Реторика и политическа комуникация

Rhetoric and Political Communication

DOI 10.55206/VSMF6357

 

George Ezekiel Aberi

Kisii University, Department of Languages, Linguistics and Literature, Kenya
E-mail: george.aberi@kisiiuniversity.ac.ke

 

Abstract: This paper explores the rhetorical strategies employed by President William Ruto to address the Gen-Z crisis and foster a narrative of hope and resilience amidst socio-political turmoil. While existing research on political rhetoric is abundant, there is a notable lack of focused studies on the application of Aristotelian rhetorical appeals within Kenyan political discourse, particularly during crises. Moreover, given its recent occurrence, there is insufficient analysis of the Gen-Z crisis in Kenya from a discourse and sociolinguistic perspective. The study is guided by two questions: 1) What rhetorical strategies does President William Ruto utilize in his interaction with Gen Z? and 2) What are the perceived impacts of these rhetorical strategies on Gen Z and the Kenyan public in general? The study utilized Aristotle’s rhetorical theory, anchored in Norman Fairclough’s three-tier approach to critical discourse analysis as its main analytical framework. Thematic analysis is employed to uncover patterns in rhetorical strategies and their implications. This research contributes to the fields of political com­munication, sociolinguistics, and discourse analysis by shedding light on the rhetorical strategies of a modern African leader.

Keywords: crisis communication, discourse analysis, Gen-Z crisis, political persuasion, rhetoric.

Introduction

The recent protests by Generation Z (Gen Z) in Kenya, particularly on social media platforms like “X,” have presented a unique challenge to the Kenyan government led by President William Ruto. The protests were sparked by opposition to the Finance Bill 2024, introduced to increase revenue for economic development. However, the bill proposed tax hikes on essential goods amidst economic hardships, generating significant dissatisfaction among Kenyans grappling with high unemployment levels. Young people perceived the tax increases as burdensome (Khaemba, 2024) [1], calling for government accountability (Twino­mu­rinzi, 2024). [2] This bill became a flashpoint for widespread discontent, leading to demonstrations against the government, exacerbated by frustrations over economic inequality and corruption (Omweri, 2024). [3] Social media platforms like TikTok and X (Twitter) played a pivotal role in organizing dissent, reflecting a shift in political mobilization from ethnic to class-based issues (Karanja, 2022) [4]; (Nyamweya, M. (2024). [5] The hashtag #RejectFinanceBill2024 became central for sharing information, mobilizing citizens for protests, and crowdsourcing resources (Ogutu & Garcia, 2024). [6] Initially, the protests were peaceful, characterized by marches in major cities. However, the government’s response included tear gas and arbitrary arrests, escalating tensions (Amnesty International, 2024) [7]; (Human Rights Watch, 2024). [8] Claims of undue influence by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) also surfaced (Gachuki, 2024). [9] Moreover, demands for accountability intensified, with calls for transparency and inclusive participation in policymaking; Israrud, 2024) [10]; (Githui, 2024). [11] On July 5, 2024, President Ruto engaged with Gen Z on X, responding to their demands for virtual interaction. His presence attracted over 3 million listeners, addressing issues raised by the protesting youth, including corruption and cabinet incompetence. Early attempts to engage were met with skepticism, highlighting the challenges of transitioning from traditional podiums to digital spaces (Otieno, 2025). [12] The demonstrations had long-term socio-political repercussions, compelling Ruto to retract the Finance Bill 2024 and promise a more inclusive government. However, despite the importance of these interactions and their political impact, discourse studies have largely overlooked them, creating a gap that this study aims to address. While there is substantial literature on political discourse and the use of social media in political mobilization, there is a gap in research specifically examining how leaders such as President William Ruto navigate these challenges in the context of a digitally empowered youth movement. Most studies focus on traditional political rhetoric without fully exploring the implications of digital communication on political discourse (Miring’u, 2020). [13] Therefore, there is a need for more nuanced analyses of how political leaders adapt their rhetorical strategies to address grievances in a digitally evolving political landscape. This understanding prompted our study, which aimed to investigate the various rhetorical strategies encompassed in President William Ruto’s responses to Gen Z’s demands on X.

 

Rhetorical Theory: An Overview

Rhetorical theory primarily examines the art of persuasion through effective communication, encompassing both speaking and writing (Aristotle & Kennedy, 1991) [14]; (Aristotle, 2007) [15]; (Zachry, 2009) [16]; (Charteris-Black, 2018). [17] It focuses on the strategic use of language and various techniques to influence an audience’s thoughts, beliefs, and actions. In the modern-day digital age, the intersection of political communication, social media, and crisis management presents a critical area for understanding how political leaders navigate complex and often volatile situations. In this context, platforms like X (formerly Twitter), provide political leaders with the tools to engage with citizens directly, shape narratives, and respond to unfolding events in real-time (Duncombe, 2019) [18]; (Butkowski, 2022) [19]; (Okonkwo et al., 2024). [20] Classical rhetorical theory, originally attributed to Aristotle, provides the foundation for understanding and analyzing persuasive communication. In his seminal work Rhetoric, Aristotle defined rhetoric as “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion” (Aristotle, trans. 1991). [21] His theory argues that effective communication is crucial for civic engagement and leadership. It is crucial to acknowledge that while rhetoric can illuminate truth, it can also be employed for deception, necessitating a critical examination of its application and impact across diverse contexts. Central to Aristotelian rhetoric are the three modes of persuasion/appeals: ethos, pathos, and logos (Aristotle & Kennedy, 1991); (Christensen & Hasle, 2007) [22]; (Ting, 2018) [23]; (Ponton, 2020). [24] Ethos pertains to the speaker’s credibility, character, and ethical appeal, focusing on establishing their authority (Di-Carlo, 2014). [25] These classical appeals remain highly relevant in contemporary analyses of political discourse, including social media communication. For instance, a leader addressing a crisis might seek to enhance their ethos by emphasizing their experience, appeal to pathos by expressing empathy, and employ logos by presenting a logical plan of action. Building upon these classical foundations, contemporary rhetorical theory has expanded to explore the intricacies of political language in various contexts. For instance, Burke (1969) [26] emphasized the role of identification in persuasion, arguing that effective rhetoric creates a sense of shared identity between the speaker and the audience. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969) [27] emphasized the importance of argumentation and the construction of persuasive arguments tailored to specific audiences. Similarly, Johnstone (1989) [28] provided a framework for analyzing persuasive discourse, by identifying strategies such as the quasilogical (appealing to formal reasoning), presentational (using techniques like metaphor and repetition for clarity), and analogical (drawing parallels through storytelling) (Tang, Sharmini & Yahya, 2023). [29] The advent of social media has fundamentally reshaped the landscape of political communication (Chadwick, 2017) [30] in which case, platforms like X offer politicians direct access to citizens, thereby bypassing traditional media and enabling them to control their narratives (Parmelee & Bichards, 2011). [31] However, this direct access also presents challenges, as social media can be a conduit for misinformation, disinformation, and online harassment (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017). [32] Numerous studies have examined how political leaders use social media globally, in Africa, and locally. This research highlights the increasing adoption of platforms like X for citizen engagement, information dissemination, and shaping public opinion (Sahly et al., 2019) [33]; (Bouknight, 2021) [34]; (Venus et al., 2024) [35]; (Salih, 2024) [36]; (Asante, 2020) [37]; (John & Ibe, 2020) [38]; (Nwozor et al., 2022). [39] In the Kenyan context, studies have explored various facets of media and political discourse, including the use of irony, identity politics, hidden meanings in campaigns, oral literary elements in speeches, and the impact of social media and AI on elections; (Jonyo, 2012) [40]; (Michira, 2013) [41]; (Omollo, 2017) [42]; (Abboud et al., 2024) [43]; (Nyambura, 2024) [44]. However, there remains a gap in focused analyses of rhetorical responses to emergent crises, particularly those involving youth demographics, and specifically President Ruto’s use of X in such situations. In this context, Crisis communication theory, particularly Timothy Coombs’ Situational Crisis Communication Theory (henceforth SCCT), provides insights into strategic language use during uncertainty (Coombs, 2007). [45] SCCT posits that effective crisis responses require understanding the crisis’s nature and selecting appropriate communication strategies. However, the application of SCCT in political leadership and social media contexts warrants further scholarly exploration, particularly given the polarized nature of online discourse.

 

Analytical Framework

This study utilizes a qualitative descriptive research design centered on a single, prominent case study approach (Yin, 2018) [46], focusing on President Ruto’s televised/live interaction with the Gen-Z community on X regarding the Gen-Z crisis. The texts analyzed are transcripts of the entire speech/interaction between President Ruto and Gen Z, including his words, phrases, statements, and questions posed by Gen Z representatives, as well as real-time comments/public responses during and after the media interaction. Analyzing the entire interaction holistically provides a richer understanding of the dynamic interplay between the President and his audience. Given the focused nature of the study, representativeness is less of a concern than the depth and richness of the analysis. However, the selection of this particular event is justified by its significance in the public discourse surrounding the Gen-Z crisis in Kenya, its potential to reach a large audience, and its unique format as a direct interaction between the President and the affected community. Purposive sampling procedures were used to select the specific interaction that is most representative of President Ruto’s rhetorical response to the crisis. This selection was based on criteria such as the interaction’s relevance to the politically charged Gen-Z crisis and its impact on public perception. The sample consisted of the entire televised interaction, ensuring a comprehensive analysis of the discourse.

