The Dangerous Discourse of “Us” vs. “Them:” Spain's VOX Discursive Practices

The Spanish regional elections of Andalucía in 2018 initiated the establishment of radical right ideologies within the Spanish political system. The ascension of popularity and support for the far right-wing political party called VOX represented the end of the “Spanish exceptionalism” (Ortiz 2019, 2). VOX ideologies are in line with other European radical right parties whose discourse is based on the defense of national unity and the rejection of policies in favor of immigration and feminism among others, employing ultranationalist and authoritarian measures (Anduiza 2018; Gould 2019). According to Falter and Schumann (1988, 101) right-wing extremists advocate “extreme nationalism, ethnocentrism, anti-communism, anti-parliamentarianism, anti-pluralism, militarism, law-and-order thinking, a demand for a strong political leader and/or executive, anti-Americanism and cultural pessimism.” Hainsworth (2008, 70) also posited that one of the most significant issues related to radical right-wing parties is immigration, and various studies affirm that their discourse is, to a large extent, focused on the animosity against immigrants and the government's measures to support immigration (Boomgaarden and Vliegenthart 2007; Van Spanje 2017). Muddle (2019) suggests that these radical parties link the escalation of delinquency in European societies with immigration, and thus, their discourse is focused predominantly on the crimes committed by immigrants. Consequently, extreme right-wing parties tend to include in their speeches a discourse of fear: fear toward immigration (Zaslove 2008) and fear of the possibility that left-wing parties supportive of communism could govern the nation (Ferreira 2019).

This study analyzed the types of discursive strategies grounded on the “Us” vs. “Them” framework used by VOX leader, Santiago Abascal, during the closing campaign of the Madrilenian elections and how he employed these strategies to convey fear and hate through perlocutionary acts, reinforcing their discourse on issues surrounding immigration, economy, security, and politics. We will also discuss the ways in which discourse was used to augment their own actions and justifications while vilifying the government and other political parties’ practices. This research also aims to contribute to the body of knowledge concerning polarization and fragmentation of the Spanish political scene, which consequently affects Spanish society.

VOX was founded on December 17th of 2013 under the leadership of Alejo Vidal-Quadra, who was a member of the Partido Popular (PP). Initially, most of the members of VOX were affiliated with the PP, which traditionally was the major right-wing party in the Spanish political scene. Some reasons for this cleavage were found in the passive attitude adopted by the then president of the government, Mariano Rajoy, concerning the independence movement crisis of Catalonia (Rubio-Pueyo 2019). The disappointing results in the European elections of 2014, in which VOX failed to win a seat, caused a division in the political party. Therefore, the president of VOX, Alejo Vidal-Quadra, and some other founders of the party announced their renunciation to diminish the tensions caused by the fragmentation of the party due to the setback of the European elections (Sangiao 2019). In 2014, Santiago Abascal replaced Alejo Vidal-Quadra as the new president of VOX. It was on the Spanish regional elections of Andalucía in 2018 when VOX started to receive major citizen support, obtaining 10.96 percent of the votes

Results retrieved from http://www.eleccionesparlamentoandalucia2018.es/resultados/.

In 2019, for the first time in history, VOX entered the Madrid Assembly, which is the unicameral regional legislature that represents Madrilenian citizens; any party member who gets a seat in the Assembly can exercise their legislative power, i.e., the power to make laws. It is also in charge of approving the budgets of the regional government. It controls and promotes political and governmental acts. In its first appearance in 2019, VOX got twelve seats in the Madrid Assembly (287,667 votes). In 2021, the president of Madrid and leader of the PP in Madrid, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, called for a snap election for May 4th of 2021 due to differences with the political parties that supported the PP in other Spanish regions to govern. As a result, the political party “Ciudadanos,” a formation that supported the PP in the investiture in the region of Murcia, presented a motion of censure together with the PSOE. This situation was quickly replicated in other autonomous communities in which the right-wing coalition (PP, VOX, Ciudadanos) made it possible for the PP to govern. The results of the Madrilenian elections in 2021 not only maintained VOX in the Madrid Assembly, but also increased their number of votes (330,660). That is 9.13 percent of the total, a spike of about 50,000 votes that suggested the addition of another seat in the Madrid Assembly.¹ Although they did not win the majority of the votes in Madrid, the number of sympathizers who believed that VOX could govern Madrid increased on a large scale.

