushing exclusively for its own point of view.

Conclusion: Therefore, one can not engage in an open-

minded critical discussion of an issue with any member of G and henceforth the arguments of A for X are not worth listening to, or paying serious attention to in a critical discussion.

The Poisoning the Well by Alleging Group

Bias Argument (Group Bias AH) • Lillikas: “There are two think tangs. The one of my opponents’ that did

not believe to our abilities. Nevertheless they are talking about a viable solution they do not have the resistance to defend the national rights. They have not hold out the externally pressure, neither the Annan Plan nor the gas pipe line through Turkey. Consequently, they cannot achieve a better solution than the Annan Plan”.

• 1st Premise: Anastasiades and Malas support that they can carry out a viable solution for the Cyprus’ Issue.

• 2nd Premise: Anastasiades and Malas belong in to the group of Annan’s Plan supporters.

• 3rd Premise: It is known that group of Annan’s Plan supporters is a special interest partisan group that takes up a biased attitude in pushing exclusively for its own point of view.

• Conclusion: Therefore one can not engage in an open-minded critical discussion of an issue with any member of this group and henceforth their arguments about a better solution than the Annan Plan are not worth listening to, or paying serious attention to.

4. The Tu Quoque Ad Hominem Argument

• Proponent-Accuse: Respondent, you are a bad person because you have bad character and you are circumstantially inconsistent, biased, and so forth, therefore your argument should not be accepted.

• Respondent- Rebuttal: You are just as bad person, therefore your ad hominem argument against me should not be accepted as having any worth.

• Example. Proponent-Accuse: Anastasiades is being accused by Lillikas that he shifts his position about the solution of Cyprus’ Issue.

• Respondent- Rebuttal: “Mr. Lillikas you are accusing me for mutations and at the same time you are suggesting a solution based on a reflected federation with six administrations, six parliaments and six governments”.

The use of Ad Hominem Argument during

the debate

Themes of Ad Hominem Arguments

The Themes of Ad Hominem per Target of Attack

Source-Target of Annan’s Plan AH Arguments

2

4

7

2

14

2

12

Using of Ad Hominem Arguments

Type of AH Relative

to the Annan Plan

Against Anastasiades

Type of AH Arguments used by Anastasiades

Conclusions • The results of our research verify the fact that

Anastasiades stance during the Annan Plan campaign referendum, triggered the credibility lessening rhetorical strategies in the second televised debate of 2013. He was the main target of Ad Hominem Arguments.

• According to the polls, Anastasiades had many chances to be elected during the first round. He tried to avoid the using of Ad Hominem Arguments verifying the researchers which underline that the front runner does not use negativity as his opponents do. It seems that the strategy of his opponents, especially Lillikas’, was fruitful. Lillikas was supported by EDEK, a party of 8%. Finally, he concentrated 25% of the votes deriving a significant percentage from the disappointed supporters of DIKO and the late President Papadopoulos.

Bibliography

• Geer, J. (2006). In Defense of Negativity: Attack Ads in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago, IL, USA: The University of Chicago Press.

• Samaras Ath.N. and Kentas G. (2005). “Campaigning Under the Shadow of the Annan Plan: The 2004 Elections in Cyprus”. Maier M. και Tenscher J. Campaigning in Europe – Campaigning for Europe, Bonn:Lit Publishers, pp. 171-187.

• Walton, D. N. (1998). Ad hominem arguments. University of Alabama Press.

• THANK YOU!