Data Collection

Data collection involved multiple streams, including the complete transcript of the televised/live interaction/session between President Ruto and the Gen-Z participants on X, including its coding for rhetorical elements, obtained from the office of the President’s official website and media outlets that broadcasted the event. This session was chosen due to its significance as a direct engagement with youth protesters during a politically charged crisis. The transcription captured verbal and non-verbal cues, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of the rhetorical strategies employed. Archival data from the X platform, including relevant tweets, comments, and hashtags used during and immediately after the interaction, was also utilized. A total of 44 social media reactions (both pro-government and opposition-aligned) were collected using relevant hashtags like #GenZCrisis and #RutoResponds (see Appendix I). Only data focusing on posts that directly referenced the Gen-Z crisis or the interaction between President William Ruto and Gen Z were collected. The social media reactions and public comments on X were analyzed to gauge the perceived impacts of Ruto’s rhetoric on the Gen Z representatives and the broader Kenyan public. This data was supplemented with information from news articles, opinion pieces, and public statements related to the interaction and the Gen-Z crisis, gathered from a variety of media sources. Taken together, these sources provided a comprehensive dataset for analyzing rhetorical strategies and public reception. Ethical considerations, including anonymization and adherence to terms of service, were rigorously applied.

Data Analysis

The study utilized Aristotelian theory of rhetoric as the framework for data analysis. This theoretical lens is particularly relevant for studying political discourse, as it emphasizes the interplay between speaker, audience, and message to achieve persuasion. Considering that there is no uniform or fixed approach to conducting rhetorical analysis (Tolmie, 2004) [47]; (Foss, 2017) [48], the study employed Norman Fairclough’s (1992) [49] three-dimensional model of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to contextualize Aristotle’s proofs within broader sociopolitical dynamics. This approach was complemented by Johnstone’s (1989) framework for analyzing persuasive discourse strategies, which includes quasi-logical strategy, presentational strategy, and analogy/analogical persuasion.

At the textual level (micro-level), the analysis involved a detailed examination of the linguistic features used by President Ruto during the interaction. Linguistic features such as word choice, metaphors, framing, rhetorical devices, and narrative structures were analyzed to understand how they contribute to the persuasive effect of his communication (Lakoff, 2004). [50] This included identifying instances of ethos (how he establishes credibility and authority), logos (the logical arguments and evidence he presents), and pathos (the emotional triggers and appeals he makes) (Aristotle, trans. 1991). Special attention was paid to how President Ruto responded to questions and challenges posed by members of the Gen-Z community and how he managed the interaction in real-time.

At the discursive level, our analysis examined how these elements were produced and consumed within the digital space, while at the social practice level, we explored their ideological implications. To ensure the validity and trustworthiness of the findings, data were triangulated across multiple sources (Rouse & Harrison, 2015) [51]; (Natow, 2020) [52], including transcripts, recordings, X data, and news articles, as well as methods involving qualitative discourse analysis. Additionally, the analysis was discussed with other researchers in the field to obtain feedback and ensure that the data supported the interpretations. As researchers, we acknowledged and reflected on our own biases and assumptions, including how they could influence the analysis. This involved critically examining our positionalities and how they shape our understanding of the data.
The social practice (macro-level) involved analyzing how President Ruto’s rhetorical strategies reflect and reinforce existing power relations, ideologies, and social norms (Fairclough, 2015). This included examining how the interaction on X contributed to the construction of national identity, the legitimation of government policies, and the management of public opinion. This level of analysis, as Fairclough (1992) [53] posits, examines how discourse functions within various social contexts, including institutions, cultures, and historical frameworks.

Findings

Concerning the particular rhetorical strategies President William Ruto utilized in his interaction with Gen Z, the study confirmed that he deployed a range of rhetorical techniques, including Aristotelian appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos. These were evident in his authoritative stance, expressions of sympathy for those affected by the crisis, and the presentation of logical arguments, such as the listing of austerity measures. In this respect, the study confirmed that Ruto employed emotional appeals and empathetic language, notably in his condolences and attempts to demonstrate understanding by referencing personal experiences and governmental actions during other crises, such as the floods.

Additionally, the analysis revealed a strategic use of membership categorization, signaling President Ruto’s deliberate attempt to portray his administration positively in contrast to previous governments. He also acknowledged and apologized for the arrogance of some government officials, framing their actions as “mistakes” attributed to inexperience. Among several other strategies of engagement, the invocation of religious references was noted as part of President Ruto’s means to connect with the Gen Z audience on a personal level.

Regarding the perceived impacts of Ruto’s rhetorical strategies on Gen Z and the Kenyan public, it was noted that while some members of the Gen Z audience responded positively to the President’s engagement, expressing a sense of alignment with future aspirations and a willingness to offer support, a significant undercurrent of skepticism and distrust persisted among others. This was demonstrated in the reaction comments from several youths who were part of the Gen Z audience, questioning the sincerity of his empathetic appeals and viewing them as political calculations, which hindered their ability to embrace his explanations.

Discussion
In what can be described as a rhetorical move to raise the youth’s “comfort level” (Davy, 2011) [54] and soften their hearts during the forthcoming conversations on X, President Ruto delivered a televised national address from State House ahead of his session with Gen Z, during which he said:

Fellow Kenyans, the last two weeks have been a difficult time for us as a country, where Kenyans have regrettably lost their lives. Many have been injured, property destroyed, and our constitutional institutions attacked. I extend my deepest condolences to those who unfortunately lost their lives. One life lost, as we all know, is a life too many. To the mothers, fathers, siblings, relatives, and friends of those who lost their lives, my deepest sympathies and condolences to you all.

Ruto’s acknowledgment of injuries and loss of life serves as both a gesture of compassion and a political maneuver to diffuse tension. In line with Johnstone’s (1989) notion of analogical persuasion and Fairclough and Fairclough’s (2013) concept of political rhetoric, these emotional appeals are crafted to legitimize the government’s supportive stance and can also be viewed as a rhetorical strategy tailored to mitigate backlash and foster cooperation from discontented youth and their families during times of crisis. Furthermore, these emotional appeals are designed to forge a connection with the audience during times of crisis. However, not all members of the Gen Z audience were swayed by this rhetoric, with some questioning the sincerity of his expressions:

I’m really empathetic with those of you listening and nodding to all these lies. Samahani Wakenya! Y’all here engaging but dude is already warming up for 2027 by winning your weak hearts. Sad, really sad, my countrymen and women (Excerpt 11).

This comment highlights a perceived disconnect and distrust, suggesting that for some, the rhetorical move was seen as a political calculation rather than genuine empathy, thus failing to resonate with their concerns. Toeing the same path, with intertextual awareness (Fairclough, 1992) of the raft of issues raised by youths during their public protests, which were likely to feature during his planned interactions with them on X, Ruto listed what he termed austerity measures, probably to appeal to their feelings (pathos):

In keeping with the enhanced austerity measures we have committed to implement, the following actions shall be taken with immediate effect towards the realization of the new budget:

1. 47 State Corporations with overlapping and duplicative functions will be dissolved.
2. The decision to fill the positions of Chief Administrative Secretaries is suspended.
3. The number of advisors in government shall be reduced by 50% within the public service, effective immediately… (Republic of Kenya, 2024a). [55]

From an Aristotelian standpoint, Ruto effectively employs ethos, pathos, and logos. His authoritative position as President reveals his appeal to ethos, conveying a sense of credibility and responsibility toward the nation. Further, his use of terms like “sympathies and condolences” and repeated references to the loss of lives are part of his emotional appeals (pathos), aimed at fostering a shared sense of grief and unity among Kenyans. The same feeling is communicated through his choice of language and descriptions of events: “the loss of lives, injuries, and damages to public property,” which helps express his sympathy, thereby positioning himself as an empathetic leader amid a crisis. The emotional resonance of this language is echoed in comments from one of the attendees, who reiterates: “Mr. President, I salute you for coming to X, hope to see a better Kenya going forward.” (Excerpt 30). This indicates that some members of the Gen Z audience feel positively about his presence and engagement, suggesting potential alignment with their aspirations for a better future. In the same vein, Ruto’s allegation of attacks on what he calls “our constitutional institutions” constitutes another use of evocative language meant to arouse a sense of collective identity and urgency, encouraging the audience to feel shared responsibility for the prevailing state of affairs. This understanding is further strengthened by his promise to support the affected families: “The government of Kenya will support all those who have lost their lives and those who have been injured,” which appeals to the feelings of Kenyan families who lost relatives during the protests, thereby positioning his government as a caring entity and a “paternal authority figure” (Davy, 2011)  amid a crisis, responsible for matters affecting all Kenyans. His expression of condolences can be seen as an effort to reframe the discourse, shifting the focus from blame toward healing. This aligns with the manipulative aspects of political discourse (Fairclough and Fairclough, 2013). [56]