According to Anduiza (2018), the reasons VOX has been associated with the radical right ideology are found in their conservative discourse: rejection of abortion, national unity, recentralization of the state, social conservatism, and the rejection of any cultural change in society (feminism, egalitarian marriage, immigration), economic neoliberalism, and the defense of the traditions such as hunting and bullfighting. In his studies, Casals (2000, 156) suggests that the Spanish radical right parties traditionally present an antidemocratic bias due to “the nostalgia” they had toward the past dictatorships. In the same line, Cervi (2020) posited that VOX constructed the definition of Spanish taking as a starting point for the expulsion of Muslims from the Iberian Peninsula. Cervi argues that VOX believes that there is a clear threat represented by the Muslims and Islam that could endanger Spanish traditions, culture, and identity.

There are plenty of studies that cover discourse in political contexts. Some focus on discourse and political ideology and the intentional divisive strategies employed to achieve a winning streak in the polls.

An example of how exclusion is purposely done was Stoegner and Wodak's (2015) investigation that analyzed the interrelationship between antisemitism and national unity in the United Kingdom based on an article about Ralph Miliband titled “The man who hated Britain”, published in the tabloid The Mirror on September 27, 2013. Adopting a discourse-historical analysis approach (DHA), the main findings of the study can be found in the attempts to disparage not only Ralph Miliband, but also left-wing political parties and Jewish society. Their study suggests that this strategy was used to enhance nationalistic ideals and to exclude Ralph Miliband due to his ethnic background, Jewish religion, and leftist political ideals. The authors provided a strong analytical support in which topics such as anti-intellectualism, antisemitic background, and antinationalism were investigated to compare the relationship between antisemitism and nationalism.

Similarly, Assimakopoulos and Muskat (2017) explored the context of xenophobic and homophobic attitudes in Malta and the way these are manifested in online discourses concerning migrants and members of the LGBTQ community. Adopting Fairclough's three-dimensional framework (1995), the authors analyzed both focus group interviews conducted among Maltese citizens and online comments related to the two minorities in question.

Their corpus-based study demonstrated that while homophobia seems to be motivated by “deep-rooted religious beliefs and allegiance to heteronormative values,” xenophobia thrives on the perceived threat posed by the migrants to the local culture. These findings correlate with a Spanish study conducted by Valdez-Apolo et al. (2019) that analyzed hate speeches against the immigrant communities and suggested that immigrants were categorized as a threat.

Likewise, Alcántara-Plá and Ruiz-Sánchez (2017) focused on analyzing the positive and negative labels to study the representation of Muslims on the Spanish Internet and adopted a theoretical framework developed by Fillmore (1982), Langacker (1991), and Huckin (2002). Using political tweets, Sketchengine Spanish corpus, and press articles as three separate corpora, the author intended to discover which are the most common collocations that appear in the data. Labels such as islámico (Islamic) and musulmán (Muslim) were identified as negative in most of the cases. One interesting finding was the use of the neutral connotations of the term musulmán when indicating the belonging to groups related to Spanish culture and history, although the labels related to the Muslim world are still grouped in “Them” instead of “Us.”

Another study conducted by Allen (2007) investigated how Australian politicians portrayed themselves to the public in their speeches. The author analyzed the ways in which personal pronouns were used in the campaign speeches to extol themselves as the best option for running the state entities or discredit their opponents by suggesting their negative aspects. Allen argued that in political speeches, pronouns are always used to eulogize themselves and their parties, suggesting to the citizens that they share the same ideals and that they are the best choice for the post. At the same time, politicians try to exclude other political parties from their group by diminishing their reputation and presenting negative aspects about them.

