CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Concept Political Discourse Analysis

Political discourse analysis (PDA) is a multidisciplinary field that examines the use of

language in political contexts to understand power relations, ideologies, and social structures

(Chilton, 2004). It encompasses the study of verbal and written communication produced by

political actors, including politicians, policymakers, media outlets, and the public, with a focus

on how language shapes political perceptions and behaviors (Fairclough, 2013). PDA seeks to

uncover the underlying meanings, intentions, and implications embedded within political

discourse, exploring how language constructs, reflects, and reproduces political realities (Van

Dijk, 1997).

The scope of political discourse analysis is broad, encompassing various forms of

political communication, including speeches, debates, interviews, press releases, media

coverage, and public statements (Wodak & Meyer, 2001). It examines not only the content of

political discourse but also its form, structure, and rhetorical strategies, aiming to reveal the

discursive techniques employed to persuade, legitimize, or challenge political authority

(Fairclough, 2013). PDA also considers the socio-political context within which political

discourse occurs, taking into account factors such as historical legacies, cultural norms, and

power dynamics (Wodak, 2001).

Political discourse analysis has evolved as an interdisciplinary field, drawing on insights

from linguistics, sociology, psychology, communication studies, and political science

(Fairclough, 2013). Its roots can be traced back to the work of linguists such as Ferdinand de
Saussure and Mikhail Bakhtin, who explored the relationship between language, power, and

social structure (Van Dijk, 1997). However, it was not until the latter half of the 20th century that

political discourse analysis emerged as a distinct field of study.

In the 1970s and 1980s, scholars like Norman Fairclough and Teun A. van Dijk

pioneered critical approaches to discourse analysis, emphasizing the role of language in

reproducing and contesting social inequalities (Fairclough, 1995; Van Dijk, 1997). This critical

turn in discourse analysis laid the foundation for the study of political discourse as a site of

ideological struggle and hegemonic contestation (Chilton, 2004). Since then, political discourse

analysis has expanded its theoretical and methodological repertoire, incorporating insights from

post-structuralism, pragmatics, and cognitive linguistics (Fairclough, 2013).

Contemporary approaches to political discourse analysis are characterized by their

interdisciplinary nature and methodological diversity (Wodak & Meyer, 2001). Scholars employ

a range of qualitative and quantitative methods, including textual analysis, corpus linguistics,

ethnography, and critical discourse analysis, to investigate political communication in its various

forms and contexts (Fairclough, 2013). This interdisciplinary and methodological pluralism

reflects the complexity of political discourse as a dynamic and multifaceted phenomenon

(Wodak & Meyer, 2001).

Political discourse analysis is informed by several theoretical frameworks and key

concepts that shape its analytical approach (Fairclough, 2013). One such framework is critical

discourse analysis (CDA), which emphasizes the interplay between language, power, and

ideology in shaping social and political realities (Fairclough, 1995). CDA examines how

language is used to reproduce and challenge dominant discourses, social hierarchies, and

institutional practices (Van Dijk, 1997).

Another influential concept in political discourse analysis is framing, which refers to the

strategic construction of meaning through the selection and emphasis of certain aspects of a

message (Entman, 1993). Framing analysis examines how political actors frame issues, events,

and identities to influence public perceptions and policy outcomes (Snow & Benford, 1988).

Moreover, intertextuality is a central concept in political discourse analysis, highlighting the

ways in which texts reference and draw upon other texts to create meaning (Fairclough, 2013).

Intertextual analysis explores how political discourse is situated within broader discursive

contexts, including historical narratives, cultural myths, and media representations (Fairclough,

2013).

2.2 Significance of Political Communication

Political communication plays a pivotal role in shaping public opinion, influencing

political outcomes, and maintaining democratic governance. Its significance lies in its ability to

inform, persuade, mobilize, and legitimize political actors and institutions within society. This

section examines the importance of political communication in shaping public opinion and

influencing political outcomes, the role of language, rhetoric, and discourse in political

communication, and the relevance of studying political discourse in understanding power

dynamics and ideological contestation.

