Search

The present study examines the discourse of the then Greek Prime Minister, Alexis Tsipras, following the 2018 July wildfire disaster in the Eastern Attica suburbs including Mati to reveal the frames employed by the main protagonist utilizing existing framing models while also incorporating the notions of ethic of care and strategic ambiguity. The then government received extensive criticism by the media and political opponents in regard to the management and communication responses of the then Prime Minister. A content analysis was conducted to the statements made by the then Prime Minister. Findings indicate that Tsipras during the initial stages of the crisis acknowledged the extent of crisis while also emphasizing the successful crisis response efforts. Moreover, strategic ambiguity along with low levels of "caring" were important elements of Tsipras' narrative at the initial stage. As the public outrage and criticism intensified, Tsipras incorporated a more caring profile and presented the disaster as a "critical opportunity" by shifting the blame to previous governments and proposing policy changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study analyses the discourse of statements of the leaders of two Greek political parties commemorating the restoration of Greek democracy on 24 July 1974; the ruling party New Democracy and the opposition, Coalition of the Radical Left. We focus on how these leaders act as entrepreneurs of their identities by constructing their ingroups in broad or narrow terms and their outgroups in vague or specific terms. These constructions were ventured during a period of relative political stability (2008) and instability (2012), and we focus on how ingroup prototypes and group boundaries are narrated across Greece's past, present and future in ambiguous or concrete terms. The study aligns the social identity approach to political leadership with studies on political discourse and ‘the rhetoric of we’. We view commemorative statements as historical charters and respond to calls for discourse analysis to take greater account of historical context. The findings suggest concrete hypotheses about how leaders with different amounts of political support might define, as identity entrepreneurs, who ‘we’ are, and who ‘we’ are not in democratic contexts marked by stability or crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]