Bhupa P. Dhamala

Rhetoric as Art
Used initially as the art of speaking, rhetoric was considered as positive in the past. The Greek and Roman philosophers, teachers, and other social leaders in ancient Greece and Rome used rhetoric as a means of persuasion. Gradually, it became popular in other parts of the world. Today it is taught in many universities as a separate discipline. A large number of teachers and students are involved in teaching and learning rhetoric and composition. It has become a useful art of speaking for many people in personal or public life - at home, at the workplace, and in society.

Rhetoric as Weapon
But the same rhetoric can be used for both good and bad purposes, just as sword can both be used as a weapon to protect its user from the enemy and also it can be used as a weapon to hit somebody else who may be innocent. As we have noticed today, nuclear weapons are being made in almost every country where the leaders say they are made for their own defense, but we have also seen that bombs have devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the second Great War. In this sense, a weapon in itself is not good or bad but how it does good or bad depends on what purpose it is used for. Rhetoric in the same way can be used to persuade people for good purpose or to dissuade them for bad purpose.

Persuasion vs Dissuasion
Critical thinkers today are beginning to say that rhetoric is at the risk of losing its original meaning. Instead of being an art of speaking or persuasion, they say, it seems to have become an art of lying. If this is the case, it is not used to persuade people for good purposes, not used for public good. Conversely, rhetoric is used to dissuade people for bad purposes, for personal gains and gratification of senses. We can call the latter type of rhetoric, if it is rhetoric at all, merely a verbal trick.
Verbal trick is a word game that is played for fulfilling the malintention of the cheat, the liar, the swindler who take advantage of the power of language to deceive the other. This game cannot be played by a decent human who has the high sense of morality and is guided by ethics and always works following the norms, values, and principles. But the person who has ulterior motive uses rhetoric to have personal gain and works for the sordid gain of power and for amassing wealth which is not necessary for their life depriving the multitude of food and leaving them for starving from hunger and malnutrition.

Rhetoric and Politics
Contrary to the popular assumption that dishonest people often use language for lying, we can also notice that some other people might as well use it to serve their own interests. Among others political leaders nowadays are beginning to use rhetoric as a means of simply winning the favor of people which help them to serve their political ends, albeit not in the same degree as swindlers. This is common to both developed and developing countries. This has happened in developed Europe and America. We have heard of the rhetoric of Churchill in England, Lenin in Russia, and Abraham Lincoln in America. This has also happened even in two largely populated India and China. We have heard of rhetoric of Gandhi and Nehru in India, Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai in China also used rhetoric widely in their speech. We have also heard of rhetorical speeches of Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela.
But there are many other politicians who have used rhetoric to serve their interests. If we look at their speeches closely, then we may find them as something that might contain hidden interests which ordinary eyes cannot easily see. The rhetoricians often use rhetoric to manufacture consent from the people without their knowing.
Nepal is no exception. Nepalese politicians began to use rhetoric since the democratic movement began in 1940s. Leaders thought of organizing some people in their political parties so they used rhetoric to persuade them who would become their cadres to fight against the tyranny of the Rana rulers. Some cadres were so convinced that they were ready to sacrifice their life for the sake of nation and its people. Many of them lost their dear lives for what was called democracy. The democratic leaders used rhetoric to easily persuade people to organize themselves against the despotism before they ended the tyrannical system. Later both democratic and communist leaders used rhetoric to persuade people to fight against the partyless Panchayat system and they were successful in their endeavors until democracy was restored in 1990. Still further, some political leaders used rhetorical language to persuade people for the establishment of republicanism and they were successful in this movement also.

Verbal Trick?
However, almost all promises made by political leaders in these 70 years seem to have gone awry. People’s expectations are frustrated. The possibility of making a welfare state has repeatedly deferred. The dreams of martyrs are not fulfilled. People are dismayed due to the disappointing political environment.
The present circumstances thus apparently indicate that the political statements have lost their values. The contradictions and anomalies of the same leader’s statements at different times leave ample ground to suggest that rhetoric is the opposite of reality.
People are beginning to say “What the leaders say is not truth. That is merely rhetoric”. The distinction between rhetoric and verbal trick seems blurred. How is it that the rhetoric is not reality? Are political leaders using rhetoric to simply serve their political ends? Has rhetoric turned into merely verbal trick?

(Dhamala is Professor of English, TU)