Political communication serves as a crucial mechanism for informing citizens about

political issues, policies, and candidates, thereby shaping their perceptions, attitudes, and

behaviors (Negrine, 2008). Through various communication channels such as speeches, debates,

advertisements, and media coverage, political actors seek to engage with the public, garner

support, and mobilize voters during elections and policy debates (Stromer-Galley, 2000).
Effective political communication can sway public opinion, influence electoral outcomes, and

determine the success or failure of political agendas and initiatives (Blumler & Kavanagh, 1999).

Moreover, political communication plays a vital role in fostering democratic participation,

accountability, and transparency within political systems (Norris, 2000). Thus, studying political

communication is essential for understanding the dynamics of public opinion formation, electoral

behavior, and democratic governance.

Language, rhetoric, and discourse are fundamental tools employed in political

communication to convey messages, shape narratives, and persuade audiences (Hart, 2011).

Language serves as a medium through which political actors articulate their ideas, beliefs, and

values, while rhetoric involves the strategic use of language to appeal to emotions, values, and

identities (Ware & Linkugel, 1973). Political discourse, on the other hand, encompasses the

broader socio-political context within which communication occurs, including power relations,

social norms, and ideological frameworks (Fairclough, 2013). Together, these linguistic and

rhetorical devices shape political narratives, construct identities, and frame issues in ways that

resonate with specific audiences (Entman, 1993). By analyzing language, rhetoric, and discourse

in political communication, researchers can uncover the underlying meanings, intentions, and

effects of political messages, as well as their impact on public opinion and political behavior.

Studying political discourse is essential for understanding power dynamics and

ideological contestation within society (Fairclough, 1995). Political discourse reflects and

perpetuates dominant ideologies, social hierarchies, and institutional practices, shaping how

individuals perceive and engage with political authority (Van Dijk, 1997). By analyzing political

discourse, researchers can uncover the underlying power relations, interests, and conflicts that

structure political communication and decision-making processes (Foucault, 1980). Moreover,

political discourse serves as a site of ideological contestation, where competing narratives,

values, and worldviews collide, shaping the contours of political debate and policy formation

(Laclau & Mouffe, 1985). Thus, studying political discourse is crucial for understanding the

complexities of political power, ideology, and social change within contemporary societies.

2.3 Political Communication in Nigeria

Political communication in Nigeria has undergone significant transformations throughout

its colonial, independence, and post-independence periods, reflecting the country's complex

socio-political landscape and its struggles with democracy, governance, and nation-building.

During the colonial era, Nigeria was under British rule, and political communication

primarily served the interests of the colonial administration. The British utilized various

communication channels, such as newspapers, radio broadcasts, and official proclamations, to

disseminate colonial ideologies, maintain social control, and justify their rule (Osaghae, 1998).

Indigenous languages were often marginalized in favor of English, the language of the colonial

rulers, limiting access to information and political participation among the Nigerian populace

(Uchendu, 2016).

The period leading up to Nigeria's independence in 1960 was characterized by vibrant

political activism, nationalist movements, and struggles for self-determination. Political

communication played a crucial role in mobilizing support for independence, galvanizing

resistance against colonial rule, and articulating the aspirations of the Nigerian people (Ibrahim,

1995). Political leaders such as Nnamdi Azikiwe, Obafemi Awolowo, and Ahmadu Bello

utilized newspapers, public speeches, and grassroots organizing to mobilize their followers and

articulate their visions for a post-colonial Nigeria (Adebanwi, 2019).

Following independence, political communication continued to evolve amid the

challenges of nation-building, ethnic diversity, and democratic consolidation. The post-

independence era was marked by political instability, military coups, and authoritarian rule,

which had profound implications for communication practices in Nigeria (Momoh, 2018). The

military regimes of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s imposed strict censorship laws, suppressed

dissenting voices, and controlled the media to maintain their grip on power (Ikejiani-Clark,

1988).

