Why to Vote Yes or No - The EU-Rhetoric of Esko Aho and Paavo Väyrynen.
HARONOJA, MINNA (2002)
Tässä tietueessa ei ole kokotekstiä saatavilla Treposta, ainoastaan metadata.
HARONOJA, MINNA
2002
Valtio-oppi - Political Science
Yhteiskuntatieteellinen tiedekunta - Faculty of Social Sciences
Hyväksymispäivämäärä
2002-09-25Tiivistelmä
This master's thesis is discussing the EU-rhetoric of two Center Party politicians, Esko Aho and Paavo Väyrynen. The object of the study was to find out how the two aimed to persuade their own party members to vote either yes or no in the EU-referendum, respectively. The referendum was held on October 16th, 1994 and this thesis is based on the discussion during the year of 1994. The main source used in the thesis is the Center Party's official newspaper, Suomenmaa. At the time Esko Aho was the prime minister and a strong EU-proponent. Paavo Väyrynen had left the government and the post of the foreign minister in 1993 and after the negotiation result with the EU was achieved in March 1994 he began campaigning against the membership. Both were very important actors in the EU-question and often in the media.
Before the actual analysis of Aho's and Väyrynen's arguments, rhetoric is examined as a methodology. This section is based on the ideas of three famous theoretics: Aristotle, Chaim Perelman and Kenneth Burke. Aho's and Väyrynen's backgrounds are also examined in order to look at their ideas from the right perspective. The position of the Center Party and its paper Suomenmaa is also briefly discussed.
The analysis of Väyrynen's and Aho's political rhetoric shows that they were both skilful politicians. They used all the rhetoric means available but did not attack each other despite the fact that they were not in very good terms. Aho used his position as the prime minister to make the voters believe that his opinion could be trusted and he also emphasized the positive over the negative. He saw the membership as a necessity and argued that there were no alternatives for it. Aho argued that EEA would lose its significance when the EU would enlarge and by postponing the membership Finland would only risk getting a worse negotiation result. Väyrynen's main arguments were that since the EU-membership was the most important decision in Finland's history, the question should be considered carefully and not rushed. He also presented alternatives to the membership, the Nordic Union being one of them. In general, throughout the discussion both politicians used many arguments that can be interpreted as being pure rhetoric.
Before the actual analysis of Aho's and Väyrynen's arguments, rhetoric is examined as a methodology. This section is based on the ideas of three famous theoretics: Aristotle, Chaim Perelman and Kenneth Burke. Aho's and Väyrynen's backgrounds are also examined in order to look at their ideas from the right perspective. The position of the Center Party and its paper Suomenmaa is also briefly discussed.
The analysis of Väyrynen's and Aho's political rhetoric shows that they were both skilful politicians. They used all the rhetoric means available but did not attack each other despite the fact that they were not in very good terms. Aho used his position as the prime minister to make the voters believe that his opinion could be trusted and he also emphasized the positive over the negative. He saw the membership as a necessity and argued that there were no alternatives for it. Aho argued that EEA would lose its significance when the EU would enlarge and by postponing the membership Finland would only risk getting a worse negotiation result. Väyrynen's main arguments were that since the EU-membership was the most important decision in Finland's history, the question should be considered carefully and not rushed. He also presented alternatives to the membership, the Nordic Union being one of them. In general, throughout the discussion both politicians used many arguments that can be interpreted as being pure rhetoric.