According to Charteris-Black (2018) [57], logical methods are one of the means of persuasion in public communication. Thus, the listing of various actions above to address Gen Z’s concerns is a rhetorical strategy and an internally persuasive (Bakhtin, 1986) move to influence the youth’s perception of President Ruto as a committed leader focused on finding solutions to their grievances. This understanding is communicated through his use of the proposition “we have committed to implement…” which signals his dedication to finding lasting solutions to issues of concern to the protesting youth. Vlasenko and Naumov (2022) [58] and Marklund (2022) [59] emphasize that commissives, such as promises and offerings, constitute speech acts that help to reassure. Drawing on this insight, the word “committed” in the proposition “we have committed to implement” entails a rhetorical strategy designed to persuade and reassure the angry youth of his government’s commitment to address their grievances. The rhetorical import of his argument emerges from the logical sequencing of what he terms the raft of “austerity measures.” By listing his policy decisions in response to the identified areas of concern for the youth, Ruto can be seen as constructing Gen Z’s demands as a managerial process of “problem-solving” (Fairclough, 2001) [60]; (Aberi, 2016) [61] by demonstrating a willingness to find solutions to established problems (without committing to the solutions requested by Gen Z). This reasoning is based on Chang and Mehan (2008) [62], Reisgil and Wodak (2001) [63], and Kwon et al. (2009) [64], who argue that the listing and sequencing of accumulated evidence of actions or initiatives to enact the government’s intervention to address particular demands is a common argumentation strategy in political discourse, often laden with manipulative intent. This means that Ruto’s sentiments can be argued to constitute a rhetorical strategy, tactfully designed to raise the youth’s comfort level (Davy, 2011) by wooing them to believe that his government is committed to fulfilling its mandate of addressing their concerns, thereby appeasing and diffusing their radical calls for change in the governance of their country.

Similarly, upon arriving on X, Ruto engaged emotional appeals (pathos) by expressing his regret for not addressing the concerns of young people: “I have been listening in various other forums, and now I have the chance to hear from you here.” This proposition was in response to one participant who challenged him to clarify why he appeared disconnected from the youth’s needs and struggles. They thus questioned his lack of empathy as their president:

Mr. President. Surely, mbona huwa unanyamaza (why do you always stay silent) when it gets out of hand alafu unaanza kuongea (then you start to talk?). Za hizi kuna watu wanasika watoto wao tunapoongea (This time, there are people burying their children as we speak) …you are not even sympathetic to the families. Ujamention ata mutu mmoja (you haven’t mentioned even one person) …Surely, Mr. President. Be empathetic. Your government should be empathetic. Rongai people were killed. You haven’t even mentioned a single person… Surely, Mr. President. Be empathetic. Your government should be empathetic.

In his defense, Ruto argued that:

You have talked about empathy. Maybe we empathize in different ways. For the case of the floods, I even convened a whole cabinet meeting to respond to that matter of floods. Three cabinet meetings. My minister was on the ground. I was in Kiamaiko, in person, and for the first time, eh, my brother, for the first time, normally when people are removed from places, they are brutalized. They are removed, and nobody cares about where they go. Nobody cares about what happens to them. For the first time in the history of Kenya, I made sure that every Kenyan who was living in the Liberian reserve was given alternative accommodation. We paid every Kenyan who left that place ten thousand shillings to be able to relocate away from the danger of the floods.

In this excerpt, the phrase “we may empathize in different ways” serves as a rhetorical bridge, acknowledging divergent perceptions of empathy and inviting calibration of understanding between him and the youth who have expressed discontent. In this context, Ruto strategically employs ethos to establish his authority and credibility as a leader who is empathetic and attentive to citizens’ welfare, particularly in response to the floods. This is achieved by mentioning that he convened multiple cabinet meetings and personally visited affected areas, thereby enhancing his image as a hands-on leader who not only takes action when called upon but is also trusted as the head of government. As part of his discursive strategies, Ruto deploys membership categorization strategies of negative other-presentation and positive self-presentation, also known as in-group/us vs. out-group/them discursive strategy (Wodak & Reisigl, 2015) [65]; (Van Dijk, 2005) [66], to enact the distinction between his government and previous administrations, thereby building a positive image of himself as a sensitive and caring leader, unlike past governments portrayed negatively as insensitive and uncaring. Membership categorization strategies involve framing people as social groups by depicting them positively (in-group) while presenting the other group (out-group) negatively by blaming or highlighting their negative aspects (Gokhan, 2024) [67]; (Van Dijk, 2004) [68]; (Van Dijk, 2011). [69] Based on this standpoint, the excerpt “for the first time in the history of Kenya” serves to enact a sense of progressive change in his administration, depicting it positively against a backdrop of historical inaction and neglect by past regimes (out-group). By declaring, “Nobody cares about what happens to them,” the speaker positions himself as empathetic, contrasting with previous unnamed authorities whose lack of care is implied. This rhetorical strategy serves to legitimize his actions while simultaneously undermining potential criticisms. It is in this sense that Ponton (2020) sees political rhetoric as a tool for shaping public perception and mobilizing support through emotional engagement. Worthy of mention at this point is President Ruto’s projection of himself as empathizing with Kenyans in need of help, which is “another strategic rhetorical strategy” (Ajayi & Akinrinlola, 2024). [70] deployed to calm the angry youth. This aligns with Hutchison and Bleiker’s (2024) [71] view that expressing empathy in political discourse is a rhetorical strategy for reconciliation. In this respect, Ajayi and Akinrinlola (2024) define empathy as the ability to understand and share the feelings of others, achieved by putting oneself in the shoes of those experiencing a difficult situation. Thus, one way to “pacify or placate” (Ajayi & Akinrinlola, 2024) the angry youth harboring feelings of discontent towards his government was to demonstrate empathy towards those in distress, particularly the downtrodden and oppressed members of society. However, this linguistic strategy was deployed to appease the angry youth. This is evident in the excerpt above, where Ruto’s expression of empathy is pragmatically imbued with historical and situational issues, knowledge of which is shared among the audience. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of this empathy was questioned by some members of the public: “Do people actually believe all the excuses that Ruto is making for the mess in this system?” This comment challenges the credibility of Ruto’s explanations, suggesting that his attempts to appear empathetic and in control were not universally accepted, thereby reflecting existing skepticism and disbelief in his communication, regardless of its intended persuasive effect.

Along similar lines, and as part of downplaying the perceived disconnect between the youth and his government, Ruto remarked, “I have young people in the house, and I know some of their concerns.” In this respect, the proposition “I know some of their concerns” can be seen as tailored to present him as a family man who is empathetic and understanding. Rhetorically, the extract “I have young people in the house, and I know some of their concerns” aims to portray the speaker as someone with firsthand knowledge and experience regarding the youth’s concerns. This helps to project him as a caring and mindful leader, thereby establishing a personal connection with the youth. It is in this sense that Fairclough (2003) [72] argues that “What is ‘said’ in a text is always said against the background of what is ‘unsaid’ – what is made explicit is always grounded in what is left implicit.” In a similar vein, this state of affairs aligns with Coombs’ (2007) Situational Crisis Communication Theory’s insistence that effective crisis response hinges on a clear understanding of the nature of the crisis, and choosing the right communication strategies to mitigate reputational damage.

Despite Ruto’s efforts to connect, however, a strong sentiment of distrust regarding his truthfulness persisted among some audience members: “Mr. Ruto, you can only lie to old people or Watoto ama wajinga…wajinga waliisha Kenya (Children or fools…the fools are finished in Kenya).” This assertion indicates that part of his audience views his statements with skepticism, suggesting that believing his rhetoric is only effective on those perceived as less discerning. This proposition directly undermines the intended impact of his rhetorical strategies aimed at building trust and resonance with the angry youth.

When tasked by one participant to explain why many of the officers in his government, particularly his “friends and very close associates” (i.e., Members of Parliament associated with him), exhibited arrogance by speaking carelessly and displaying obnoxious opulence in public, such as walking with large sums of money in churches, thereby sabotaging his presidency, Ruto responded first by pledging to make changes in his government and apologized on behalf of all his associates who were faulted or accused by the attendees:

Arrogance, I agree with you that not everybody understands communication. Whether it is the Member of Parliament for Molo… he has made mistakes… I will apologize for him; maybe he said what he shouldn’t have said…but they are among the young people I am mentoring so that they can become leaders tomorrow. Same case with my friend Kimani Ichungwa. In fact, after he made that statement, I think it was in Baringo or somewhere, I called him. I told him, look, this is not how to engage the public. If you follow, the next day he had managed to correct his statement and had done an about-turn of some sort. I also have a duty as a leader in Kenya. I have a duty to mentor other leaders. They may demonstrate some arrogance, either inadvertently or in whatever manner, but partly it is because of inexperience and partly due to a lack of fair understanding of things. Sometimes I would take responsibility because those are members of my team, and I will correct them.