With the transition to civilian rule in 1999, Nigeria witnessed a resurgence of democratic

politics and a revitalization of political communication. The advent of multiparty democracy

ushered in a new era of political pluralism, media liberalization, and citizen engagement (Lugard,

2006). Political parties, civil society organizations, and the media played increasingly important

roles in shaping political discourse, mobilizing voters, and holding elected officials accountable

(Omotola, 2008).

Historical events and socio-political developments have exerted a profound influence on

communication practices in Nigeria, shaping the contours of public discourse, media landscape,

and political participation. For instance, the legacy of colonialism left a lasting impact on

Nigeria's communication infrastructure, media institutions, and linguistic diversity. The colonial

legacy of linguistic imperialism and cultural hegemony continues to shape language use, media

ownership, and access to information in Nigeria (Uchendu, 2016). Furthermore, the struggles for

independence and self-determination instilled a sense of nationalism and political consciousness

among Nigerians, paving the way for the emergence of indigenous media outlets, political

parties, and civil society organizations (Ibrahim, 1995).

Similarly, the period of military rule profoundly affected communication practices in

Nigeria, as successive military regimes-imposed censorship, suppressed dissent, and controlled

the flow of information (Momoh, 2018). The draconian press laws, state-owned broadcasting

networks, and surveillance of political dissidents stifled free expression, undermined journalistic

independence, and eroded public trust in the media (Ikejiani-Clark, 1988).

In contrast, the transition to civilian rule in 1999 heralded a new era of media pluralism,

digital innovation, and citizen journalism in Nigeria. The democratization of communication

technologies, such as the internet and social media, has democratized access to information,

expanded spaces for public discourse, and empowered citizens to participate in political

processes (Omotola, 2008). However, challenges such as fake news, disinformation, and online

hate speech have emerged as pressing concerns, highlighting the need for ethical journalism,

media literacy, and regulatory reforms (Lugard, 2006).

2.4 Language and Politics

Language plays a significant role in Nigerian politics, serving as a tool for

communication, identity expression, and political mobilization. Nigeria is linguistically diverse,

with over 500 indigenous languages spoken across the country (Gordon, 2005). The use of

language in politics reflects this diversity and encompasses multiple linguistic registers,

including indigenous languages, English, and Nigerian Pidgin.

Indigenous languages hold cultural and symbolic significance in Nigerian politics,

particularly in regions where they are widely spoken. Political actors often use indigenous

languages to connect with local communities, convey messages in culturally resonant ways, and

mobilize support during elections and campaigns (Adebayo, 2019). By speaking in the language
of the people, politicians can establish rapport, build trust, and demonstrate cultural sensitivity,

thereby enhancing their appeal and legitimacy among voters (Adegbija, 2017).

English, as the official language of Nigeria, also plays a crucial role in political

communication, serving as a lingua franca for interethnic communication, official documents,

and public discourse (Jowitt, 1991). Political elites and educated urban populations often use

English in formal settings such as government proceedings, public speeches, and media

interviews (Mazrui & Mazrui, 1998). Fluency in English is often associated with education,

social status, and political sophistication, making it a valuable asset for political leaders seeking

to appeal to diverse audiences (Eze, 2011).

Nigerian Pidgin, a creole language derived from English and indigenous African

languages, has emerged as a popular medium of communication in informal settings, including

politics (Awonusi, 2003). Nigerian Pidgin is widely understood and spoken across ethnic and

regional boundaries, making it an effective tool for reaching mass audiences, particularly among

urban youth and grassroots communities (Akinnaso, 2013). Politicians often use Nigerian Pidgin

in rallies, campaign jingles, and social media posts to connect with ordinary Nigerians, convey

populist messages, and project an image of accessibility and authenticity (Eze, 2018).

Linguistic diversity, ethnic identity, and regional differences profoundly influence

political discourse in Nigeria, shaping the content, style, and reception of political messages

(Osaghae, 1998). Nigeria's multiethnic society is characterized by a complex tapestry of

languages, cultures, and identities, each with its own historical legacies and political aspirations

(Smith, 2002).
Ethnic identity often intersects with linguistic diversity, as ethnic groups are often

associated with specific languages or language families (Awoniyi, 1998). Political discourse in

Nigeria is often framed along ethnic lines, with politicians appealing to ethnic loyalties,

sentiments, and grievances to mobilize support and consolidate power (Suberu, 2001). Ethnic-

based political parties, movements, and interest groups advocate for the rights and interests of

their respective ethnic communities, often leveraging language as a marker of cultural

distinctiveness and political solidarity (Isawa, 2009).

