Managing accountability in public discourse: Evasion strategies at the Iraq War public hearings in the United Kingdom

English language issues from different perspectives

Facultad de Lenguas

Lugar: Córdoba ; Año: 2019; p. 1 - 355

This chapter is part of a larger study examining the testimonies of political and military elite witnesses in the context of the Iraq War public hearings. These hearings were carried in London, United Kingdom, from 2009 to 2011, as part of the Iraq War Inquiry to find out the nations? role in this controversial military operation. During its public hearings, the inquiry board heard evidence from a variety of politicians, including Prime Minister Tony Blair and his successor Gordon Brown, and top-rank military officers at the time of the invasion, including Chief of Air Staff Marshal Jock Stirrup and Chief of Defence Staff General Michael Walker. These testimonies were made public and available to a wide audience via streaming. From the perspective of situated Discourse Analysis and the associated disciplinary strands of Conversational Analysis and Narrative Studies, this article examines how political witnesses construct versions of reality in public hearings and argues for the contestable nature of such versions. An exploration of conversational dynamics shows that elite witnesses are allowed to disregard the obligations defined by their situational roles as interrogators fail to gain, exert and maintain interactional control. It is possible to suggest that these witnesses benefit from special licenses which ultimately permit them to shape content, form, and information flow. The general objective of this study is to contribute to an understanding of ways of managing accountability in public discourse. The specific objectives are to describe the discourse strategies employed by political witnesses in testimonies, to evaluate their implications in the circulation of social representations, and to establish connections among discursive strategies, interactional alignments, and socio-political conditions. This study concludes by tapping into the dialectical link between discourse and society unveiling the particular ways in which strategic public discourse represents an instrument of social manipulation and hegemonic control which, far from generating genuine public dialogue, works to manufacture a false sense of debate as well as an equally false sense of consensus.