Remorselessapology:AnalysingapoliticalletterJosephKimogaMakerereUniver - PDF document

Remorselessapology:AnalysingapoliticalletterJosephKimogaMakerereUniversity,SchoolofEducation,EastAfricanInstituteofHigherEducationStudies&Development,Uganda1.IntroductionInthisarticle,‘‘Remorselessapology:Analysingapoliticalletter’’,Ianalysetheconceptofapologyandhowitisvariously JournalofPragmatics42(2010)2181–2188 *Correspondenceaddress:P.O.Box1502,Kampala,Uganda.Tel.:+256392967224.E-mailaddress:UgandaislocatedintheeasternpartofAfrica,borderingwithKenyatotheeast,Tanzaniatothesouth,Rwandatothesouth-west,TheDemocraticRepublicofCongotothewest,andSudantothenorth. ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirectJournalofPragmaticsjournalhomepage:www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma0378-2166/$–seefrontmatter2010ElsevierB.V.Allrightsreserved. Parliamentisthearmofgovernmentthatischargedwiththedutyofmakinglawsforthegoodgovernanceofsociety.Itconsistsofmembersmostofwhomareelectedthroughtheballotboxexceptafewspecialinterestgroupslikethearmy,women,youthandthedisabledwhoserepresentativesareelectedbyElectoralColleges.TheJudiciaryisthethirdarmofgovernment,anditsroleistointerpretthelawanditsapplicationbyrulesordiscretiontothefactsofeachparticularcase.Itisformedbythevariouscourtsofjudicature,whichincludethemagisterialcourts,HighCourt,CourtofAppeal(ConstitutionalCourt)andtheSupremeCourt.TheJudiciaryisheadedbytheChiefJustice(2006;UGANDA,1995Thethreearmsareequalinpowerandmakeuponegovernment.TogethertheyassistthePresidentinmanagingtheThePresident,asHeadofState,isaboveallthethreearmsofgovernmentandholdssupremepoweroverthem.Forexample,thePresidentappointsthecabinet;thejudgestooareappointedbythePresidentonrecommendationoftheJudicialServiceCommissionandapprovalofParliament(Mahoro,2006InUganda,thePresidentistheheadoftherulingparty,NationalResistanceMovement(NRM).Since1986whenthepartyassumedpoweruntilthereferendumonapoliticalsystemsuggestedmulti-partypoliticsin2005,thesystemofgovernanceusedbytheNRMpartywasmovementtypeinwhichallcitizensofUgandawereregardedasmembersofoneparty,andnootherpartyexisted.ThepartycameintopowerthroughaguerrillawarfoughtbytheNationalResistanceArmy(NRA).Inthe1995ConstitutionofUganda(UGANDA,1995),theNRAbecameanationaldefenceforceandwasnamedUgandaPeoplesDefenceForces(UPDF).AsHeadofState,thePresidentistheCommander-In-ChiefoftheUPDF.AndasCommander-In-Chief,hetakesfullchargeovertheactionsoftheUPDF.1.2.Theevent–CourtsiegeWordaboutthePeoplesRedemptionArmy(PRA)beganaboutearly2005.ThePRAwasperceivedasarebelgroupghtingthegovernment.TheobjectivesofthePRAcouldnoteasilybeascertainedbecausethereisalwayslimitedornoaccesstorebelgroupsespeciallyintheirinception.However,thenameitselfmayimplyredeemingthepopulacefromadangerperceivedbythem(PRA).Eventuallythisrebelgroupwaslinkedtoaleaderofaschismaticgroup(opposingandcallingtoreturntotheoriginalobjectivesofNRM).Thismeansthattheleaderoftheschismaticgroupwasformerlyamemberoftherulingparty(NRM)whichinitiallyassumedpowerthroughguerrillawarin1986asNRA.Heisoneofanumbercommonlyreferredtoasthe‘27men’whomastermindedtheNRAguerrillawar.Whenthe2005referendumonpoliticalsystemoptedformulti-partypolitics,theschismaticgroupalsoarticulateditselfasapoliticalpartyknownasForumforDemocraticChange(FDC).Bysomesecretivemeans,somemembersofthepopulaceweresuspectedtobelongtothePRA,andwerearrested.Towardsthenominationofcandidatesforpresidency(late2005),theoppositionleaderwasarrestedandchargedwithcolludingwith22suspectedmembersofthePRAtooverthrowthegovernment.Aftermorethanamonthinprison,andafterfailuretoproduceenoughevidenceforconviction(whichwouldhinderhimfrombeingnominated),hewasnominatedtocontestforpresidency.Sinceheneededtojointheraceofsolicitingvotes,hewasgrantedbail.Hisco-accusedstayedinSincethesesuspectswereordinarycitizens,theHighCourttookchargeofthecasewithreasonthatthesuspectswentagainstcivillaw.However,theCourtMartialtoohadinterestinthecasewithreasonthatthesuspectswereinpossessionofillegalarmsatthetimeoftheirarrest,andthusweretobetriedaccordingtomartiallaw.ThestrugglebetweenthetwocourtsnecessitatedtheinterventionoftheConstitutionalCourtwhichdecidedinfavouroftheHighCourttotrythesuspects.TheCourtMartialdidnotconcedelossofchargeandpersistentlycontinuedtryingthesuspects.Forsometime,thePRAsuspectsweretriedsimultaneouslyinbothcourts.SincethesuspectswereviewedbytheHighCourtasqualifyingforCourtbail,