Regional differences also shape political discourse in Nigeria, as disparities in language,

culture, and socio-economic development contribute to divergent political interests and priorities

(Omotola, 2010). The North-South divide, for example, has historical roots in colonialism and

has persisted as a fault line in Nigerian politics, influencing electoral dynamics, resource

allocation, and governance arrangements (Mamdani, 2005). Political discourse often reflects

these regional cleavages, with politicians exploiting regional grievances, inequalities, and

aspirations to gain electoral advantage and advance their agendas (Omotola, 2009).

2.5 Political Campaign Speeches as Discursive Artifacts

Political campaign speeches are oral presentations delivered by political candidates or

their representatives during election campaigns to communicate their policies, vision, and appeal

to voters. These speeches serve as a primary medium for candidates to articulate their platform,

persuade voters, and differentiate themselves from opponents (Norris, 2000). Campaign speeches

are an essential component of electoral politics, providing candidates with an opportunity to

connect with voters, mobilize support, and shape public opinion (Diamond, 2003).
Campaign speeches are delivered in various settings, including rallies, town hall

meetings, debates, and media interviews, and are often tailored to specific audiences and

contexts (Stromer-Galley, 2014). They are characterized by their persuasive intent, emotive

language, and strategic framing of issues, as candidates seek to win over undecided voters,

energize their base, and sway public opinion (Jost & Hunyadi, 2002).

Effective campaign speeches share several key characteristics that contribute to their

impact and persuasiveness. One such characteristic is authenticity, whereby candidates convey

sincerity, passion, and conviction in their delivery, enhancing their credibility and connecting

with audiences on a personal level (Jamieson, 2000). Authenticity is often achieved through the

use of personal anecdotes, storytelling, and conversational language, which humanize the

candidate and make them relatable to voters (Westen, 2007).

Rhetorical devices play a crucial role in shaping the content and style of campaign speeches,

helping candidates to frame issues, evoke emotions, and construct persuasive arguments

(Friedenberg, 2016). Examples of rhetorical devices commonly employed in campaign speeches

include:

1. Metaphor: Candidates use metaphorical language to simplify complex issues, create

vivid imagery, and evoke emotional responses from audiences (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980).

Metaphors such as "bridge to the future" or "battle for change" frame the election as a

transformative journey or struggle, inspiring hope and rallying support behind the

candidate's agenda.

2. Repetition: Repetition is a rhetorical device used to reinforce key messages, slogans, or

themes throughout a speech, making them more memorable and persuasive (Hogan,
2003). Candidates repeat phrases such as "hope and change" or "make America great

again" to emphasize their campaign promises and imprint them in the minds of voters.

3. Anaphora: Anaphora involves the repetition of a word or phrase at the beginning of

successive clauses or sentences, creating a rhythmic and persuasive effect (Corbett,

1990). Candidates use anaphora to build momentum, emphasize important points, and

command attention. For example, "We will fight for justice. We will fight for equality.

We will fight for a better future."

4. Emotional Appeals: Emotional appeals appeal to the emotions and values of voters,

tapping into their fears, hopes, and aspirations (Perloff, 2018). Candidates use emotive

language, anecdotes, and imagery to evoke feelings of patriotism, solidarity, or urgency,

eliciting an emotional response from audiences and motivating them to take action

(Cialdini, 2007).

In addition to rhetorical devices, effective campaign speeches employ persuasive strategies that

appeal to the rational and emotional dimensions of voters' decision-making processes (Petty &

Cacioppo, 1986). These strategies include:

1. Logic and Reasoning: Candidates use logical arguments, evidence, and statistics to

support their claims and rebut opposing viewpoints (Tindale, 1999). By presenting a

coherent and well-reasoned case, candidates demonstrate their competence, credibility,

and readiness to lead (Walton, 1992).

