This issue intends to open the gates to unexplored areas of research and analysis in world Englishes from the prism of critical discourse analysis, by exploring how political discourse can take on the unique linguistic properties of the cultural contexts in which it is conceived and, accordingly, sculpt the identities of all those addressed or involved. As such, the issue borrows data from different parts of the world, including Ghana, Turkey, Britain, Singapore, America, India, and the Middle East, to investigate how political parties, political leaders, and socio-political movements are most persuasively narrativized when they play on local sentiment and language features representative of local communities and audiences, despite often common, populist aims. 1 INTRODUCTION Criticality in discourse analysis derives from the belief that discursive events share a co-constitutive relationship with the social, cultural, institutional, and political contexts within which they take place (Fairclough, 1989). That is to say that discourse both shapes and is shaped by society. In this sense, 'each discursive event [has] three dimensions or facets: it is spoken or written language, it is an instance of discourse practice involving the production and interpretation of text, and it is a piece of social practice' (Fairclough, 1993, p. 136). Text and social practice are 'mediated by discourse practice' through which the processes of text production, interpretation, and social practice leave imprints on one another (ibid.). Discourse can be seen as a conceptualization of reality stemming from the unique relationship people have with society (the social context they're operating in) that depends on their unique social positions within that society. Discourse, in this sense, becomes the means through which interactive participants construct self, society, and systems of knowledge (ideologies, cultural models and myths, beliefs), both on part of the sender and receiver. Discourse, therefore, as a process of meaning creation, relies as much on production as on interpretations. Deriving from this theoretical perspective, critical discourse analysis (CDA) is interested in 'real, and often extended, instances of social interaction which take (partially) linguistic form. The critical approach is distinctive in its view of (a) the relationship between language and society, and (b) the relationship between analysis and the practices analysed' (Wodak, 1997, p. 173). Work in CDA operates at the crossroads between 'language and social structure' 544