In this extract, Ruto appeals to ethos by acknowledging the faults of his close associates, thus positioning himself as a responsible leader willing to take accountability for the actions of his team. This is further achieved by apologizing on their behalf and taking responsibility for their actions: “I would take responsibility because those are members of my team.” By mentioning that he is mentoring the young leaders in question, Ruto enhances his credibility as a mentor and a caring leader focused on positive change. Following Fairclough and Fairclough’s (2013) concept of political rhetoric and manipulation, Ruto can be seen as manipulating the representation of agency by shifting responsibility away from the officials in question and attributing their actions to “inexperience and lack of fair understanding of things,” rather than deliberate choices. His framing of the situation reveals a deliberate strategy to deflect criticism from himself and his associates, suggesting that while their behavior may be problematic, it stems from a lack of experience rather than malice. By characterizing his associates’ arrogant statements as “mistakes,” he diminishes the seriousness of their actions while simultaneously asserting his authority to amend them, which could be perceived as a manipulative tactic to regain public favor. Similarly, Ruto’s acknowledgment that “maybe” the alleged officers’ arrogance came from their “inexperience” and lack of “fair understanding of things” can be viewed as a linguistic strategy aimed at minimizing the officers’ culpability and softening the impact of their perceived arrogance. In this context, it can be argued that Ruto uses the adverb “maybe” to mitigate and/or “reduce the unwelcome effects” (Vlasyan & Shusharina, 2018) [73] of his associates’ actions and utterances on the youth, thereby minimizing “the possibility of being criticized” (Andriani, 2019) [74] for the same based on his displayed degree of uncertainty about the proposition in question. Therefore, the use of the modality “maybe” entails a hedging strategy, rhetorically designed to elicit agreement from his audience and soften the critique of those opposed to his government. From the Aristotelian notion of pathos and Johnstone’s (1989) concept of presentational strategy/persuasion, Ruto’s apology on behalf of his associates, whose faults he frames as innocent “mistakes” made due to “inexperience” and excitement, exemplifies a pathos-driven approach designed to evoke understanding and forgiveness. In line with Fairclough and Fairclough’s (2013) concept of political discourse as a site of power relations where language is used to shape narratives and manipulate perceptions, Ruto’s framing of the aforementioned officials as “young leaders that he is mentoring” constitutes a central aspect of political rhetoric focused on constructing political realities and managing political risk amid a crisis. This further constructs a narrative of mentorship and development, positioning him as a benevolent leader invested in the future of the country. This strategy coheres with Coombs’ (2007). Situational Crisis Communication Theory, which emphasizes that acknowledging responsibility and expressing remorse may be more effective in navigating moments of crisis. Rhetorically speaking, however, this mode of framing serves to mitigate the political risk associated with the officials’ perceived arrogance by presenting their actions as part of a learning process.

The public response to his cabinet and advisors was a significant factor in how his rhetoric was received:

We must see good things from the president also; no one can be perfect in leadership. If most of us were given that position, we would resign in one day… As much as we are not happy, the President is coming out to listen to us. I think we have a good president surrounded by the wrong cabinet members (Excerpt 1).

This statement suggests a degree of sympathy for President William Ruto, though it places blame on his team, indicating that while his rhetoric might have some positive impact, the actions and perceptions of his cabinet negatively influenced the overall reception of his leadership and communication. The same understanding is demonstrated in the excerpts below, showing that his engagement and rhetoric on X Space, particularly his perceived humility, positively impacted some individuals’ perceptions and willingness to give him a chance in his future political engagements (i.e., by promising their vote):

My thinking is…I am not convinced we have anyone better to be president…not for now…but most of the people around him are incompetent or don’t have the capacity…

But for sure, Mr. President, your humility has changed how I have always viewed you; count my vote next time. I have also noted that it’s your team and friends letting you down.

These reasoning practices align with Crick’s (2025) [75] view that rhetoric is a form of power with some magical/causal force that can seduce, dominate, and control, thereby making “people do the bidding of some will.

Concerning the trending hashtag #RUTOMUSTGO, Ruto downplays the impact of the label by arguing that he wasn’t bothered by the hashtag, as Kenyans have a constitutional right to express their opinions and hold his administration accountable: “Everybody is entitled to their opinion. I have a job to do. Citizens are free to engage in any discourse they want. Those are the fruits and signs of a democracy.” In this context, the proposition “I have a job to do” suggests his political position as president, obliging him to fulfill his responsibilities to the Kenyan people. This indicates that he is in service to the people of Kenya who elected him to his political office, thereby giving him the responsibility and authority to serve them. In effect, this helps establish credibility and a sense of duty.

Moreover, this can be argued to be a diversionary tactic meant to deflect the need to explain his position regarding the hashtag under discussion. Rhetorically speaking, by invoking the term “democracy” in the extract: “Those are the fruits and signs of a democracy,” Ruto attempts to align himself with widely accepted universal democratic principles (ethical appeals). In this sense, ethos invites the audience to grant credibility and trustworthiness to a speaker, conferring some measure of authority based on perceived competence, virtue, and goodwill (McCroskey & Teven, 1999) [76]; (Browning & Hartelius, 2018). [77] Despite Ruto’s framing of the #RUTOMUSTGO hashtag within a democratic context, the underlying sentiment behind the hashtag reflects a strong desire for his removal, indicating that his rhetoric about democracy did not necessarily negate the public’s dissatisfaction and calls for his exit: “Ruto wants to treat people like robots; he has to go.” (Excerpt 19). This statement, echoing the #RUTOMUSTGO sentiment, expresses a perception of Ruto’s leadership style as overly controlling and dismissive, leading to calls for his resignation.
Regarding police brutality, contrary to Gen Z’s claims that police officers were directly responsible for abducting, molesting, and killing demonstrators, Ruto argued and pledged to ensure justice for those affected. This promise could be said to be based on his awareness of the loss of public trust, which he appears set to restore by reassuring the youth about his stance and responsibility to ensure the realization of justice. This becomes clear from the following excerpt from his public/national address ahead of his interactions with the youth on X:

I must now confront an issue of widespread concern regarding the relationship between citizens and the security services in the context of immense threats and intense political dynamism. Numerous allegations have been made concerning the disappearances of people during protests. A good number of alleged disappearances have also turned out to be arrests made by police officers, and in such cases, the suspects have been duly arraigned in court. I must, however, make it very clear that there is no attempt to justify or excuse illegal arrests; such would be serious threats to the life and liberty of citizens. I condemn any excessive or extrajudicial action that puts the life and liberty of any person at risk, including disappearances and threats to life. I am aware that many of the cases that have been raised are being handled by the Independent Police Oversight Authority, an important step in accountability and justice (Republic of Kenya, 2024a).

From an Aristotelian perspective, Ruto employs the three modes of persuasion: ethos, pathos, and logos. Ethos is evident in his authoritative tone and commitment to addressing citizens’ concerns, which builds his credibility. Moreover, by acknowledging the “immense threats and intense political dynamism,” he connects with the audience and establishes rapport, appealing to their emotions (pathos). The invocation of “numerous allegations” regarding disappearances illustrates his engagement with factual discourse (logos), providing a rational basis to discuss the gravity of security issues in relation to citizens’ rights. The term “allegations” adds a layer of nuance; it signals both the existence of claims and a degree of skepticism about their validity, which is crucial in political discourse.

Following Halliday’s (1994) [78] Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) framework, which emphasizes language as a resource for making meaning in social contexts, Ruto’s use of modality in propositions such as “I must now confront” and “I must, however, make it very clear” signals his assertiveness and determination to address complex issues within the socio-political landscape. This reflects a high degree of modality, emphasizing certainty and obligation, which aligns with the SFL focus on how language functions in context to convey meaning. Norman Fairclough’s (2015) approach emphasizes the relationship between discourse and power dynamics, where language acts as a medium through which social and political relationships are constructed. Based on this understanding, Ruto’s condemnation of “any excessive or extrajudicial action” positions his government as a facilitator of justice rather than a perpetrator of rights abuses, thus attempting to reshape the public perception of state security forces. This aligns with Ponton’s (2020) exploration of political rhetoric, where the motive is not only to communicate information but also to influence public sentiment and reinforce governmental legitimacy. In acknowledging that many “cases that have been raised are being handled by the Independent Police Oversight Authority,” Ruto employs an intertextual reference that underscores the mechanisms in place for accountability. In doing so, he seeks to reassure the youth about active measures being taken to address their concerns, positioning himself as an advocate for justice while subtly shifting responsibility to another institution, reflecting political maneuvering typical of contemporary rhetoric (Republic of Kenya, 2024b). [79] However, his condemnation of police actions and his reference to IPOA were not enough to satisfy some members of the Gen Z audience, who felt that he should have been more direct in condemning the police: “Ruto must come out and condemn the police for killing Kenyans if he really means to listen. Mr. President is so patient with the people around him.” (Excerpt 7). Based on this comment, it is arguable that some segments of his audience perceived his response on police brutality as insufficient, hence their demand for a more explicit condemnation of police actions. This suggests that his rhetorical strategy of condemning “excessive or extrajudicial action” while referencing IPOA did not fully resonate with those demanding a stronger stance against ongoing police brutality.