2. Social Proof: Social proof involves referencing the support or endorsement of trusted

authorities, experts, or ordinary citizens to validate the candidate's message and build

credibility (Cialdini, 2007). Candidates cite endorsements from community leaders,

celebrities, or influential organizations to signal their popularity and legitimacy (Berger

& Milkman, 2012).

3. Urgency and Scarcity: Candidates create a sense of urgency and scarcity by

emphasizing the stakes of the election and the consequences of inaction (Cialdini, 2007).

By framing the election as a critical moment in history and highlighting the limited

opportunity for change, candidates motivate voters to mobilize and seize the moment

(Heath & Heath, 2007).

2.6 Bola Ahmed Tinubu: A Political Profile

Bola Ahmed Tinubu, born on March 29, 1952, in Lagos State, Nigeria, is a prominent

Nigerian politician, businessman, and former governor. He hails from a humble background,

growing up in the cosmopolitan city of Lagos. Tinubu obtained his early education at St. John's

Primary School, Aroloya, Lagos, before proceeding to the prestigious Government College,

Ibadan, for his secondary education. He later attended Richard Daley College, Chicago, Illinois,

United States, where he studied accounting.

Tinubu's foray into politics began in the 1990s when Nigeria transitioned from military to

civilian rule. He emerged as a prominent figure within the pro-democracy movement, advocating

for democratic reforms and human rights. Tinubu played a key role in the formation of the

National Democratic Coalition (NADECO), a group that agitated for the restoration of

democracy in Nigeria during the military dictatorship of General Sani Abacha.

In 1999, with the return to civilian rule, Tinubu contested and won the governorship

election in Lagos State under the platform of the Alliance for Democracy (AD), becoming the

first civilian governor of the state in the Fourth Republic. His tenure as governor, spanning from
1999 to 2007, marked a significant period of socio-economic development and political

transformation in Lagos State. Tinubu implemented various reforms in areas such as

infrastructure, education, healthcare, and transportation, earning him acclaim as the "Architect of

Modern Lagos."

Tinubu's rise to prominence within Nigerian politics can be attributed to his strategic

political acumen, grassroots mobilization efforts, and effective leadership style. As a founding

member of the Action Congress (AC), later renamed the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN),

Tinubu played a pivotal role in the opposition's resistance against the ruling People's Democratic

Party (PDP) at the national level.

During his tenure as governor of Lagos State, Tinubu demonstrated strong leadership and

governance skills, implementing innovative policies and projects that transformed the state's

landscape and improved the welfare of its residents. His administration focused on infrastructural

development, urban renewal, and poverty alleviation initiatives, which earned him popularity and

support among Lagosians (Omotola, 2012).

Tinubu's political influence extends beyond Lagos State, as he played a key role in the

formation of the All Progressives Congress (APC), a merger of several opposition parties that

unseated the ruling PDP in the 2015 presidential election. As a national leader of the APC,

Tinubu continues to wield significant influence within the party and Nigerian politics at large,

shaping its policies, strategies, and electoral fortunes (Aiyede & Ogen, 2019).

2.7 Ideologies and Strategies

Bola Ahmed Tinubu's political ideologies, policy initiatives, and strategic alliances have

been instrumental in shaping his political career and influencing Nigeria's political landscape.
Ideologically, Tinubu is known for his commitment to progressive politics, fiscal conservatism,

and federalism. He advocates for policies that promote economic growth, development, and

empowerment at the grassroots level.

During his tenure as governor of Lagos State, Tinubu implemented various policy

initiatives aimed at transforming the state's economy, infrastructure, and social services. His

administration prioritized urban renewal projects, public transportation reforms, and investments

in education and healthcare. Tinubu's policies focused on promoting private sector participation,

job creation, and poverty alleviation, earning him recognition for his pragmatic approach to

governance (Omotola, 2012).

Strategically, Tinubu is renowned for his ability to build and sustain political alliances

across ethnic, regional, and party lines. He has cultivated a broad coalition of supporters,

including traditional rulers, business leaders, youth groups, and civil society organizations.