itwasgrantedtothem.ButbeforethebailedindividualslefttheHighCourtpremises,theywereimmediatelyre-arrestedbyasecurityorgan.Thesecurityorgan’sactionofre-arrestingthebailedpersonsintheHighCourtpremiseswaspopularlyregardedasaCourtsiege.TheJudiciaryputdowntoolsandallcourtsofjusticeinthecountryclosed.Theroleplayedbythemediainthissituationhastobeunderlined.InUganda,themedia,mainlynewspapersandradios,playagreatroleintransmittinginformationwidelyaswellasinuencingpeople’spoliticalandsocialthoughts.Mostofthemedia,betheyornotfoundedandfundedbyparticularpoliticalparties,arepoliticallybiasedintheirtransmission.Themedia,mainlyinfavouroftheopposition,endeavouredtoconvincethepublicthattheCourtsiegewasanactionofattackontheJudiciarybyasecurityorganandrulingparty(originalowneroftheorgan)anditwarrantedanapology.Amidstthetensesituation,thePresidentwrotealettertotheChiefJustice,theheadoftheJudiciarywhoisthemainaddressee(section).Copyingthelettertootherpersonsisaquestionofpoliticalprotocolbeyondmyinterest.InUgandaitiscommonthatthePresident’sresponsetoanysituationthathascausedpublicattentionisdistributedbythePresident’ssecretariattothemajornationalmediafor ConstitutionalCourtorCourtofAppealwasestablishedbythe1995Constitution.ItisanintermediarybetweentheSupremeCourtandtheHighCourtandhasappellatejurisdictionovertheHighCourt.ItisnotaCourtofrstinstanceandhasnooriginaljurisdiction,exceptwhenitsitsasaConstituCourttohearconstitutionalcases.TheCourtofAppealconsistsoftheDeputyChiefJusticeandsuchnumberofJusticesofAppealnotbeinglessthansevenasParliamentmaybylawprescribe.CourtMartialisequaltoHighCourtinjudicialpowers.TheadministrationofjusticeinCourtMartialissimilartothatofHighCourt.However,itdoesnotbaseoncivillawbutmartiallaw.CourtMartialdoesnottrycitizensbutsoldiersandmembersofothersecurityorgans.J.Kimoga/JournalofPragmatics42(2010)2181–2188 broadcast.Onthisoccasion,thesamewasdone.TheletterwasbroadcastandpublishedverbatiminEnglish,theofciallanguageofthecountry.So,theletterisdirectlyquotedasIaccesseditinonenewspaperwhichIrandomlyselected.1.3.TheletterHisLordshipTheChiefJusticeofUgandaChiefJusticesChambersIrefertoyourletterdated2March2007,forwardingtomeacopyoftheresolutionoftheCourtsofJudicatureofthesamedateconcerningtheeventsofthereleaseandre-arrestofPeoplesRedemptionArmy(PRA)suspectson1March2007,attheHighCourt.On5thMarch2007,Iissuedastatementregardingtheincident.On6thMarch2007,theMinisterofInternalAffairspresentedtoParliamentajointstatementoftheMinisterofInternalAffairsandtheAttorneyGeneralregardingthematter.InresponsetotheconcernsexpressedintheresolutionbytheJudiciary,Iwishtoreiterateasfollows:1.Governmentisconcernedandregretstheunfortunateevents,whichtookplaceon1stMarch2007,concerningthereleaseofPRAsuspects.Theoriginalmistake,however,wasfortheCourttoreleasethepeopleonbailwhowerefacingverygravecriminalcharges.Happily,theConstitutionalCourthasrectifiedthismistake.2.GovernmentassurestheJudiciaryandthegeneralpublicthatitundertakestodoallinitspowertoensurethatnorepetitionofsuchincidentswilltakeplace.3.GovernmentreaffirmsitsadherencetothesafetyandindependenceoftheJudiciaryasaninstitutionandofindividualjudicialofficers,andtoupholdtheruleoflaw.4.AllorgansandagenciesoftheStatewillalwaysaccordtothecourtssuchassistanceasmayberequiredtoensuretheeffectivenessoftheCourtsasprovidedbyArticle128(3)oftheConstitution.5.TheJudiciaryobjectedtothemannerinwhichthearrestofthePRAsuspectswaseffected.Itispossiblethegovernmentlawyersandsecurityofficersoverreactedinthisprocess.Governmentwillinvestigatethematteranddetermineiftherewerebreachesofthelaworprocedureintheprocessofre-arrestingthesesuspectsandifindeedtherewerebreaches,itwilltakecorrectivemeasures.6.Legalandtransparentmodusoperandiforre-arrestingsuspectsreleasedbythecourtswillbeformulatedandagreedonbytheagenciesinvolvedintheadministrationofjustice.YoweriKMuseveni,PRESIDENTCC.TheVicePresidentTheSpeakerofParliamentThePrimeMinisterTheMinisterofInternalAffairs.DailyMonitorNews(March11,2007)2.InterpretationMostofthenewspapersandradios,themaininuencesonthepopularview,interpretedthePresident’sletterasapologetictotheChiefJusticeforthecommotioncreatedbyasecurityorganattheHighCourt.SincethepublichadbeenpreparedbythesamemediatoexpectforanapologyfortheCourtsiege,thiswaspopularlyboughtasaproperapology.IdonotassumethattheJudiciary’sresumptionofworkwasbasedonthisletterorthattheyregardeditasapologeticatall.Therefore,Ipreferreadingtheletterasalinguist,usingmethodsandconceptsfrompragmatics,despitethefactthatmyndingscouldbeofinteresttoanycriticalmemberofthepublic.Myanalysisisbasedonatheoreticalframeworkintroducedinthenextsection.2.1.Theconcepts2.1.1.RemorseRemorseorguiltisaproductofinternaldeliberationsoveramorallybadactioninpreferencetoamorallygoodaction.Anactionisjudgedmorallygoodorbadaccordingtothecontext,thecircumstancesandtheperson,i.e.thedoerandtheoneto