More interesting in this interaction is Ruto’s strategic use of “thanking as a rhetorical strategy” (Ajayi, 2022); (Ajayi & Akinrinlola, 2024) [80], probably to placate and appease the angry youth and as a means of striking a chord of peace with them. David (2020) [81] defines thanking as an expression of gratitude. In this context, Ruto’s use of thanksgiving as a rhetorical strategy is evidenced when responding to allegations of police brutality and corruption in his government: “Thank you very much, my friend. I regret your situation… Thank you very much. Alai has mentioned three things…” Another example of his use of thanksgiving to enhance his interpersonal relations (pathos) with the youth is witnessed in his “closing prayer” and final remarks at the end of his conversation with the youth on X:

Thank you, heavenly father, for the feedback that we have received from these great Kenyans on the issues that affect our country… I pray for the peace of Kenya… In Jesus’ name, I pray. Amen. Thank you very much, guys. God bless you. Thank you very much. Asante sana.

Based on the examples above, among many more, it suffices to argue that Ruto’s linguistic practices involve the strategic use of the formulaic expression “Thank you very much,” both to express his gratitude/appreciation to his audience and as a means of placating and appeasing them. Moreover, the invocation of “heavenly father” (God) and “Jesus Christ” through his prayer can be argued to aim at portraying the speaker as a man of faith (Ajayi & Akinrinlola, 2024: 12) and God’s ability to provide guidance and the wisdom needed to achieve one’s goals. It is worth mentioning that Ruto strategically evokes the shared situational knowledge of Kenyans being largely religious as a rhetorical strategy to persuade the aggrieved youth that, with God’s guidance and power, he will be able to address their grievances. In this context, however, although his religious rhetoric has the potential to resonate with a largely religious audience, it was met with cynicism by other members of his audience: “We should pray for our leaders. I pray for our president to have more wisdom and more grace for him. He is trying.” (Excerpt 10). This respondent’s positive acceptance of Ruto’s religious rhetoric without questioning its persuasive intent explains why Chomsky (2000) [82] insists that “Nobody is going to pour truth into your brain. It is something you have to find out for yourself.” In this respect, while this comment expresses support and a positive interpretation of Ruto’s efforts through a religious lens (i.e., suggesting that for some, his appeals to faith and his perceived “trying” were indeed resonant), a contrasting view highlights the perceived lack of faith in his communication, regardless of the rhetorical tools used: “Lie after lie!! If any of you guys believed this guy, you’re doomed.” (Excerpt 16). This rejection of Ruto’s statements as “lie after lie” demonstrates that for some, his rhetoric, including religious appeals or expressions of gratitude, was not seen as genuine and therefore failed to resonate with or positively influence their perceptions. Additionally, Ruto’s utterances are replete with repetition as a rhetorical device. He utilizes repetition as part of his persuasive techniques to enhance the process of perceiving his messages and draw the audience’s attention. This feature is particularly evident in the following excerpt, part of which has been discussed above:

And, for the first time, my friend, for the first time… For the first time in the history of Kenya, I made sure that every Kenyan who was living in the Liberian reserve was given money for alternative accommodation.

In this case, the speaker uses repetition as a device to manipulate his audience and create an “ideology” that his government, unlike past governments, is caring and sympathetic, thereby convincing them of “its credibility” (David, 2014). [83] This aligns with David (2014), who posits that repeating particular phrases serves both to make the key ideas in a speech sound like common sense to the listeners/public and to help woo them to accept the ideas and perspectives of the speaker/politician. In his words: “Repetition is one of the most effective rhetorical tools to activate the mental schemata. Manipulating these schemata creates an ‘ideology’ and persuades the public to willingly accept it as their own.”

Another example of repetition can be seen in his statement of prayer mentioned above, delivered at the closing of his interactions with the youth on X Space. This was likely intended to impress them and present himself as a religious leader who is also part of a largely religious and God-fearing society:

Thank you, heavenly father, for the feedback that we have received from these great Kenyans on the issues that affect our country: the employment issues, the tax issues, the debt issues, the issues around our healthcare, and many other issues.

A key feature in these excerpts is the speaker’s use of three-part lists and repetition to augment this argument; (Ebshaina, 2019) [84]; (Kazemi, 2021) [85]; (Harutyunyan, 2022). [86] Rhetorically, the framing of his statements, specifically the repetition and rhythm created by listing the aforementioned issues, helps to stress and render his message more soothing and memorable. David defines the “three-part list/sequence” as a particular way of repetition, in which “new ideas or information is presented in three parts, with the first part serving to initiate an argument, the second part emphasizing or responding to the first, and the third part reinforcing the first two,” signaling to the audience that the argument is complete and prompting applause. This is evident in the extract “the employment issues, the tax issues, the debt issues, the issues around our healthcare, and many other issues,” where the speaker uses the three-part sequence as a rhetorical tool to attract the attention of his audience and activate their mental schemata toward embracing his ideological standpoint as their own.

In tandem with Charteris-Black (2018), President Ruto’s statement of prayer involves a deliberate rhetorical strategy to foster trust, build consensus with the youth, and seek forgiveness for his government’s perceived failures. This is realized when he begins his prayer by expressing gratitude to the “heavenly father” for the feedback he claims to have received from the youth, whom he terms “these great Kenyans.” This opening is a double-edged sword meant to establish a tone of humility and signal an acknowledgment of the citizens’ voices, which is crucial for building rapport. Ruto’s acknowledgment of “feedback from these great Kenyans” positions him as someone who listens and responds to the people’s needs, a leader who is approachable and relatable.

According to Charteris-Black (2018, p. xviii), fluency in public communication involves skillful language use and the ability to convey ideas effectively. In this context, Ruto’s choice of words and his recognition of specific issues, i.e., “employment issues, tax issues, debt issues, and issues around our healthcare,” demonstrate his fluency and understanding of the pressing concerns facing his audience. The enumeration of issues functions as a rhetorical device aimed at showcasing the wide range of concerns under his leadership, which are also shared by all Kenyans. Moreover, the listing of issues helps create a sense of common struggle, inviting the angry youth to see their President as attentive and responsive to their daily realities.

Charteris-Black emphasizes that fluency is essential for establishing credibility, as it shows that the speaker is well-informed and engaged with the realities of his or her constituents. Similarly, Charteris-Black posits that authenticity (which involves speaking from the heart and having good intentions) plays a significant role in political rhetoric (Charteris-Black, 2018: p. xviii). In this respect, Ruto’s spontaneous expression of ‘thanks’ and gratitude for the youth’s feedback reflects an authentic engagement with them, suggesting that he genuinely values their input. This departure from a scripted message enables Ruto to establish reliable interpersonal relations with the audience and convey a sense of sincerity that could resonate deeply with the youth, who were feeling disillusioned and frustrated by the alleged actions of his government.

Re-examining President Ruto’s prayer through the lenses of Dowden (2010) [87], Ponton (2020), and Fairclough and Fairclough (2013) reveals strategic political and rhetorical techniques aimed at legitimizing authority and persuading the angry youth. From Dowden and Ponton’s perspectives, religious invocation typically serves to embed moral legitimacy within political discourse. By beginning his prayer with “Thank you, heavenly father,” Ruto seeks to align his leadership with divine authority, imagining his role as divinely sanctioned. Dowden (2010) emphasizes that such invocation acts as a performative act that elevates the leader’s moral standing by linking his message to shared spiritual values, thereby mobilizing moral support and trust. Nonetheless, from Fairclough and Fairclough’s (2013)   view of discourse/language use as a social practice that maintains or challenges power structures, Ruto’s use of religious language and emphasis on common issues affecting the youth communicates the idea that his political leadership is linked with morality and spirituality, thereby legitimizing his leadership position. His invocation of prayer, described as “a restrained mode of speech” (Dowden, 2010), is not just a religious act but also a way of shaping how the youth ought to perceive leadership as a spiritual calling and civic duty (Fairclough & Fairclough, 2013), something they should accept and respect without questioning

Taken together with the collective issues mentioned above, Ruto’s prayer can be said to be tailored to build trust and consensus among the youth, which are essential for securing their forgiveness for past grievances. Moreover, the act of addressing these issues publicly implies a commitment to taking action, reinforcing the idea that he is not merely seeking to placate the audience but is genuinely invested in their welfare.

Conclusion and Implications

The study reveals that President William Ruto employed a variety of rhetorical strategies during his engagement with Gen Z, including the use of Aristotelian appeals, ethos, pathos, and logos, to establish credibility, express empathy, and present logical arguments. His emotional appeals and empathetic language were aimed at fostering a sense of collective identity and reassuring the angry youth of his government’s commitment to addressing their concerns.