Tinubu's strategic alliances have enabled him to consolidate power, mobilize resources, and

expand his political influence beyond Lagos State to the national level (Aiyede & Ogen, 2019).

Tinubu's communication style is characterized by its directness, assertiveness, and clarity

of purpose. He is known for his eloquence, charisma, and ability to connect with diverse

audiences through effective storytelling and persuasive rhetoric. Tinubu's leadership qualities,

including his vision, decisiveness, and resilience, have earned him respect and admiration among

his supporters and political allies.

Politically, Tinubu's objectives are centered on advancing democratic governance,

promoting social justice, and fostering economic prosperity in Nigeria. He seeks to empower

ordinary citizens, particularly those at the grassroots level, by advocating for policies that
enhance their socio-economic well-being and political participation. Tinubu's long-term political

objective is to contribute to the consolidation of democracy, the rule of law, and good

governance in Nigeria, thereby securing a brighter future for generations to come.

2.8 Theoretical Frameworks in Discourse Analysis

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a theoretical framework rooted in linguistics,

sociology, and critical theory, which aims to investigate the relationship between language,

power, and ideology in discourse (Fairclough, 2013). CDA focuses on uncovering the ways in

which language is used to construct and reproduce social inequalities, dominant ideologies, and

asymmetrical power relations within society (van Dijk, 1993).

In the context of political discourse analysis, CDA provides a systematic approach to

examining how language is employed by political actors to shape public opinion, legitimize

authority, and maintain hegemonic control (Wodak & Meyer, 2009). By analyzing the linguistic

features, rhetorical strategies, and discursive practices within political texts, CDA seeks to reveal

underlying power dynamics, ideological biases, and socio-political implications embedded

within discourse.

Several key theorists have contributed to the development of Critical Discourse Analysis,

each offering unique insights into the role of language in social practice and power relations.

Among the most influential figures in CDA are Norman Fairclough, Teun A. van Dijk, and Ruth

Wodak.

 Norman Fairclough is widely recognized for his work on the dialectical relationship

between discourse and society. Fairclough's approach to CDA emphasizes the

interconnectedness of text, context, and social structure, viewing discourse as both a

product and a producer of social reality (Fairclough, 2003). His concept of "discourse-as-

social-practice" highlights the dynamic and contested nature of language in shaping

social relations and cultural meanings.

 Teun A. van Dijk has made significant contributions to the study of power and ideology

in discourse. Van Dijk's socio-cognitive approach to CDA focuses on the cognitive

processes involved in the production, interpretation, and dissemination of discourse (van

Dijk, 2001). His analysis of discursive strategies, such as legitimization, polarization, and

exclusion, sheds light on how language is used to maintain or challenge existing power

structures and dominant ideologies.

 Ruth Wodak is known for her research on the intersection of discourse, identity, and

politics. Wodak's discourse-historical approach to CDA emphasizes the historical and

socio-political contexts in which discourse is produced and interpreted (Wodak &

Fairclough, 2010). Her studies on populist rhetoric, nationalism, and identity construction

provide insights into the discursive strategies employed by political actors to mobilize

support, construct collective identities, and frame social issues.

At the core of CDA is a critical perspective that seeks to uncover hidden power relations,

ideological biases, and hegemonic discourses within society (Fairclough, 2001). From a critical

standpoint, language is not neutral but serves as a site of struggle and contestation, reflecting and

reinforcing existing power asymmetries (van Dijk, 1998).

CDA interrogates the ways in which language is used to legitimize, naturalize, or resist

dominant ideologies and social structures (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999). By analyzing the

discursive strategies, semantic choices, and rhetorical devices employed in political discourse,
CDA reveals how language functions as a tool of persuasion, manipulation, and social control

(Wodak, 2006).

CDA highlights the role of discourse in constructing and reproducing social identities, group

boundaries, and collective representations (van Leeuwen, 2008). Through processes of

categorization, stereotyping, and othering, political discourse shapes perceptions of self and

other, fostering solidarity among in-groups while marginalizing or stigmatizing out-groups (van

Dijk, 2006).