Theletterwasaccessedonandreadon11/3/07.J.Kimoga/JournalofPragmatics42(2010)2181–2188 whomtheactionisdone.Therefore,anactionmaybejudgedasmorallygoodbythedoer,butmorallybadbythepersontowhomitisdone.Iftheinternaldeliberationoptsforamorallygoodaction,thenthereisnoneedforguiltbecausetheactiondoesnotaffectothers,andthusnoapologywarrantedforagoodaction.Amorallybadactionmaygenerateafeelingofguilttothechooseranddoerbecauseofitsactualorpotentialeffectsonothers,andmayfurtherwarrantanapology.2.1.2.ApologyApologyiscommoninhumanverbalutterances.Taft(2000)rightlyassertsthatweliveinanageof‘apology-mania’inwhichhumansarestronglyinclinedtoverbalisingapologiesthanreectingontheunderlyingsincerityinthem.Theexaggerateduseofapologyraisesquestionsonthegenuinenessinseekingandobtainingforgiveness,andofreconciliation.‘Iseveryapologybasedonguilt?’isthemainissueforconcerninthisarticle.Imaintainthatanyapologythatisnotpromptedbyafeelingofremorselackssincerity.AlthoughIdonotusemorallandmarks(e.g.goodandbad,rightandwrong)toexplorethisissue,myargumentmaynotbecompletelyfreefrommoraltonesembeddedinnominalizationslikeoffender,offended,apologiser,apologised,etc.Researchers(e.g.Hickson,1986;Taft,2000;Weyeneth,2001)havedenedapologyasawrittenorspokenexpressionofsorrow,regret,repentanceforanoffence,wrongorinjurydone.Apologyisacommonsocialmeansofreconcilingtheoffenderwiththeoffended.Throughouthistory,apologieshavebeentracedinvarioussectorslikecultural,social,legal,political,religiousandintellectual.Apologyisregardedasamoralactbecauseitacknowledges‘theexistenceofrightandwrongandconrmsthatanormofrightbehaviourhasbeenbroken’(Taft,2000:1142).However,Imaintainthatnotallpeoplewoulduseapologyfromamoralstance.Variousapologiesgiveninsomesituationsindicateafunctionalisticrolewherebyapologyissimplyusedasastrategytopoliticallyappease.Inthefunctionalisticunderstanding,itwouldbehardtoenvisageagenuinemoralacknowledgementofapology.Iwouldregardanapologygivenundercoercion,socialpressure,economicthreat,positionalthreat,etc.tobefunctionalistic.AgenuineapologyshouldcomprisetwomainelementsassuggestedbyTaft(2000)Weyeneth(2001).First,itshouldcontainanexpressionofsorrowfortheoffencecommitted;second,itshouldidentifyandacknowledgethespecicoffence3.Analysis3.1.ChronologicalintroductionThePresidentintroducestheletterinawaywhichdisplayshisdetailedawarenessofhowtheeventshavebeenunfolding.IwouldperceivethisintroductionintermsofwhatMey(2003:793)referstoastheauthor’sefforttomakeanambienceof‘discoursethatthereaderiswillingtoacceptonthewriter’s‘‘authority’’’.Intherstthreesentences,thePresident’sawarenessisdisplayedthroughquotingsignicantdatesofvariousactionsrelevanttohisletter.AsaPresident,indicatingdateswouldrestorecondencetothepublicandJudiciarythat,despitehisotherconcernsinthecountry,heisfullyequippedwithknowledgeofeventstakingplaceinthecountry.Itisnecessarytoconsider,however,thatthePresidentisaddressingjudgesasprofessionalstowhomchronologicalorderingofeventsinjudicialmattersisimportant.Heseemstobeconsciousofthis,andthroughindicatingspecicdates,hemayintendtoshowthatalthoughheisnotaprofessionalinjudicialmatters,hehassomecompetenceinlegalprocedures.Inlightofcompetence,indicatingdatesatthisearlieststageoftheletterwouldeasilymanipulatesomemembersofthepublictoregardthemessageofregretasthoughtthroughfromthelegalperspective.3.2.StancecommitmentandapologyNoteworthy,thepresidentinthecontextofthisanalysisisregardedinGoffman’stermas‘aprincipal’;as‘someonewhosepositionisestablishedbythewordsthatarespoken’(2001:103).Intherstreiteration,thePresidentwritesthat‘Governmentisconcernedandregretstheunfortunateevents,whichtookplaceon1stMarch2007,concerningthereleaseofPRAsuspects’(reiterationstatement1).Theword‘regret’notonlyreectsthetoneoftheletter,butalsoadesireforabsolution.Although‘regret’canbeusedtoapologiseforanoffencecommitted,IagreewithWeyeneth(2001:17)thatregretcanhardlyeverbe‘viewedasequivalenttoanapology’.Inmyperception,‘apology’reectsguiltwhereas‘regret’maysimplyreectconcernorbeingsympathetic.Inthisunderstanding,therefore,reiterating‘regret’bythePresidentmaymerelybeanexpressionofcompassion.Thispromptsthefollowingconclusions.Fromthehierarchicalperspective,astheheadofgovernment,thePresident’sactionofwritingtotheJudiciary,anarmofgovernment,wouldbejustiedasasympatheticexpression.Using‘government’mayindicatethewholebodyassympathisingwithfellowmembers(Judiciary)forthetragedyofthesiege.Although‘government’mayalsobeinterpretedasexcludingtheJudiciary,inthiscontextIregarditasinclusivelyusedbythePresidentwhoheadsthethreearmsofgovernment,toconsoletheoffendedarmasmemberofonebody.UnderstoodfromGoffman’s(2007;Capone,2007)footingperspective,‘government’herebyusedbythePresident,couldaswellbethepronoun‘we’,meanttomediatewiderinstitutionalsympathytotheJudiciary.Intheletter,changingfrom‘we’to‘I’,couldberegardedasassumingadifferentpositionasCommander-In-ChiefoftheUPDF.Ascommander,thePresidentisheldaccountableforthemisconductofthesecurityorgan.Hisresponsibilityinrespondingtotheincident,asCommander-In-Chief,isexpressedthreetimesbyusing‘I’intheintroductorypartoftheletter.J.Kimoga/JournalofPragmatics42(2010)2181–2188 Inthiscase,‘regret’maynotbemerelysympatheticallybutapologeticallyusedintheletter;thathewritestoapologisetotheJudiciaryforthemisconductofthesecurityorgan.Fromthisviewpoint,althoughasPresidentheuses‘government’,theletterwouldaswellberegardedaswrittenbytheCommander-In-ChiefoftheoffendingorgantotheJudiciaryastheoffendedarmofgovernment.Thetensionbetweenthetwopositionsheoccupiesisapparentthroughouttheletter;itisatensionbetweenapologisingasCommander-In-ChiefandasPresident.Whileapologisingastheformerwouldindicatesensibleleadership,thelatterwouldpointtopoliticalincompetence.Intheletter,shiftingfromthepositionofCommander-In-ChieftoPresidentreectsfosteringprecedence(asPresident)asoneoftheintentionsoftheletter,whichisadifferentintentionfromthatofapology,claimedbythemediaasperceivedbythepublicandJudiciary.ThisraisesaquestiononintentionalityasdiscussedbyDuranti(2000).Istheletteraboutapologyorfosteringprecedence?Theletter’sunderlyingintentionsarereservedtoitsauthor,andattemptedbyanalyststodiscover.Analytically,thisrhymeswithGoffman’s(2001:96)argumentthat,‘achangeinfootingimpliesachangeinthealignmentwetakeuptoourselvesandtheothersasexpressedinthewaywemanagetheofanutterance.’Nevertheless,theexpressionof‘regret’tsthepurposeofapologyonlyifitincludesthesecondelementwhichis,identifyingandacknowledgingthespecicoffencecommitted(Taft,2000Weyeneth,2001).Toexemplifymyargument,thephrase,‘Iamsorryforyourloss,’wouldreectirresponsibilityandmerelysoundsympatheticifusedbyanoffender,whereas‘IamsorryforthelossIcausedyou’wouldsoundmoreresponsible.Accountabilityfortheoffenceshouldbereectedinanapology.Let’sspeculatethatmissingthesecondelementwasintentional,whywouldthePresidentavoidit?Lazare(1995,citedinTaft,2000)arguesthattoapologiseistoacceptthatonemadeamistake,andthisisanacknowledgementoffailuretoupholdthevaluesofcompetenceandhonesty.Noonewouldwishtoexposeoneselfforhavingfailedinthesetwovalues,worsestillaHeadofState!People,especiallyleaderswouldwanttoappearcompetentandhonesteveninthehardestofsituations.Ininstanceswherecompetenceandhonestyappeartobeinjeopardy,theassumptionisalwaystorestoreapublicimageatallcostevenifitrequiresaremorselessapology.Thisaltersapologyfrombeingamoralactiontoapoliticalaction.Toexplainapologyasapoliticalaction,anunderstandingofpoliticsasitisusedinthisarticleisapt.Politicsiscommonlyunderstoodanddenedaccordingtoone’ssituationandpurposes.Thismeansthatpoliticsdoesnothaveastandarddenitionbecausesituationsandpurposesmayvaryaccordingtopersonsandgroups.Inthisarticle,Chilton’s(2004:3;ChiltonandSchaffner,2002)denitionofpoliticsas‘astruggleforpowerbetweenthosewhoseektoassertandmaintaintheirpowerandthosewhoseektoresistit’,ismostpertinentforthediscussion.Thewholepoliticalprocessisacontestandtensionbetweenpowerassertersandpowerresisters.Researchers(e.g.Fraser,2001;Weber1968b,citedinMaier,2001dene‘power’asthecapacitytoachieveagoalortomakethingsdone,regardlessofresistancewhichcouldcomefromnature,personsorgroups.Thisreectspowerasapossessedandrepressiveaction.Arendt(1970,citedinReynolds,1990however,seespowerastheabilitytoactwiththeapprovalofthegroup,i.e.powerasasharedandproductiveaction.Arendt’sviewfallsinlinewiththeFoucauldianregardofpowerasnotamonopolisedorpossessedentity,butanexercisedactionFoucault,1980).Theoptiononetakestounderstandpower,aswelldictatesonesunderstandingofpoliticsbecausepowerliesbeneathanypoliticalaction.Politicsliesatthecentreandbaseofsocietyandthuspermeateseverysocialaction.Thismeansthattheactionofthehumanbeingwhoshapessocietywhichinturnnurtureshim/her,notonlybecomesasocialactionbutapoliticalactiontoo.Researchers(e.g.Ball,1988;Brekle,1989;Holly,1989)agreethatpoliticsborrowsanddrawsonsub-languagesusedindifferentsocialstratae.g.religious,legal,moral,medical,economicinordertoforgeoutpoliticalmeaningsandpurposes.Primarilypoliticallanguageisdenedas‘whospeakstowhom,aswhat,onwhatoccasions,andinwhatgoals’(VanDijk,2000Chilton,2004).Itisconcernedwithpresentingandsellingonespositiveimagetoothers.Goffman(2007)Capone(2007)refertothistypeofself-presentationinvarioussituationsasfooting.Footingisapparentinpoliticaldiscoursese.g.apologiesandspeeches.Thesuccessofthismerchandisedependsonlinguisticskillsemployed,which,asSornig(1989)outlines,mayincludepersuasion,seduction,conviction,pledge,pretence,andsoon.Accordingtotheabovedenitionofpolitics,anapologycouldbeafunctionalisticstrategyofrestoringatarnishedimageandresellingittoothers.Thusitisborrowedfromthemoralrealmandbecomesapoliticalinstrumentoraction.Apologymaybecomeatoolofassertingandmaintainingpowerbytheoffender,andinthiscontext,fosteringprecedence.ThePresidentsaysfurtherthat:Theoriginalmistake,however,wasfortheCourttoreleasethepeopleonbailwhowerefacingverygravecriminalcharges.Happily,theConstitutionalCourthasrectiedthismistake.(Reiterationstatement1)BasedontheanalysisofthesewordswhichfollowthePresident’sregret,Inotethatmissingthepartofarticulatingtheoffenceandharmcausedmaynotonlybeintentional,butalsoexplicitlyblamingtheJudiciaryastherootcauseoftheCourtMoreover,intherstsentenceoftheletter,thePresidentindicatesthathereceivedaforwardedcopyoftheJudiciary’sresolutionconcerningtheeventof‘thereleaseandre-arrest’ofPRA.Thismeansthattheeventcomprisestwoinseparablecomponents;releaseandre-arrest,whichreecttheCourt’sactionandsecurityorgan’sactionrespectively.However,inthereiterationstatement1,thesecondcomponent–‘re-arrest’–doesnotappearin‘concerningthereleaseofPRAsuspects’.Thisisalsoanissuesurroundingintentionalityinthepresident’sresponsetotheevent.Atthisearlystageofthereiteration,eliminatingtheactionofasecurityorganmaybeindicativeofhisstance.ThestanceisnotaboutJudiciaryversussecurityorgan,butaboutrightnessversuswrongnessoftheactionofthesecurityorganinthesituation.PerhapsheagreeswiththeJ.Kimoga/JournalofPragmatics42(2010)2181–2188 actionof‘re-arresting’thesuspectsandhowitwasdone.ThispossibilityisseeminglysupportedlaterbythePresident’schoiceofwordstowardstheconclusionoftheletter.Hesaysthat,‘Itispossiblethegovernment’slawyersandsecurityofcersoverreactedinthisprocess’(reiterationstatement5).Thechoiceofthemodalexpression,‘Itispossible’isanon-commitmentwhichcouldallowrightnessoftheopposite,i.e.‘itisimpossible’.Thisallowanceisconrmedin‘overreacted’.Overreactingwouldmeangoingbeyondtheexpectedlimitsforreaction.Tojudgethelevelofreactionwouldpointtoanexistingstandardforreaction.Hisreiterationseemstomeanthatreactioninsuchsituationisanormalsecurityactionprovidingitisdonewithintheexistingsetlimits.However,topromisethat‘legalandtransparentmodusoperandiforre-arrestingsuspectsreleasedbythecourtswillbeformulatedandagreedonbytheagenciesinvolvedintheadministrationofjustice’(reiterationstatement6),thePresidentrefuteshispresumptioninstatement5.Hispromiseindicatesnon-existenceofastandardforreaction.Althoughthisappearsasacontradiction,itproveshisstanceregardingtherightnessandwrongnessoftheactionofthesecurityorgan.Sincethereisnomodeofconductinexistence,thesecurityorgandoesnotmeritanyblamebecauseitsactionwasimprovised.Thiswouldaswellimplynobasisforincriminatingtheactionbecauseanythingwouldbeallowedornotallowedatthetimeofthesiege.Theactionofthesecurityorgan(Courtsiegeandre-arrestingPRAsuspects)didnotgoagainstanylawbecausenoguidanceexisted.Thisindicatesthatthechoiceoftheword‘regret’inreiterationstatement1mighthavebeenlightlyusednotnecessarilytoconveyapologybecausethewordsthatfollowdonotpurportanyremorse.Thediscoursereectsahigherauthorityinstructinglowerranksofauthorityonproperlegalprocedures.ThePresident’spositionalcommitmenttotheeventisfurtherreectedintheprejudicialwords‘originalmistake’inthereiterationstatement1,‘originalmistake,however,wasfortheCourttoreleasethepeopleonbailwhowerefacingverygravecriminalcharges’