Pragmatic Argumentation in European Practices of Political Accountability

Abstract

In this paper, the author examines the use of pragmatic argumentation in European practices of political accountability in which the politicians explain and justify a future course of action which they plan to undertake in order to solve an existing problem. The author explains some vital institutional characteristics of the practices under discussion and demonstrates how these institutional characteristics constrain the use of pragmatic argumentation. In addition, the author shows which criteria arguers commonly invoke in practices of political accountability to make their pragmatic arguments acceptable to critics.

Discovering Warrants in Political Argumentation

“…Often other aspects are mentioned in the texts such as backing of an expectation or the likelihood of an event and criticism of arguments of other speakers. The previous mentioned papers on pragmatic argumentation suggest such remarks (van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1984), van Eeemeren, Garssen and Meuffels (2009), Andone (2014), van Eemeren (2016 and Andone and Lomeli Hernandez (2019)). Similar remarks can also be found in papers of Erduran et al on argumentation based on Toulmin´s model, for example, the paper of Garcia-Milla, Gilabert, Erduran and Felton (2013).…”

“…X must be done X highly probably leads to a positive result Y. van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1984), van Eemeren, Garssen and Meuffels (2009), Andone (2014), van Eemeren (2016, and Andone and Lomeli Hernandez (2019) discuss under what conditions such an argument should be acceptable. Several criteria for acceptability have been mentioned such as: that X leads to Y, Y must indeed be positive and X should not have negative side effects that most people would accept result Y and that Y is more desirable than other possible results.…”

“…These points are indeed very relevant to determine the acceptability of such arguments. The evaluation of such arguments in the parliament is very well described and analyzed in the papers of Andone (2014), and Andone and Lomeli Hernández (2019). However, we have not studied public debates in this phase of the decision making process, instead we studied, on the basis of partially secret documents and minutes of meetings of decision makers, the earlier non-public phase of the decision process.…”

Argumentative Patterns in the Political Domain: The Case of European Parliamentary Committees of Inquiry

“…By answering such anticipated critical questions, a specific argumentative pattern arises which is activated in order to realize the institutional point (van Eemeren and Garssen 2013: 7). In my earlier research on pragmatic argumentation in practices of political accountability (Andone 2015a), I have shown that the result of a prescriptive action is judged as positive when it is shown to be in line with 'the aggregative principle' (Ball 1995: 20). In other words, when it can be shown that carrying out action X is what most people want in the circumstances at hand or is in the interest of the majority.…”

Engagement et non-engagement dans les appels à la majorité des politiciens

“…Introduction 1 C'est une pratique courante, chez les hommes et femmes politiques, que d'affirmer qu'une mesure particulière doit être mise en oeuvre, qu'une certaine décision doit être prise, ou qu'il faut suivre un programme donné parce que la ligne d'action proposée est susceptible d'avoir des conséquences positives [ou négatives] (« il faut baisser l'impôt sur le revenu pour que les consommateurs puissent acheter davantage de biens »). Pour convaincre leurs partenaires de débat que leur recommandation est acceptable, les politiciens font couramment appel à la majorité (« c'est ce que la plupart des gens veulent en ces temps difficiles ») (Andone 2015). Par de tels appels, les politiciens laissent entendre que leurs actes sont légitimes parce qu'ils traduisent la volonté du peuple (Anderson 1979 : 721).…”