More significantly, it was noted that while some members of the Gen Z audience responded positively to his engagement, expressing alignment with his vision for the future, a significant portion remained skeptical, questioning the sincerity of his rhetoric and perceiving a disconnect between his words and their lived experiences. This was particularly evident in the context of police brutality, where the youths called for firmer action from him as president.

From the foregoing discussion, this study concludes that while Ruto’s personal rhetorical efforts, such as perceived humility, garnered some positive individual responses and even promises of future electoral support, the actions and public perception of his cabinet and associates negatively influenced the overall reception of his leadership and communication. As such, while some strategies appeared effective in connecting with parts of the audience and reframing the discourse, they did not universally negate the underlying dissatisfaction and calls for change, indicating the complex and often contradictory nature of political rhetoric’s impact in a time of crisis. These findings suggest that while President Ruto employed diverse rhetorical strategies, including appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos, strategic membership categorization, apologies, and religious references, to navigate the Gen-Z crisis on X, their effectiveness was limited by pre-existing skepticism and a perceived disconnect between his rhetoric and the realities faced by Kenyan youth. This has significant implications for this study as it highlights the challenge of persuasive communication in a digital age where authenticity and tangible action are highly valued, and suggests that political leaders ought to go beyond symbolic gestures and address the root causes of distrust to effectively engage with younger generations.  In other words, political leaders have actually to confront why there is little trust in their systems of government, persuasion, and power.

 

References and Notes

[1] Khaemba, E. (2024). Framing Gen Z protests against the 2024 Finance Bill in Kenya: A linguistic assessment of TikTok. Social Science Research Council (SSRC).

[2] Twinomurinzi, H. (2024). From tweets to streets: How Kenya’s Generation Z (Gen Z) is redefining political and digital activism. African Conference on Information Systems and Technology, 13(1–6).

[3] Omweri, F. S. (2024). Youth-led policy advocacy in Africa: A qualitative analysis of Generation Z’s mobilization efforts against fiscal legislation in Kenya and its implications for democratic governance in the continent. International Journal of Innovative Scientific Research, 2(3), 1–22.

[4] Karanja, J. M. (2022). ‘Hustlers versus Dynasties’: Contemporary political rhetoric in Kenya. SN Social Sciences, 2(10), 230.

[5] Nyamweya, M. (2024). Kenya’s Gen Z protests and the power of digital activism. DIA.

[6] Ogutu, B., & Garcia, F. (2024, August 31). From a hashtag to a movement: The role of online information ecosystems in driving citizen engagement. Busara. Accessed May 20, 2025. https://busara.global/blog/from-a-hashtag-to-a-movement/. Retrieved on 01.04.2025.

[7] Amnesty International. (2024). Kenya 2024. Amnesty International.

[8] Human Rights Watch. (2024). World Report 2024. Human Rights Watch.

[9] Gachuki, M. (2024). Kenya’s protests herald a new age of anti-austerity youth politics. Global Labour Journal, 15(3).

[10] Israrud-Din, A. (2024). Empowering women in politics: Strategies for achieving equal participation. Harf-o-Sukhan, 8(1), 797–809.

[11] Githui, F. K. (2024). Impact of Generation Z on the landscape of Kenya politics. Special Education, 1(43), 1–16.

[12] Otieno, B. (2025, January 19). Ruto struggles to win over digital Gen Z amid revolt on social media. https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/politics/article/2001509888/ruto-struggles-to-win-over-digital-gen-z-amid-revolt-on-social-media. Retrieved on 01.04.2025.

[13] Miring’u, W. P. (2020). The persuasive devices in William Ruto’s political speeches: A relevance theoretic approach. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Nairobi.

[14] Aristotle, & Kennedy, G. A. (1991). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse. Oxford University Press.

[15] Aristotle. (2007). Rhetoric (W. Rhys Roberts, Trans.). Dover Publications.

[16] Zachry, M. (2009). Approaches and methodologies. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini (Eds.), The handbook of business discourse (pp. 69–79). Edinburgh University Press Ltd.

[17] Charteris-Black, J. (2018). Analysing political speeches: Rhetoric, discourse and metaphor. Palgrave.

[18] Duncombe, C. (2019). The politics of Twitter: Emotions and the power of social media. International Political Sociology, 13(4), 409–429.

[19] Butkowski, C. P. (2022). The everyday politics of extraordinary events: Unraveling identity and social media amid historic political moments.

[20] Okonkwo, C., Yusuf, A., & Banjo, K. (2024). The role of Twitter in shaping public opinion during election periods in Nigeria. Journal of Linguistics and Communication Studies, 3(1), 100–105.

[21] Aristotle, & Kennedy, G. A. (1991). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse. Oxford University Press, 36.

[22] Christensen, A. K., & Hasle, P. F. (2007). Classical rhetoric and a limit to persuasion. In Persuasive Technology: Second International Conference on Persuasive Technology, Persuasive 2007 (pp. 307–310). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[23] Ting, S. H. (2018). Ethos, logos, and pathos in university students’ informal requests. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 18(1).

[24] Ponton, D. M. (2020). Understanding political persuasion: Linguistic and rhetorical analysis. Vernon Press.

[25] Di-Carlo, G. S. (2014). Ethos in TED talks: The role of credibility in popularised texts. FACTA UNIVERSITATIS-Linguistics and Literature, 12(2), 81–91.

[26] Burke, K. (1969). A rhetoric of motives. University of California Press.

[27] Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press.

[28] Johnstone, B. (1989). Linguistic strategies and cultural styles for persuasive discourse. Language, Communication, and Culture: Current Directions, 139–156.

[29] Tang, K. L., Sharmini, S., & Yahya, Y. (2023). Persuasive techniques in Okonjo-Iweala’s speech: A study of quasilogical, presentational, and analogical strategies. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 23(2).

[30] Chadwick, A. (2017). The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Oxford University Press.

[31] Parmelee, J. H., & Bichard, S. L. (2011). Politics and the Twitter revolution: How tweets influence the relationship between political leaders and the public. Lexington Books.

[32] Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236.

[33] Sahly, A., Shao, C., & Kwon, K. H. (2019). Social media for political campaigns: An examination of Trump’s and Clinton’s frame building and its effect on audience engagement. Social Media + Society, 5(2), 2056305119855141.

[34] Bouknight, J. D. (2021). Political persuasion and use of humor on social media: The case of Turkish youth. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Review, 7(1), 24–40.

[35] Venus, A., Intyaswati, D., Ayuningtyas, F., & Fairuzza, M. T. (2024). Political Persuasion Through Social Media. Komunikator, 16(1), 42–52.

[36] Salih, A. M. F. Z. (2024). The persuasive language strategies and techniques in political discourse: Differences and similarities between the United States of America and the Middle East region in the language of political speeches. Al-Mansour Journal, 1(1), 236–262.

[37] Asante, J. (2020). African Politics in the Digital Age: A Study of Political Party-Social Media Campaign Strategies in Ghana. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Westminster).

[38] John, G., & Ibe, U. E. (2020). Social media and political mobilization: A study of electorate’s preparation for 2019 presidential election in Cross River State. International Journal of Advanced Mass Communication and Journalism 2020; 1(1): 23–32. 7(1), 24–40.

[39] Nwozor, A., Ajakaiye, O. O., Okidu, O., Olanrewaju, A., & Afolabi, O. (2022). Social media in politics: Interrogating electorate-driven hate speech in Nigeria’s 2019 presidential campaigns. JeDEM-eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 14(1), 104–129.

[40] Jonyo, S. (2012). Politics of identity and ideology, political oratory of Raila Odinga and manifesto of Orange Democratic Movement. Unpublished MA Thesis, University of Nairobi.

[41] Michira, J. N. (2014). The language of politics: A CDA of the 2013 Kenyan presidential campaign discourse. International Journal of Education and Research, 2(1), 1–18.

[42] Omollo, P. (2017). Rhetorical devices and form on oral literature in the speeches of Raila Odinga. University of Nairobi, Kenya.

[43] Abboud, E., Ajwang, F., & Lugano, G. (2024). Social media and politics as usual? Exploring the role of social media in the 2022 Kenyan presidential election. Journal of Eastern African Studies, 18(2), 321–343.

[44] Nyambura, E. (2024, December 3). How social media and AI are shaping the future of elections, Kalonzo explains. The Standard.

[45] Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), 163–176.

[46] Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.

[47] Tolmie, D. F. (2004). A rhetorical analysis of the letter to the Galatians (Doctoral Dissertation.) University of the Free State.

[48] Foss, S. K. (2017). Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice. Waveland Press.

[49] Fairclough, N. (2015). Language and power (3rd ed.). Routledge.

[50] Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate: The essential guide for progressives. White River Junction/Chelsea Green.

[51] Rouse, E. D., & Harrison, S. H. (2015). Triangulate and expand: Using multiple sources of data for convergence and expansion to enrich inductive theorizing. In C. Kyprianou, M. E. (Eds.).

[52] Natow, R. S. (2020). The use of triangulation in qualitative studies employing elite interviews. Qualitative Research, 20(2), 160–173.

[53] Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (2001). Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 5(11), 121–138.