.Thisisstatedasearlyasthesecondsentencewhichcomesafterthesentencethatcarriesanapologeticword.Itindicatesadetachmentfromthe‘regret’statedandperhapspointstonon-commitmenttothepresumedapologyinthe‘regret’.Itkindofacquitsthesecurityorganfromtheallegedoffence,andturnstheblameontheCourt.ThisputsintoquestionthePresident’sbasistoclaimtheauthorityofjudgingtheCourtaction.Coulditbeprofessionalorpoliticalauthority?Itsoundsmoreofapoliticalauthoritywhenhesaysthat,‘happily,theConstitutionalCourthasrectiedthismistake’.ThissighofreliefnotonlyapplaudstheinterventionoftheConstitutionalCourt,butexoneratesthesecurityorganasjustiableinputtingrightwhereHighCourtgoeswrong.Accordingtothe1995Constitution,thejusticesofSupremeCourt,ConstitutionalCourt,andHighCourtareappointedbythePresident(UGANDA,1995).TheCourtofAppealorConstitutionalCourtdidnotexistuntilthe1995Constitution.‘ItisanintermediarybetweentheSupremeCourtandtheHighCourtandhasappellatejurisdictionovertheHighCourt.ItisnotaCourtofrstinstanceandhasnooriginaljurisdiction,exceptwhenitsitsasaConstitutionalCourttohearconstitutionalcases’(Mahoro,2006).ThiswouldmeanthattheConstitutionalCourtcouldbedispensedwithanditsworktransferredtotheSupremeCourtsincethebenchoftheConstitutionalCourtarealsomembersoftheSupremeCourtbench(Mahoro,2006Theaccumulationofjudiciallevels,therefore,maybeeconomicallyandpoliticallybenecialtojudgeswhoaremembersonbothbenchesandtoappellantsrespectively.BeingappointedtositonthebenchofConstitutionalCourtcouldberegardedbysomeasanincentivefromthePresident.ThiscouldinuencetheConstitutionalCourt’sdecisionsovertheactionsofthePresident.Inthissituationwherelevelsofprecedenceareboldlymarked,thePresident’smanipulationoflawandjudicialdecisionsislikelytoreign.3.3.TemporalcommitmentandapologyApromiseisanassurancethatonewillorwillnotundertakecertainbehaviouroraction.Makingpromisesiscommonindiscoursesofdifferentgenres,e.g.Jesus’promiseforeternalsalvationintheBible,‘G8’promisefordebtcancellationinpolitico-economicsummit,promiseforpeaceinpoliticalcampaignsandsoon.Therearenecessaryelementsthatmarktheseriousnessofapromiseoneofwhichisadenitemarkortime-scale,e.g.promiseforeternalsalvationisreachedafterdeath.Promisescanremainemptyespeciallywhentheylackadenitetime-scaleforfulllingthem.Promiseswithnodenitetemporalcommitmentmayreectthenatureofvalueandinevitabilityattachedtotheeventthatrequiresaction.Inpoliticaldiscourses,promisescanactasstrategiestorestoreashatteredimage,toseducealessrationalisticmind,ortopersuadeamorerationalisticmind(Sornig,1989;Wodak,2000).However,inagenuineapologyapromisewouldnotbenecessarysincefeelingsorrowfulandacknowledgingresponsibilityfortheoffencecommittedwouldimplyreadinessforaccountabilityforanysocialand/orlegalrepercussions.Ifapologyexpressessorrowfortheoffencecommitted,andidentiesandacknowledgesthespecicoffencecommitted,IagreewithTavuchis(1991,citedinTaft,2000:1140)thatwordslike;sorryandregretwouldimply‘awillingnesstochange,apromiseofforbearance,andanimplicitagreementtoacceptalltheconsequences’.Therefore,reparationsshouldonlyowfromthesocialorlegalprocessinproportiontotheoffence.Reparationsshouldleadtocompletionofthereconciliationprocess.Inthisnaturalowofreconciliationprocess,Idonotenvisageanynecessityoftheoffendermakingpromisestotheoffended.Althoughpromisesmadebytheoffendermayindicateseriousnessinavoidingthere-occurrenceoftheoffenceontheonehand,theymayontheotherhandreectpowerinequalities,andjusticationofpreferentialpositions.ThePresidentusesthenameof‘government’toassure‘theJudiciaryandthegeneralpublictodoallinitspowertoensurethatnorepetitionofsuchincidentswilltakeplace’(reiterationstatement2).Sincethestatementdoesnotenumerateanymeanstoachievethisassurance,Iassumethatthenextstatementsoutlinethesemeans.However,beforeenumeratingthesemeans,hemakesreparationsinreiterationstatement3:J.Kimoga/JournalofPragmatics42(2010)2181–2188 