Abraham Contos

1.  What is the source’s stated purpose (the argument or thesis)?

Jackson argues that linguistic and metalinguistic codings can indicate transparency or corruption in political oratory as shown in the Malagasy highlands.

2.  What evidence does the author provide to support his or her main argument? How is the author attempting to logically prove his or her thesis and how does this affect the organization of the document?

Jackson shows how in many instances politicians in Madagascar have used the traditional kabary (oratory) when addressing the people. Kabary is a very indirect way of making a point, using many figures of speech such as proverbs. She shows how in more recent politics talk of transparency and fighting corruption has been conveyed in a new kind of kabary that is much more direct and actually mirrors American style (the Ravalomanana regime very much favored relations with America over relations with France). She sites examples of old and new kabary from prominent political leaders as well as perspectives of others on their leaders and the way they express themselves.

3.  Who is the audience? What does the author assume the audience already knows about the topic?

Jackson is addressing those interested in the role of language in political processes. She assumes some background knowledge in both linguistics and political processes, but seeks to draw the connection between the two.

4.  Describe the author’s methods (i.e. how does the author know what he or she knows)?  In your opinion were they appropriate why or why not?

Jackson examines several registers of speech such as syntax to show how Ravalomanana’s speech was more direct and mirrored western styles. From a linguistic perspective this approach painted a clear picture of the differences between the old and new type of kabary.

5.  To what other sources (theorist, researchers, artists) does the author refer? Explain the specific ideas the author draws upon from these other sources to support his or her own argument (the theoretical framework).

Jackson sites numerous others to build a framework that describes the old kabary as being closely associated with a lack of transparency and thus a tendency towards corruption while painting the new form of kabary as direct and thus transparent.

6.  What are the connections between this source and your project? How useful or applicable is this source’s approach to your own project? How is yours new and different?

The article is more so one of social-linguistic worth than that of comparative politics. However, coding of political oratory in a fashion that describes transparency and the lack thereof is an interesting perspective to approach from when looking into sources of political instability. Much of the article dealt with people’s ability to relate to the orator in the context of the type of kabary used. This can lead to greater insight into people’s perceptions of corruption and thus their willingness to participate as well as the forms of participations preferred in one context or another.

Posted in Bibliography, Literature

1.  What is the source’s stated purpose (the argument or thesis)?

Marcus and Razafindrakoto argue that, despite the dramatic change in government during the 2001 presidential election, the government of Madagascar did not change radically.

2.  What evidence does the author provide to support his or her main argument? How is the author attempting to logically prove his or her thesis and how does this affect the organization of the document?

The authors describe the process of events and highlight how much these events encouraged and fostered political participation, but also line out a long list of actions on the part of the new president showing how he , almost immediately, sought to consolidate power in similar ways to the old president. According to the authors, the new president used his position as a successful business man and politician to supplant most if not all of the ancient regime with new people, proven by past positions, to be loyal to himself. And these, he appointed to positions throughout the government from the courts to the legislative body to the executive branches.

3.  Who is the audience? What does the author assume the audience already knows about the topic?

The authors write to the student of democratic development but probably more specifically to those over anxious to declare the election of 2002 in Madagascar as a sure sign of democratic progress.

4.  Describe the author’s methods (i.e. how does the author know what he or she knows)?  In your opinion were they appropriate why or why not?

In this article the authors refer only to observations and briefly to interviews. The lack of methods described (there may or may not have been scientific work done in preparation to writing this article) indicates a less legitimate argument. However, considering how recent the events were at the time of writing the article it may have been impractical to launch an indepth study rather than quickly publish an initial argument based on knowledge gleaned from years of research in other areas while the events were still fresh.

5.  To what other sources (theorist, researchers, artists) does the author refer? Explain the specific ideas the author draws upon from these other sources to support his or her own argument (the theoretical framework).

The authors only site one source:  Charles Tilly, From Mobilization to Revolution (New York: Random House, 1978), p. 69. This is rather a side note defining what it means to become an active participant in public life.

6.  What are the connections between this source and your project? How useful or applicable is this source’s approach to your own project? How is yours new and different?

This article provides a useful perspective on the 2002 elections which can then be compared with the 2009 change of government. Having lived in Madagascar then and heavily studied the recent political events, this article provides a fascinating context that can now be evaluated with hindsight and compared to recent events. The article argues that the new regime was just as fragile as the old one, just different, which was what the people wanted but could lead to repeat events. I will be studying factors that lead to political instability, ruling out ethnicity and looking for more probable variables. So this article is very useful in pointing out the similarities of the regime up to 2002 and since. I can build on this and examine whether or not those similarities persisted and if they still persist in the new regime as of 2009.

Posted in Bibliography, Literature