Finding the Political in (De)politicized Discourse: Understanding the Changing Political Nature of Austerity in Post-Crisis Parliamentary Discourse

This paper seeks to better understand how politicians sought to legitimate or ‘sell’ austerity to their publics in the crisis period (2008-2014) and if or how this legitimisation process changed during the post-crisis period (2014-2016). The discourse of this period reflected different attitudes of the wider role of politicians and politics – should it be seen as an exercise in management (of crisis, of the economy, of expectations) and rely on neutral and technical/technocratic communication of the processes involved, or else are politicians the representatives of the people, their interests and values (Mair, 2013)? One consequence of this has been the extent to which the politics of austerity has become apparent at the same time as many politicians have sought to deny (or diminish) its political nature (Anstead, 2017). Research has emphasised the extent to which politicians sought to reduce the electoral consequences of unpopular policies by denying or obscuring policy choices and their own agency in the implementation of austerity (Standring, 2017). While a number of studies have attempted to provide an analysis of the depoliticiation/repoliticisation process in terms of broader political and dynamic trends, this paper aims to provide a more nuanced and contingent analysis of European discourses, bearing in mind contextual nature of politics (and the political) (Beveridge, 2017). The first section of the paper provides a quantitative analysis of parliamentary debates across the countries being studied (Portugal, Spain, Ireland) to identify the terms under which austerity is discussed, legitimated and contested. The second section of the paper draws on argumentation theory, where the difference between politicising and depoliticising is seen as parallel to the difference between argumentation and explanation. This parallel is based on a view of politics where choice and alternatives are essential and where argumentation is a crucial discursive means for dealing with alternatives.