GovernmentreafrmsitsadherencetothesafetyandindependenceoftheJudiciaryasaninstitutionandofindividualjudicialofcers,andtoupholdtheruleoflaw.Andinreiterationstatement4:AllorgansandagenciesoftheStatewillalwaysaccordtothecourtssuchassistanceasmayberequiredtoensuretheeffectivenessoftheCourtsasprovidedbyArticle128(3)oftheConstitution.BothstatementsindicateanexistingorderwhichwasviolatedintheeventoftheHighCourtsiege.Thereafrmationinstatement3indicatesanalreadyexistingresponsibilitythatshouldbefullledbygovernment.GovernmentfullstheresponsibilityofassigningthepoliceandprisonforceswiththedutyofcollaboratingwiththeJudiciaryinenforcinglawandorder,aswellasprovidingsafetytotheJudiciary.Thereafrmationembeddedin‘willalwaysaccord’inreiterationstatement4canonlybeunderstoodinrelationtothereferencemadetoArticle128(3)oftheConstitution.Thisbringstoourknowledgethefactofanordinancealreadyinplaceasregardsthenon-interferencebutinsteadcooperationbetweentheJudiciaryandStatesecurityorgansandagencies.ThePresidentusesthenameof‘government’tomakereparationsfortheoffenceofthesecurityorgan.Thereparationsdonotnaturallyowfromthesocialorlegalreconciliationprocess,butrightlyassumedtohavebeenviolatedintheactionofthesecurityorgan.Itispoliticalcunningnesstoarticulatethesereparationsinaletterwhich,tome,reectsnoremorse.Reparationsorre-afrmationsarticulatedherearemeanttoreconciletheJudiciarywiththesecurityorganandtorestoremutualcooperationbetweenthem.However,althoughthere-afrmationsarerightlyaddressedtotheeventoftheCourtsiege,genuinenessinarticulatingthemmaybequestionedinlightofthePresident’snon-commitmenttotheapologywhichIdiscussedabove.Reiterationstatements5and6arepromisesaddedtoreparationsmadebythePresidenttotheJudiciary.AlthoughthesearedeemedvaluablebythePresident,theyalllackadenitetime-scale,andthusarenotbindingtothePresident.Thisfurtherindicatesemptinessinthesepromises,andthusdeprivingtheeventofitspropervalueandnecessity.Thestatementswhichpointtothefuture;‘willinvestigatewilltakecorrectivemeasures’(reiterationstatement5)and‘willbeformulatedagreedon...’(reiterationstatement6),lackadenitetimewhentheywouldbeexecuted.Itiseasytogetconcernedwithwhowillbeentrustedwiththeinvestigationmentionedinstatement5,whowillbeinvestigatedon,andincasetherewerebreachesofthelaw,thecorrectivemeasurestobetaken,whethertheofcersandlawyerswouldbebroughttobook,andwhatthiswouldmeanforthePRAsuspects.Similarly,wemayaskwhowillbeentrustedwiththeroleofformulatingalegalandtransparentmodeofre-arrestingreleasedsuspects,thenatureoftheformulation,andhowitwillbenetthePRAsuspects.However,thesecanbemeaninglessmentaloccupationsunlessweconsiderthequestionofthetime-scaleforfulllingbothactions.Sincethepromisesarenotcommittedtoadenitetime,theyseemasgoodaslullabytotheJudiciaryandthegeneralpublic.Isthisapersuasiveapproachtocalmdownthesituation?IsitapoliticalmeansofbuyingbacktheJudiciary’sandpublic’scondenceinthePresident?Failuretodenetimeforactionmaymeanthatreconciliationisnotofmuchvalueandnecessitytowarranturgentattention.Probablynoactionwilleverbetaken.Moreover,itindicatesthePresidenttakingdecisionsonwhateventrequireswhichattention.4.Concludingreßections‘Iseveryapologybasedonguilt?’Thishasbeenthecentralfocusinthisdiscussion.ByanalysingthePresident’slettertotheChiefJusticeofUganda,Ihaveexploredanddiscussedthatapologyisnotnecessarilybasedonguilt.Inpoliticaldiscourse,apologyisnotnecessarilyamoralactionbutatoolusedtopoliticallyappeaseandtosettlesomesituationsthatmaythreatenpower.Althoughthislettermaybeperceiveddifferentlybyvariousanalysts,Ihavechosentoapproachitasalinguist,drawingonthemethodsandconceptsofpragmatics.Intheanalysis,Ihavefocusedonthreeelements;chronology,stanceandtemporality.ChronologicalarrangementofdatesatthebeginningofthePresident’slettermayprovideanimpressiontothereaderthatheisfullyawareoftheeventsthatleadtotheCourtsiege.IhavediscussedstanceintermsofthePresident’scommitmentinapprovingordisapprovingoftheactionofasecurityorgan.Analysingvarioustextsinrelationtothemacro-andmicrocontextsenabledmetoexplorethePresident’stypeofcommitment.Heseemstoapproveofthesecurityorgan’saction;andthisrendershisregretmerelysympathetictotheJudiciaryandremorseless.IhavediscussedtemporalityintermsofthePresident’scommitmenttothere-afrmationsandpromisesarticulated.Expressingsorrowforanoffencecommittedcarrieswithitthereadinesstoundertakeanyramicationsthatmayautomaticallyresultfromtheinjurydone.Ihavetherefore,arguedthatpromisesarenotnecessaryinanapologybecausetheyactaspersuaders,orasseductivemeanstotheoffended.Whenusedwheretheyarenotcalledfor,theymayreecthigher–lowerrelationship.However,wheretheyoccurtheyactasllerforthesocialand/orlegalconsequences,reectinggenuineconsiderationofrepentancebytheoffender.Seriouspromisesaremarkedbyadenitetime-scaleorterms.AsthePresidenttakestheinitiativetoofferpromises,inasituationshortofsocialorlegalreconciliationprocess,promisesshouldatleastbebasedonatime-scaletoshowseriouscommitmenttoreconcilingthesecurityorganwiththeJudiciary.ThiswouldalsoreectthevalueandnecessityofmaintainingharmoniouscollaborativetermswiththeJudiciary.However,sincethereisnotime-scaleindicatedtofullthepromisesoutlinedintheletter,theirnatureraisesJ.Kimoga/JournalofPragmatics42(2010)2181–2188 