In:Remedies against the Pandemic: How politicians communicate crisis management
Edited by Nadine Thielemann and Daniel Weiss
[Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 102] 2023
► pp. 136–168
Covid-19 vaccination policies in an autocratic context
Belarus vs. Russia
Published online: 24 July 2023
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.102.05wei
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.102.05wei
Abstract
The paper continues a book chapter devoted to the Belarusian and Russian crisis management during the first months of the pandemic (Weiss 2022). The present chapter examines the second half of 2021 when vaccines were already available in both countries. It is based on data from speeches broadcast on TV, reports by so-called “foreign agents”, i.e. Russian independent investigative agencies, and online news including the official Kremlin site. The main research question focuses on the impact of vaccination on both Lukašenko’s and Putin’s policies: how did their communication strategies change, what was their own stance towards vaccination, and how did they cope with peoples’ reluctance to get vaccinated? The tools to achieve this goal are mainly provided by argumentation theory and impoliteness theory.
The comparison is somewhat impeded by Lukašenko being a tacit COVID denier who rejected any compulsive protective measures but nevertheless had to support vaccination. He mercilessly insulted his ministers who tried to impose protective measures on citizens and he tended to conflate online bloggers criticizing his crisis management with his political opponents. Putin backed the vaccination campaign but did not succeed in overcoming the masses’ passive resistance despite a “split-voice” strategy: whereas he officially maintained his image of an unbiased father of the nation, state media such as the TV station “Russia today”, which attacked anti-vaxxers very aggressively, portrayed him as the main decision-maker and ruthless punisher. His publicly pronounced arguments against compulsory vaccination proved very weak.
Keywords: Belarus, Russia, vaccination, anti-vaxxers, pandemic, impoliteness, argumentation
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Lukašenko vs. Putin: The first period of the pandemic (March – August 2020)
- 3.Lukašenko: A half- converted Covid skeptic
- 4.The vaccination controversy in Russia
- 4.1Kremlin vs. antivaxxers
- 4.2The Kremlin’s club: The role of “Russia Today”
- 5.Discussion: New communication strategies after the release of Covid vaccines
Notes References
References (22)
Baranov, Anatolij. 2007. Lingvističeskaja ėkspertiza teksta. Teoretičeskie osnovanija i praktika. Moskva: Flint.
Bousfield, Derek. 2008. Impoliteness in interaction. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Some universals in language use. Cambridge: University Press.
Buchenau, K. 1997. Die Distanzanrede im Russischen, Polnischen und Deutschen und ihre historischen Hintergründe. Frankfurt a.M: Lang.
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2005. “Impoliteness and The Weakest Link.” Journal of Politeness research 1 (1): 35–72.
van Eemeren, Frans and Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
van Eemeren, Frans, and Peter Houtlosser. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
García-Pastor 2008. “Political campaign debates as zero-sum games: Impoliteness and power in candidates’ exchanges.” In Impoliteness in Language, ed. by Derek Bousfield, and Miriam Locher, 101–123, Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gorham, Michael. 2013. “Putin’s language.” In Putin as Celebrity and Cultural Icon, ed. by Helena Goscilo, 82–103. New York: Routledge.
Islentyeva, Anna. 2020. “On the Front Line in the Fight against the Virus: Conceptual Framing and War Patterns in Political Discourse.” Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 8: 157–180.
Kienpointner, Manfred. 2012. “When Figurative Analogies Fail: “Fallacious Uses of Arguments from Analogy.” In Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory: Twenty Exploratory Studies, Frans van Eemeren, and Bart Garssen (eds.), 111–125. Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
Mel’čuk, Igor’. 1995. Russkij jazyk v modeli « Smysl↔tekst». Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Sonderband 39. Moskau-Wien.
Mendoza, Imke. 2004. “Russisch “tam” als “Distanzmarker”.” In Germano- Slavistische Beiträge. FS für Peter Rehder zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Miloš Okuka and Ulrich Schweier. München: Sagner, 157–168.
Musolff, Andreas. 2022. ‘War against Covid-10’: Is the pandemic management as war metaphor helpful or hurtful? In Andreas Musolff, Ruth Breeze, Kayo Kondo, and Sara Vilar-Lluch (eds.): Pandemic and Crisis Discourse, Communicating Covid-19 and Public Health Strategy. London: Bloomsbury, 307–320.
Ribeiro, Henrique J. (ed.). 2014. Systematic Approaches to Argument by Analogy. Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
Truan, Naomi. 2021. The Politics of Person Reference. Third person forms in English, German, and French. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 320. Amsterdam- Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Walton, Douglas N., Reed, Christopher, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: University Press.
Weiss, Daniel. 2006. “Der Dialog mit dem abwesenden Dritten in zeitgenössischen russischen Politikerinterviews” In Iter Philologicum. Festschrift für Helmut Keipert zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Daniel Bunčić und Nikolaos Trunte, 81–94. München 2006 (= Die Welt der Slaven, Sammelbände/Sborniki, Band 28).
. 2020. “Analogical reasoning with quotations? A spotlight on Russian parliamentary discourse.” In: Doing things with quotes. Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics 157 (2020), ed. by Anita Fetzer and Daniel Weiss, 101–110.
. 2022. “How autocrats cope with the corona challenge: Belarus vs. Russia.” In: Pandemic & Crisis Discourse, ed. by Andreas Musolff, Ruth Breeze, Kayo Kondo, and Sara Vilar-Lluch, 61–78. London: Bloomsbury.
If not indicated otherwise, all Internet sources were accessed on 21.3.2021