Page 199 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 199
the political discourse on croatia’s eu accession 199
based on appeal to emotions, especially the appeal to fear (rather than
more rational forms of reasoning). Europhobes stated that becoming a
member of the EU meant a loss of independence and sovereignty; this
emotional effect appears to have been intensified by mentioning the war
which Croatia has led to gain its independence after the disintegration
of Yugoslavia. Using the comparison between Yugoslavia and the EU,
they predicted another war for Croatia – which plausibly amounted to
the strongest appeal to fear available in this context. Europhiles on the
other hand compared Croatia with other Balkan countries, and predict-
ed poverty and isolation as consequences of not becoming an EU mem-
ber. Appeals to fear were accompanied by expressive and ideologically
marked words such as Euroslavia, slavery and humiliation on the one
hand, and a historic chance and a new age on the other.
The main difference between the argumentation of Europhobes and
Europhiles was the use of the abusive argumentum ad hominem, often
found in the speeches of Europhobes but rarely used by Europhiles. The
strategy of attacking an opponent’s credibility, thus his or her ethos, was
dominant but was deemed fallacious in this study. After all, such attacks
were normally not directed at the opponent’s competence, and were
normally not corroborated with facts or supported by examples. Rath-
er, such attacks were aimed at offending them on a national basis, by re-
ferring to their ethnic or political origin (e.g., coming from a Serbian or
communist family); in other cases these attacks were straightforward as-
sault such as calling them liars, rats, traitors etc.
Europhiles used the argument from authority to support their claims
on job opportunities, funding possibilities, the political importance of
Croatia etc. Arguments from authority were in this study deemed to be
not very strong, considering the subjectivity and bias of the cited politi-
cians; however, they were frequently corroborated by facts and examples.
Persuasion through reference to the ethos of the speaker may be ex-
pected in political discourse where a trustworthy character is important.
We believe that this had a significant influence on the result of the ref-
erendum (which resulted in a 64 % vote pro EU membership). Represent-
atives of Europhiles included members of the former government, the
president (who was the most popular Croatian politician) and members
of the new government (which won the elections one month before the
referendum). Europhobes enjoyed a rather poor credibility because they
were not unified, nor organized, but scattered across several small parties
or organizations, and were often represented by extremists known to the
public for their unpopular, intolerant nationalistic attitudes.
based on appeal to emotions, especially the appeal to fear (rather than
more rational forms of reasoning). Europhobes stated that becoming a
member of the EU meant a loss of independence and sovereignty; this
emotional effect appears to have been intensified by mentioning the war
which Croatia has led to gain its independence after the disintegration
of Yugoslavia. Using the comparison between Yugoslavia and the EU,
they predicted another war for Croatia – which plausibly amounted to
the strongest appeal to fear available in this context. Europhiles on the
other hand compared Croatia with other Balkan countries, and predict-
ed poverty and isolation as consequences of not becoming an EU mem-
ber. Appeals to fear were accompanied by expressive and ideologically
marked words such as Euroslavia, slavery and humiliation on the one
hand, and a historic chance and a new age on the other.
The main difference between the argumentation of Europhobes and
Europhiles was the use of the abusive argumentum ad hominem, often
found in the speeches of Europhobes but rarely used by Europhiles. The
strategy of attacking an opponent’s credibility, thus his or her ethos, was
dominant but was deemed fallacious in this study. After all, such attacks
were normally not directed at the opponent’s competence, and were
normally not corroborated with facts or supported by examples. Rath-
er, such attacks were aimed at offending them on a national basis, by re-
ferring to their ethnic or political origin (e.g., coming from a Serbian or
communist family); in other cases these attacks were straightforward as-
sault such as calling them liars, rats, traitors etc.
Europhiles used the argument from authority to support their claims
on job opportunities, funding possibilities, the political importance of
Croatia etc. Arguments from authority were in this study deemed to be
not very strong, considering the subjectivity and bias of the cited politi-
cians; however, they were frequently corroborated by facts and examples.
Persuasion through reference to the ethos of the speaker may be ex-
pected in political discourse where a trustworthy character is important.
We believe that this had a significant influence on the result of the ref-
erendum (which resulted in a 64 % vote pro EU membership). Represent-
atives of Europhiles included members of the former government, the
president (who was the most popular Croatian politician) and members
of the new government (which won the elections one month before the
referendum). Europhobes enjoyed a rather poor credibility because they
were not unified, nor organized, but scattered across several small parties
or organizations, and were often represented by extremists known to the
public for their unpopular, intolerant nationalistic attitudes.