issuessurroundingthePresident’scommitmenttotheapology,thegenuinenessoftheapology,andhowheregardstheTherefore,thisarticleraisesawarenessnotonlytothelanguageusedinpoliticalapologiesbutinanyotherapologies.Asnaturallypoliticalbeings,languageisoneofthecommonlyusedhumantoolsinsocialinteractions.Humanbeingsbecomeevenmorepoliticalinapologisingtotheoffendedsoastoobtainforgiveness.Therefore,weoughttobekeenontheapologeticlanguageusedindifferentsituationsthatwarrantreconciliation;weoughttoscrutinisetheconceptsusedinordertoexplorethehiddenmeaningsinanapology.ThismayhelpinascertainingthegenuinenessordeceptivenessofanBall,T.,1988.TransformingPoliticalDiscourse.BasilBlackwell,NewYork.Brekle,E.H.,1989.Warwithwords.In:Wodak,R.(Ed.),Language,Power,andIdeology:StudiesinPoliticalDiscourse.JohnBenjaminsPublishingCoPhiladelphia,pp.81–91.Capone,A.,2007.BarackObama’sSouthCarolinaSpeech.Accessedonandreadon27/11/09.Chilton,P.,2004.AnalysingPoliticalDiscourse:TheoryandPractice.Routledge,London.Chilton,P.,Schaffner,C.,2002.Introduction:Themesandprinciplesintheanalysisofpoliticaldiscourse.In:Chilton,P.A.,Schaffner,C.(Eds.),PoliticsasTextandTalk:AnalyticApproachestoPoliticalDiscourse.JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany,Philadelphia,pp.1–44.DailyMonitorNews,2007.MuseveniWritestoChiefJusticeoverHighCourtSiege(March11).AccessedonandreadonDuranti,A.,2000.Intentionality.JournalofLinguisticAnthropology9(1–2),136–139.Foucault,M.,1980.Power/Knowledge:SelectedInterviewsandotherWritings1972–1977.HarvesterWheatsheaf,London.Fraser,B.,2001.Themediatoraspowerbroker.In:Weigand,E.,Dascal,M.(Eds.),NegotiationandPowerinDialogicInteraction.BenjaminPublishiCompany,Philadelphia,pp.19–38.Goffman,E.,2007.Footing.In:Monaghan,L.,Goodman,J.(Eds.),ACulturalApproachtoInterpersonalCommunication:EssentialReadings.BlackwePublishingLtd,Oxford,pp.396–399.Goffman,E.,2001.Footing[Source:Goffman,E.(1981)FormsofTalk.Oxford:Blackwell,Chapter3]In:Wetherell,M.,Taylor,S.,Yates,S.J.(Eds.),DiscourseTheoryandPractice:AReader.SagePublications,London,pp.93–110.Hickson,L.,1986.Thesocialcontextsofapologyindisputesettlement:across-culturalStudy.Ethnology25(October(4)),283–294.Holly,W.,1989.Credibilityandpoliticallanguage.In:Wodak,R.(Ed.),Language,Power,andIdeology:StudiesinPoliticalDiscourse.JohnBenjaPublishingCompany,Philadelphia,pp.115–135.Mahoro,B.,2006.Uganda’sLegalSystemandLegalSector.Accessedonandreadon1/6/7.Maier,R.,2001.Negotiationandidentity.In:Weigand,E.,Dascal,M.(Eds.),NegotiationandPowerinDialogicInteraction.BenjaminPublishingCPhiladelphia,pp.225–237.Mey,J.L.,2003.Literarypragmatics.In:Schiffrin,D.,Tannen,D.,Hamilton,H.E.(Eds.),TheHandbookofDiscourseAnalysis.BlackwellPublishingLtd,Oxford,pp.787–797.Reynolds,M.,1990.Classroompower:somedynamicsofclassroomtalk.In:Clark,R.,Fairclough,N.,Ivanic,R.,McLeod,N.,Thomas,J.,Meara,P.(EdLanguageandPower.A.McLayandCompanyLtd,Cardiff,pp.122–136.Sornig,K.,1989.Someremarksonlinguisticstrategiesofpersuasion.In:Wodak,R.(Ed.),Language,Power,andIdeology:StudiesinPoliticalDiscJohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany,Philadelphia,pp.95–113.Taft,L.,2000.Apologysubverted:thecommodicationofapology.YaleLawJournal109(March(5)),1135–1160.UGANDA,1995.TheConstitutionoftheRepublicofUganda1995.Kampala.VanDijk,A.T.,2000.Politicaldiscourseandpoliticalcognition.In:Chilton,P.A.,Schaffner,C.(Eds.),PoliticsasTextandTalk:AnalyticApproachestoPoliticalDiscourse.JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany,Philadelphia,pp.203–237.Weyeneth,R.R.,2001.ThepowerofapologyandtheprocessofhistoricalReconciliation.ThePublicHistorian23(Summer(3)),9–38.Wodak,R.,2000.Fragmentedidentities:redeningandreconstructingnationalidentity.In:Chilton,P.A.,Schaffner,C.(Eds.),PoliticsasTextandTalk:AnalyticApproachestoPoliticalDiscourse.JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany,Philadelphia,pp.143–169.JosephKimogaisalecturerinresearchmethodsattheEastAfricanInstituteofHigherEducationStudies&Development,SchoolofEducationofMakerereUniversity,Uganda.HismainresearchinterestisinCriticalDiscourseAnalysis,Curriculum,Pragmatics,PedagogyforAutonomy,andCriticalPedJ.Kimoga/JournalofPragmatics42(2010)2181–2188