In like manner, Renaldo's (2016) investigation on the different ideological manifestations of the Democratic and Republican parties of the United States was centered on the analysis of the candidates’ positive self-presentation and negative presentation of “the other” by adopting Van Djik's (1993) Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Wodak's (2009) discursive practices. Results showed that the candidates mostly used negative other-presentation manifestations through predicational strategies.

Other studies investigated linguistic expressions of former presidents and how they manipulated the discourse when presenting highly contentious issues such as military occupation. An example is Reyes's (2011) study, which analyzed the language used by the former presidents of the United States, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Reyes described linguistic strategies in legitimizing the military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. Through the discursive strategies proposed by Wodak (2001), the author concludes that the presidents’ choice of words and delivery can trigger emotions to incite expected reactions from the audience, i.e., fear, belief in a hypothetical future, rationality, and trust in their voice of expertise.

Although there have been studies on political discourse and on Spain's political context, this study will fill the gap in research concerning VOX's most recent monumental speech delivered in one of the biggest influential cities and a primary area for their constituents in Spain–Madrid.

The theoretical framework that guided the analyses of this study is grounded on the “Us” vs. “Them” theory, which has been used in a wide number of studies tackling sociopolitical issues that break, isolate, and segregate societies into different groups. This has greatly influenced political discourses subscribing to the “Us” and “Them” ideology, which deepens the fault lines within the government. Politicians are elected by the citizens; they are chosen to represent those who voted for them; therefore, what they say, how they say it, and to whom they say it influences the ideologies of their followers. Discursive representations, if strategically used in political campaigns, can have dire consequences for a political party's chance of winning, the result of which could determine the political landscape of the country. As Van Dijk (1993) posits, there is a continuous fight for dominance and power in the political scene, and its effects can be felt in the society, since these kinds of verbal fights and arguments persist in the citizens’ discourse of different ideological groups.

Dialectical clashes between individuals and groups are recurrent in society. Investigations suggest that the contrast between “Us” and “Them” is enough to foment differences and biased judgments that can distort the social order of a group or a country (Anderson 2013; Brewer 1979; Wodak 2008). The use of the language is one of the most important tools to convey the perceptions and opinions that individuals possess toward other individuals or groups (Taylor 1981). Through the perceptions of “Us” vs. “Them,” the ideologies of a group can be classified in different sections related to community affairs, power, control, or refusal (Yuval-Davis 2010). When the ideologies shared in a group are different, a dissolution of the group is expected, contributing to the creation of new partisan ideologies, also known as in-group and out-group ideologies (Abrams and Hogg 1990; Budesheim, Houston, and DePaola 1996). Ideologies such as racism or nationalism are elements that assisted the creation and development of the perceptions of “Us” vs. “Them” (Van Djik 1995). A continuous fight for control and power increments the discourse of “Us” vs. “Them,” leading to inequality and disadvantages between some groups and others (Van Dijk 1993). The use of “Us” vs “Them” as a tool to emphasize identity and identification is a powerful practice to achieve certain goals in terms of political discourse. Politicians introduce themselves, their goals, and critiques with an aim to persuade the voters that they are the right candidates (Hahn 2003). As Pearce (2001) posits, politicians manipulate their discourse to convey their identities in a positive light while defaming other politicians’ identities to persuade the voters.

The term “discourse” is understood as a series of linguistic acts that are interconnected and can occur simultaneously (Wodak 2001). Discourse can also be defined as any practice by which the subject grants the reality with an understandable sense. It is found in various social practices (Fairclough 2010; Lincoln 2014), and it is often represented orally or in written forms due to its facility to register its content. Hence, it is socially conditioned and socially constitutive (Wodak and Meyer 2009). Discursive practices are ways of shaping and forming knowledge; they are what Bacchi and Bonham (2014) refer to as practices of discourse. Discursive strategies can be and are often used in the field of politics to analyze different functions such as “… legislation, self-presentation, the manufacturing of public opinion, developing party-internal consent, advertising, and vote-getting, governing as well as executing, and controlling as well as expressing (oppositional) dissent.” (Wodak 2001, 66–67). In the following section, the five discourse analytical tools (Table 1) used in this research, their objectives, and the devices used to identify them will be presented and briefly explained.