Fairclough, N. (2015). Language and power (3rd ed.). Routledge.

[54] Davy, D. (2011). Selling strong medicine: The rhetoric of Ontario’s harmonized sales tax. Paper presented at Professional Communication Conference (IPCC), October 17-19, 2011, Cincinnati, OH, USA.

[55] Republic of Kenya. (2024a, May 18). President William Ruto addresses the nation ahead of his X Space conversation with the Gen Z [Video]. Easylife Global Media. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqtXLgDJE1Q. Retrieved on 10.02.2025.

[56] Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2013). Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. Routledge.

[57] Charteris-Black, J. (2018). Analysing political speeches: Rhetoric, discourse and metaphor. Palgrave.

[58] Vlasenko, N. I., & Naumov, E. V. (2022). Functioning of the speech act commissive in various situations. Russian Linguistic Bulletin, 1(29), 16–18.

[59] Marklund, E. (2022). Promises, promises Mr. President: A study of commissive speech act usage in 21st century American presidential inaugural addresses. Stockholms universitety.

[60] Fairclough, N. (2001). Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 5(11), 121–138.

[61] Aberi, G. (2016). Intertextuality in Kenyan policy discourse on the rights of women. (Doctoral Dissertation, Open Access Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington), : 83.

[62] Chang, G. C., & Mehan, H. B. (2008). Why we must attack Iraq: Bush’s reasoning practices and argumentation system. Discourse and Society, 19(4), 453–482.

[63] Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism. London, UK: Routledge.

[64] Kwon, W., Clarke, I., & Wodak, R. (2009). Organizational decision-making, discourse, and power: Integrating across contexts and scales. Discourse & Communication, 3(3), 273–302.

[65] Wodak, R., & Reisigl, M. (2015). Discourse and racism. In D. Tannen, H. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 576–596). Wiley Blackwell.

[66] Van Dijk, T. A. (2005). Discourse and racism in Spain and Latin America. Amsterdam: Benjamins,

[67] Gokhan, M. (2024). An analysis of discursive strategies in political discourse: The case of Russian–Ukrainian war. Nova Dil Dergisi, 1(1), 50.

[68] Van Dijk, T. A. (2004). Discourse, knowledge and ideology. In Communicating ideologies: Multidisciplinary perspectives on language, discourse and social practice (pp. 5–38). Routledge.

[69] Van Dijk, T. A. (2011). Discourse, knowledge, power and politics: Towards critical epistemic discourse analysis. In Critical discourse studies in context and cognition (pp. 27–64). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

[70] Ajayi, T. M. (2022). Discursive-manipulative strategies in scam emails and SMS: The Nigerian perspective. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 18(1), 175–195.

[71] Hutchison, E., & Bleiker, R. (2024). Emotions, reconciliation and peacebuilding. In Routledge Handbook of Peacebuilding (pp. 201–211). Routledge.

[72] Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Routledge, 17.

[73] Vlasyan, G. R., & Shusharina, V. A. (2018). Hedging as a mitigation mechanism in political interviews. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 746.

[74] Andriani, F. (2019). Hedging as a rhetorical strategy in political discourse. Journal of English Teaching, Literature, and Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 36.

[75] Crick, N. (2025). Prolegomena to future inquiry into rhetoric and power. In N. Crick (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Rhetoric and Power, Routledge, 1.

[76] McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communications Monographs, 66(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/03637759909376464.

[77] Browning, L. D., & Hartelius, E. J. (2018). Rhetorical analysis in management and organizational research, 2007–2017. In Q. Ihlen & R. Heath (Eds.), The handbook of organizational rhetoric and communication (pp. 81–93). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

[78] Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). Edward Arnold.

[79] Republic of Kenya, 2024b). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqtXLgDJE1Q. Retrieved on 01.05.2025.

[80] Ajayi, T. M. (2022). Discursive-manipulative strategies in scam emails and SMS: The Nigerian perspective. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 18(1), 175–195.

Ajayi, T. M., & Akinrinlola, T. (2024). ‘You might be my opponent, you were never my enemy’: Tracking rhetorical strategies in Nigerian President-elect Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s acceptance speech. Language, Text, Society, 11(2).

[81] David, S. (2020). Thanking strategies in the Filmfare and Academy Award acceptance speeches (Master’s thesis, University of Malaya, Malaysia).

[82] Chomsky, N. (2000). Propaganda and indoctrination. ZNe, 1. https://chomsky.info/20001210. Retrieved on 01.04.2025.

[83] David, M. K. (2014). Language, power, and manipulation: The use of rhetoric in maintaining political influence. Frontiers of Language and Teaching, 5(1), 167.

[84] Ebshaina, A. (2019). Investigating a three-part sequence in classroom interaction: A case study of pre-sessional program (PSP) as English for Academic Purposes (EAP). Doctoral Dissertation. University of Huddersfield).

[85] Kazemi, F. (2021). A comparative study of political rhetoric in the speeches of presidents of Iran and USA. Language Related Research, 12(4), 597–626.

[86] Harutyunyan, K. (2022). Award acceptance speeches: Linguostylistic features. Armenian Folia Anglistika, 18(1), 38–52.

[87] Dowden, K. (2010). Rhetoric and religion. In I. Worthington (Ed.), A companion to Greek rhetoric (pp. 320–335). Blackwell Publishing Limited.

 

Bibliography

Abboud, E., Ajwang, F., & Lugano, G. (2024). Social media and politics as usual? Exploring the role of social media in the 2022 Kenyan presidential election. Journal of Eastern African Studies, 18(2), 321–343.

Aberi, G. (2016). Intertextuality in Kenyan policy discourse on the rights of women. (Doctoral Dissertation). Open Access Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington.

Andriani, F. (2019). Hedging as a rhetorical strategy in political discourse. Journal of English Teaching, Literature, and Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 29–41.

Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236.

Ajayi, T. M. (2022). Discursive-manipulative strategies in scam emails and SMS: The Nigerian perspective. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 18(1), 175–195.

Ajayi, T. M., & Akinrinlola, T. (2024). ‘You might be my opponent, you were never my enemy’: Tracking rhetorical strategies in Nigerian President-elect Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s acceptance speech. Language, Text, Society, 11(2).

Amnesty International. (2024). Kenya 2024. Amnesty International. Aristotle, & Kennedy, G. A. (1991). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse. Oxford University Press.

Aristotle. (2007). Rhetoric (W. Rhys Roberts, Trans.). Dover Publications.

Asante, J. (2020). African Politics in the Digital Age: A Study of Political Party-Social
Media Campaign Strategies in Ghana. (Doctoral dissertation). University of
Westminster).

Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. University of Texas Press.
Bouknight, J. D. (2021). Political persuasion and use of humor on social media: The case of Turkish youth. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Review, 7(1), 24–40.

Burke, K. (1969). A rhetoric of motives. University of California Press.

Browning, L. D., & Hartelius, E. J. (2018). Rhetorical analysis in management and organizational research, 2007–2017. In Q. Ihlen & R. Heath (Eds.), The handbook of organizational rhetoric and communication (pp. 81–93). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Butkowski, C. P. (2022). The everyday politics of extraordinary events: Unraveling identity and social media amid historic political moments.

David, M. K. (2014). Language, power, and manipulation: The use of rhetoric in maintaining political influence. Frontiers of Language and Teaching, 5(1), 164–170.
David, S. (2020). Thanking strategies in the Filmfare and Academy Award acceptance speeches (Master’s thesis, University of Malaya, Malaysia).

Davy, D. (2011). Selling strong medicine: The rhetoric of Ontario’s harmonized sales tax. Paper presented at Professional Communication Conference (IPCC), October 17–19, 2011, Cincinnati, OH, USA.

Di-Carlo, G. S. (2014). Ethos in TED talks: The role of credibility in popularised texts. FACTA UNIVERSITATIS-Linguistics and Literature, 12(2), 81–91.

Dowden, K. (2010). Rhetoric and religion. In I. Worthington (Ed.), A companion to Greek rhetoric (pp. 320–335). Blackwell Publishing Limited.

Duncombe, C. (2019). The politics of Twitter: Emotions and the power of social media. International Political Sociology, 13(4), 409–429.

Chadwick, A. (2017). The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Oxford University Press.

Charteris-Black, J. (2018). Analysing political speeches: Rhetoric, discourse and metaphor. Palgrave.

Chomsky, N. (2000). Propaganda and indoctrination. ZNet.

David, S. (2020). Thanking strategies in the Filmfare and Academy Award acceptance speeches (Master’s thesis, University of Malaya, Malaysia).

Chang, G. C., & Mehan, H. B. (2008). Why we must attack Iraq: Bush’s reasoning practices and argumentation system. Discourse and Society, 19(4), 453–482.

Christensen, A. K., & Hasle, P. F. (2007). Classical rhetoric and a limit to persuasion. In Persuasive Technology: Second International Conference on Persuasive Technology, Persuasive 2007 (pp. 307–310). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate
Reputation Review, 10(3), 163–176.