References

Adebayo, A. (2019). The role of indigenous languages in political campaigns in Nigeria. In O.

Odumosu & A. Mtenje (Eds.), Language and politics in Africa: Contemporary issues and

critical perspectives (pp. 71-87). Palgrave Macmillan.

Adebanwi, W. (2019). Yoruba elites and ethnic politics in Nigeria: 1900–1966. Cambridge

University Press.

Akinnaso, F. N. (2013). Language, democracy, and governance in Nigeria. In F. N. Akinnaso &

A. L. Ogunrotifa (Eds.), Language and governance in Nigeria: Issues and challenges (pp.

1-17). Malthouse Press.

Aiyede, R. T., & Ogen, O. (2019). Political godfatherism and democratic governance in Nigeria:

A discourse. Journal of African Elections, 18(1), 51-69.

Awoniyi, T. (1998). Language policy and national integration in Nigeria. In J. Simpson (Ed.),

Language and national identity in Africa (pp. 129-139). Oxford University Press.
Blumler, J. G., & Kavanagh, D. (1999). The third age of political communication: Influences and

features. Political Communication, 16(3), 209-230.

Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. Routledge.

Diamond, E. (2003). Campaigning for president 2004: Strategy and tactics, new voices and new

techniques. Routledge.

Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of

Communication, 43(4), 51-58.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman.

Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). Longman.

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

Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.).

Routledge.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977.

Pantheon Books.

Hart, R. P. (2011). Political tone: How leaders talk and why. University of Chicago Press.

Ibrahim, J. (1995). Zikism: The ideology of a nation-state. Oxford University Press.

Isawa, S. (2009). Ethnicity and party politics in Nigeria. Spectrum Books.

Jost, J. T., & Hunyadi, M. (2002). The psychology of system justification and the palliative

function of ideology. European Review of Social Psychology, 13(1), 111-153.

Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic

politics. Verso Books.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.

Mamdani, M. (2005). Citizen and subject: Contemporary Africa and the legacy of late

colonialism. Princeton University Press.

Mazrui, A., & Mazrui, A. A. (1998). The power of Babel: Language and governance in the

African experience. University of Chicago Press.

Negrine, R. M. (2008). The transformation of political communication: Continuities and changes

in media and politics. Palgrave Macmillan.

Norris, P. (2000). A virtuous circle: Political communication in postindustrial societies.

Cambridge University Press.

Osaghae, E. E. (1998). Crippled giant: Nigeria since independence. Indiana University Press.

Omotola, J. S. (2008). Democratization and gender identity in Nigeria: The impact of the

transition to civilian rule on Nigerian.

Omotola, J. S. (2009). Understanding Nigeria’s Fourth Republic: Continuity and change. Africa

Institute of South Africa.

Omotola, J. S. (2010). Regionalism and ethnicity in Nigerian politics: Continuity or change? The

Round Table, 99(406), 225-241.

Omotola, J. S. (2012). Governance and politics in Lagos State, Nigeria: A study of impacts.

Journal of Asian and African Studies, 47(1), 3-16.

Smith, T. Y. (2002). Nigeria: Dancing on the brink. Yale University Press.

Suberu, R. T. (2001). Ethnic minority conflicts and governance in Nigeria. Journal of Modern

African Studies, 39(2), 307-332.

Stromer-Galley, J. (2000). On-line interaction and why candidates avoid it. Journal of

Communication.

Stromer-Galley, J. (2014). Presidential campaigning in the internet age. Oxford University Press.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Political discourse and ideology. Journal of Political Ideologies, 2(3),

201-220.

Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is about: A summary of its history, important concepts and its

developments. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis

(pp. 1-13). Sage.

Wodak, R. (2006). Mediation between discourse and society: Assessing cognitive approaches in

CDA. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 179-190.

Wodak, R., & Fairclough, N. (2010). Approaches to discourse analysis. Blackwell Publishing.

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2001). Methods of critical discourse analysis. Sage.