As Wodak (2001) suggests, strategies can be defined as the plans or intentions that the actors adopt to accomplish certain tasks. The objectives of “referential/nomination” strategies are to construct and categorize in-groups and out-groups of a certain society. The aim of “predication” strategies is to label positively or negatively the actors that are included in the discourse as well as their behaviors. “Argumentation” strategies serve to justify the positive or negative labels of the predication strategies. “Perspectivation” strategies are the attempts of the actors to engage the public in the discourse message through a variety of techniques such as narration, quotation, or description. Lastly, “intensification/mitigation” strategies are the ones used to modify their utterances, making them more explicit or implicit.

As Wodak (2001) suggests, strategies can be defined as the plans or intentions that the actors adopt to accomplish certain tasks. The objectives of “referential/nomination” strategies are to construct and categorize in-groups and out-groups of a certain society. The aim of “predication” strategies is to label positively or negatively the actors that are included in the discourse as well as their behaviors. “Argumentation” strategies serve to justify the positive or negative labels of the predication strategies. “Perspectivation” strategies are the attempts of the actors to engage the public in the discourse message through a variety of techniques such as narration, quotation, or description. Lastly, “intensification/mitigation” strategies are the ones used to modify their utterances, making them more explicit or implicit.

In looking at discourse strategies, understanding the meaning and effect of an utterance is necessary. Austin's (1962) speech acts theory lays the groundwork for interpreting speaker meaning. It is determined by breaking down the components of the language, i.e., lexical and semantic type of the sentence uttered, and connecting it with the speaker's intention and the context of utterance (Sadock 2004). Austin argues that words can do something, and vice versa–there are things done with words. He explored the illocutionary force (performative function) in speech and perlocutionary force (perceived effect) effects that have the power to change people. The illocutionary force of an utterance lies in the speaker's implication and intention, whereas perlocutionary force depends on the listener's (addressee) inference or understanding of what was said (Fetzer 2011). Perlocutionary acts could be inspiring, irritating, persuading, embarrassing, frightening, etc. Whatever the effect, it certainly can evoke feelings in the listeners. In other words, if the discourse conveyed fear and hate in a heightened political context, it can have a trickle-down effect on social actions (Qiang 2013). The production and reaction to a perlocutionary act lies in the symbiotic relationship between the speaker and the hearer (for whom the message is intended). Hence, an active listener can react to what was being said. Searle (2002) refined Austin's speech act theory by emphasizing how language is situated on intentionality; expression and meaning are intentionally developed to affect the mind and social reality.

This study analyzed the discourse of the Spanish political party representative of VOX, Santiago Abascal. The aim of this study was to find which discursive strategies they (the party) employ to convey their message, their objectives, and which devices they adopted to achieve their goal according to Wodak's discursive referential/nomination and predication strategies. The study also aimed to identify the perlocutionary acts expressed in the discursive strategies, and especially the acts that incited hate, insecurity, and fear to gain the most votes in the Madrilenian elections. The data collected were drawn from a video of the closing campaign of Madrid′s elections in May 2021. The video was transcribed, coded, and analyzed to find the discursive strategies adopted by the leader of VOX in his speech. The video recording of the closing campaign took place on May 4, 2021 in the Madrilenian Colón Square, which has been an emblematic spot since 2019. Using the slogan “A united Spain,” the main political parties of the right-wing (VOX and PP) and the center (Ciudadanos) formed a joint front in this square to show rejection of the government led by the left-wing party PSOE in coalition with Unidas Podemos (UP), regional nationalist, and independent parties. The video has a duration of twenty-nine minutes and fifty-eight seconds, and the transcription contains a total of 4,157 words.