Crick, N. (2025). Prolegomena to future inquiry into rhetoric and power. In N. Crick (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Rhetoric and Power (pp. 1–10). Routledge.

Ebshaina, A. (2019). Investigating a three-part sequence in classroom interaction: A case study of pre-sessional program (PSP) as English for Academic Purposes (EAP). Doctoral Dissertation. University of Huddersfield).

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press.

Fairclough, N. (2001). Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 5(11), 121–138.

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Routledge.

Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2013). Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. Routledge.

Fairclough, N. (2015). Language and power (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Foss, S. K. (2017). Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice. Waveland Press.

Gachuki, M. (2024). Kenya’s protests herald a new age of anti-austerity youth politics. Global Labour Journal, 15(3).

Githui, F. K. (2024). Impact of Generation Z on the landscape of Kenya politics. Special Education, 1(43), 1–16.

Gokhan, M. (2024). An analysis of discursive strategies in political discourse: The case of Russian–Ukrainian war. Nova Dil Dergisi, 1(1), 47–57.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). Edward Arnold.

Harutyunyan, K. (2022). Award acceptance speeches: Linguostylistic features. Armenian Folia Anglistika, 18(1), 38–52.

Human Rights Watch. (2024). World Report 2024. Human Rights Watch.

Hutchison, E., & Bleiker, R. (2024). Emotions, reconciliation and peacebuilding. In Routledge Handbook of Peacebuilding (pp. 201–211). Routledge.

Johnstone, B. (1989). Linguistic strategies and cultural styles for persuasive discourse. Language, Communication, and Culture: Current Directions, 139–156.

John, G., & Ibe, U. E. (2020). Social media and political mobilization: A study of electorate’s preparation for 2019 presidential election in Cross River State. International Journal of Advanced Mass Communication and Journalism 2020; 1(1): 23–32.

Jonyo, S. (2012). Politics of identity and ideology, political oratory of Raila Odinga and manifesto of Orange Democratic Movement. Unpublished MA Thesis, University of Nairobi.

Israrud-Din, A. (2024). Empowering women in politics: Strategies for achieving equal participation. Harf-o-Sukhan, 8(1), 797–809.

Khaemba, E. (2024). Framing Gen Z protests against the 2024 Finance Bill in Kenya: A linguistic assessment of TikTok. Social Science Research Council (SSRC).

Karanja, J. M. (2022). ‘Hustlers versus Dynasties’: Contemporary political rhetoric in Kenya. SN Social Sciences, 2(10), 230.

Kazemi, F. (2021). A comparative study of political rhetoric in the speeches of presidents of Iran and USA. Language Related Research, 12(4), 597–626.

Kwon, W., Clarke, I., & Wodak, R. (2009). Organizational decision-making, discourse, and power: Integrating across contexts and scales. Discourse & Communication, 3(3), 273–302.

Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate:
The essential guide for progressives. White River Junction/Chelsea Green.

Marklund, E. (2022). Promises, promises Mr. President: A study of commissive speech act usage in 21st century American presidential inaugural addresses. Stockholms universitety.

McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communications Monographs, 66(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/03637759909376464.

Michira, J. N. (2014). The language of politics: A CDA of the 2013 Kenyan presidential campaign discourse. International Journal of Education and Research, 2(1), 1–18.

Miring’u, W. P. (2020). The persuasive devices in William Ruto’s political speeches: A relevance theoretic approach. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Nairobi.

Natow, R. S. (2020). The use of triangulation in qualitative studies employing elite interviews. Qualitative Research, 20(2), 160–173.

Nyambura, E. (2024, December 3). How social media and AI are shaping the future of elections, Kalonzo explains. The Standard.

Nyamweya, M. (2024). Kenya’s Gen Z protests and the power of digital activism. DIA.

Nwozor, A., Ajakaiye, O. O., Okidu, O., Olanrewaju, A., & Afolabi, O. (2022). Social media in politics: Interrogating electorate-driven hate speech in Nigeria’s 2019 presidential campaigns. JeDEM-eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 14(1), 104–129.

Ogutu, B., & Garcia, F. (2024, August 31). From a hashtag to a movement: The role of
online information ecosystems in driving citizen engagement. Busara. Accessed May 20, 2025. https://busara.global/blog/from-a-hashtag-to-a-movement/. Retrieved on 01.04.2025.

Okonkwo, C., Yusuf, A., & Banjo, K. (2024). The role of Twitter in shaping public opinion during election periods in Nigeria. Journal of Linguistics and Communication Studies, 3(1), 100–105.

Omollo, P. (2017). Rhetorical devices and form on oral literature in the speeches of Raila Odinga. University of Nairobi, Kenya.

Omweri, F. S. (2024). Youth-led policy advocacy in Africa: A qualitative analysis of Generation Z’s mobilization efforts against fiscal legislation in Kenya and its implications for democratic governance in the continent. International Journal of Innovative Scientific Research, 2(3), 1–22.

Otieno, B. (2025, January 19). Ruto struggles to win over digital Gen Z amid revolt on social media. https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/politics/article/2001509888/ruto-struggles-to-win-over-digital-gen-z-amid-revolt-on-social-media. Retrieved on 01.04.2025.

Parmelee, J. H., & Bichard, S. L. (2011). Politics and the Twitter revolution: How tweets influence the relationship between political leaders and the public. Lexington Books.

Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press.

Ponton, D. M. (2020). Understanding political persuasion: Linguistic and rhetorical analysis. Vernon Press.

Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism. London, UK: Routledge.

Republic of Kenya. (2024a, May 18). President William Ruto addresses the nation ahead of his X Space conversation with the Gen Z [Video]. Easylife Global Media. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqtXLgDJE1Q. Retrieved on 10.02.2025.

Rouse, E. D., & Harrison, S. H. (2015). Triangulate and expand: Using multiple sources of data for convergence and expansion to enrich inductive theorizing. In C. Kyprianou, M. E. (Eds.).

Ting, S. H. (2018). Ethos, logos, and pathos in university students’ informal requests. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 18(1).

Twinomurinzi, H. (2024). From tweets to streets: How Kenya’s Generation Z (Gen Z) is redefining political and digital activism. African Conference on Information Systems and Technology, 13(1–6).

Sahly, A., Shao, C., & Kwon, K. H. (2019). Social media for political campaigns: An examination of Trump’s and Clinton’s frame building and its effect on audience engagement. Social Media + Society, 5(2), 2056305119855141.

Salih, A. M. F. Z. (2024). The persuasive language strategies and techniques in political discourse: Differences and similarities between the United States of America and the Middle East region in the language of political speeches. Al-Mansour Journal, 1(1), 236–262.

Tolmie, D. F. (2004). A rhetorical analysis of the letter to the Galatians (Doctoral Dissertation, University of the Free State).

Van Dijk, T. A. (2004). Discourse, knowledge and ideology. In Communicating ideologies: Multidisciplinary perspectives on language, discourse and social practice (pp. 5–38). Routledge.

Van Dijk, T. A. (2005). Discourse and racism in Spain and Latin America. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Van Dijk, T. A. (2011). Discourse, knowledge, power and politics: Towards critical epistemic discourse analysis. In Critical discourse studies in context and cognition (pp. 27–64). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Vlasenko, N. I., & Naumov, E. V. (2022).

Venus, A., Intyaswati, D., Ayuningtyas, F., & Fairuzza, M. T. (2024). Political Persuasion Through Social Media. Komunikator, 16(1), 42–52.

Vlasyan, G. R., & Shusharina, V. A. (2018). Hedging as a mitigation mechanism in political interviews. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences.Functioning of the speech act commissive in various situations. Russian Linguistic Bulletin, 1(29), 16–18.

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.

Wodak, R., & Reisigl, M. (2015). Discourse and racism. In D. Tannen, H. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 576–596). Wiley Blackwell.

Zachry, M. (2009). Approaches and methodologies. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini (Eds.), The handbook of business discourse (pp. 69–79). Edinburgh University Press Ltd.

Acknowledgments and Declaration of Conflicts of Interest and Financial Support: There are no potential conflicts of interest related to this study, its authorship, or its publication. Notice also that no funding was received for the research, authorship, or publication of this article.

 

George Ezekiel Aberi is a lecturer and the former Chair of the Department of Languages, Linguistics and Literature at Kisii University, Kenya. He holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, where he researched the intertextuality and recontextualisation of the normative discourse of gender equality in Kenya’s policy discourse of women’s rights. His research interests include, but are not limited to, how discourse relates to language, communication, and culture; gender and sexuality; climate change and human health; language.

Manuscript was submitted: 21.05.2025.

Double Blind Peer Reviews: from 22.05.2025 till 26.06.2025.

Accepted: 27.06.2025.

Брой 64 на сп. „Реторика и комуникации“ (юли 2025 г.) се издава с финансовата помощ на Фонд научни изследвания, договор № КП-06-НП6/48 от 04 декември 2024 г.

Issue 64 of the Rhetoric and Communications Journal (July 2025) is published with the financial support of the Scientific Research Fund, Contract No. KP-06-NP6/48 of December 04, 2024.