Constructing the Immigrant Other: A Pragmatic Analysis of Political Rhetoric in Multicultural Democracies

Abstract

In multicultural democracies like Nigeria, Libya, and South Africa, political rhetoric has become a strategic tool for shaping public attitudes toward immigration. This study examines how political actors pragmatically construct the immigrant “Other” in speeches that respond to changing national concerns and sociopolitical tensions. Using Framing Theory (Goffman, 1974; Entman, 1993) and Pragmatic Argumentation Theory (van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 2004), the research analyses ten excerpts from each of three intentionally chosen political speeches—one from each country—to explore how language is used to frame immigrants as threats, burdens, or scapegoats. The analysis shows that speakers use diagnostic and prognostic frames that connect immigration with economic decline, insecurity, and cultural erosion. Through presuppositions, hedging, metaphors, implicatures, and modal expressions, political leaders craft persuasive narratives that justify restrictive policies and appeal to nationalist sentiments. These rhetorical choices reinforce binary oppositions like “us” versus “them,” effectively legitimising exclusionary ideas and weakening democratic principles of inclusion. The study concludes that the pragmatic framing of immigrants in political discourse not only reflects existing power dynamics but also helps normalise xenophobia in African democracies. By revealing the strategic language practices in such rhetoric, this paper provides critical insight into the links between language, identity, and political power in postcolonial African contexts.