Predication strategies are usually used to describe oneself positively and others negatively. In Excerpt 4, which is related to Excerpt 3, it can be appreciated how VOX describes the positive behaviors of Spain as a nation during the colonization of Latin America.

In this excerpt, Santiago Abascal pointed out how Spain as a unified nation became unique in the world. This excerpt suggests that only a common front of Spain against social communism can make the country powerful again. The use of positive descriptions in predication strategies could lead the readers to believe that if VOX takes control of the government, Spain could become a top nation again. By extolling Spanish culture, language, and the way they see the world (lines 241–242), Santiago Abascal attempted to make the reader/viewer realize that they are the key to becoming a powerful country again if they vote for VOX; this highly resonates with what Pearce (2001) suggested about eulogizing what is best for the majority at the expense of the those denigrated. This type of national self-glorification is a common way to represent oneself positively, and is in line with studies of Van der Valk (2003) and Van Dijk (2000).

In this excerpt, a perlocutionary strategy was based on the description of what Spain had achieved in the past. In line 239 the statement “el del único Imperio penta continental” (the only penta continental empire) attempts to emphasize that Spain was a powerful country in the past. The description of Spain's previous achievements was an attempt to trigger the listeners and instill a sense of nostalgia and persuade them that the past was better for Spain than what is happening at the present. This also insinuates that the current administration by the left-wing coalition was not handling the immigration dilemma effectively. This finding supports Casals's (2000) suggestions, in which the ideologies of the radical parties possess an effect of nostalgia anchored in past dictatorial regimes.

This study first analyzed Wodak's (2001) discursive strategies drawn from the ideology of “Us” vs. “Them” (Van Dijk 1993, 1997) used by VOX during the closing campaign of the Madrilenian elections. Second, we also analyzed the perlocutionary acts found in the discourse, i.e., those that incited hate, insecurity, and fear to gain more votes in the Madrilenian elections. The hateful language used was in reference to immigrants, specifically underaged Muslim immigrants. Abascal has clearly drawn a demarcation line between the in-group and out-group. He used predication practices to represent the party positively while diminishing the groups that do not share their principles. The findings also suggest that Abascal used referential/nomination strategies to label the ones who feel a sense of love and pride for Spain and labels for the ones who, according to him, hate Spain. The out-group description was in reference to the immigrants who live in Spain. Interestingly, there is a bias in the type of immigrants that VOX considers as an out-group. The findings imply that there was a selective rejection of immigrants. Predication strategies were also used in the speech to negatively label the Spanish government and the candidates of the Madrilenian elections and promote their own agenda. These speech acts and discursive strategies allowed VOX to not only reinforce the (in)stability in the Spanish political scene but also to steadily increase the number of their sympathizers and voters.

There are some limitations of this study that should be noted. This research focused only on the speech given at the closing campaign of the Madrilenian elections. A longitudinal study is recommended for future studies in this area to analyze the patterns of discursive strategies VOX used to influence followers in other regional elections. Nonetheless, this paper provided valuable contributions to the field of political discourse, as we provided new insights about the major development in VOX's political ambitions to gain more clout and influence. The Madrilenian elections and the speech Abascal gave was momentous. As mentioned in the background section, although VOX did not win, their discursive speech (presented in the study) set a narrative that people heard and believed. VOX won the hearts of many, influencing them to switch party affiliation. The change in the number of followers would suggest a change in people's sentiments toward immigration and other issues VOX stands for. Whether they will be able to hold on to their growing popularity remains to be seen.

In conclusion, language and linguistic representations are powerful discursive strategies that also emblematize democratic processes and freedom of speech. And as such, the “Us” vs. “Them” political message can be explicit or implicit, but the “vs.” always remains the same––it focuses on the differences, and the comparisons are always pitted against each other. This study presented interesting, if not, compelling arguments that encourage debates and discussion, a testament that there will always be a disparity in opinions concerning (im)migration and political rifts. We believe that our study augments the body of knowledge on the polarization and fragmentation of the Spanish government, which consequently affects political outcomes and Spanish society as a whole.