OPORTUNIDADES Y RETOS PARA EL DESARROLLO DE LA PITAHAYA EN EL PERÚ

Magufuli pledges to control the perceived corruption in relation to what the CCM election manifesto stipulates in this regard (Halmashauri kuu ya Taifa ya CCM, 2015: 206). He emphasises that a special court for fraud cases will be established. Magufuli argues that conflicts in the country are caused by perceived corrupt leaders (see the CCM speech segment 5).

CCM speech segment 5

MAGUFULI: (1) Vita dhidi ya rushwa na ubadhilifu nimeeleza ndugu zangu nitachukua hatua kali kwa wala rushwa mafisadi ili kusudi haki za watanzania muweze kuzipata haraka. (2) Sipendi kueleza mengi zaidi kwasababu ninafahamu yapo maswala mengine ni ya msingi tu, mfano mzuri ni migogoro ya wafanya biashara tu katika hizi za NF na kadhalika. (3) Nitahakikisha panakua na uelewano mzuri ili kama ni kulipa kodi, wakubwa walipe kodi hata na wadogo walipe kodi sio wadogo tu ndio walipe kodi.

[1] My fellow citizens, I will stage war against corruption and embezzlement of public funds in order to enable Tanzanians to get their rights as soon as possible. [2] I do not want to talk much as I am aware there are certain issues which are very sensitive. [3] The good example is about these conflicts of the businessmen and many others. [4] I will make sure there is a good relationship to make sure that if it is an issue of paying taxes, both informal small business traders and big traders pay taxes. [5] It is unfair to only collect tax from the informal small business traders.

In attempting to analyse the first dimension, as represented in Figure 4.5 of the CCM speech segment 5 presents a pledge of Magufuli to control corruption in public offices, especially in the Tanzania Revenue Authority. He claims informal small business traders are taxed leaving the big business traders largely free of appropriate taxation. Figure 4.5 comprises subordinative argumentation structure (see arguments 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.1.1 and 1.1.1.1.1).

88

Figure 4.5: Reconstructed argumentation structure on corruption control in public offices

Regarding the second dimension, the argumentation schemes in Figure 4.5 are indicated. Magufuli utilises argumentation from analogy with a general legal principle of the rule of justice. He explains how corruption frustrates government development struggles. In the context of Tanzania, the government run by the ruling party, CCM, for over 50 years, was in 2015 general election, and even before alleged of embracing big business traders at the expense of the national revenue collections. In his position of awareness, Magufuli emphasises the need for equal treatment, implying the application of the rule of justice. Commenting on such inequality, he furthermore employs the causal relation argument scheme. To meet government development goals, it is not only unimplementable but also 1.1Coruption undermines socio-

economic government development struggles.

1.1Coruption undermines socio- economic government development struggles.

1.1Coruption undermines socio- economic government development struggles.

1.1Coruption undermines socio- economic government development struggles.

1.1Coruption undermines socio- economic government development struggles.

1.1Coruption undermines socio- economic government development struggles.

1.1Coruption undermines socio- economic government development struggles.

1.1Coruption undermines socio- economic government development struggles.

1 Magufuli’s government will stage war against corruption in public offices.

1 Magufuli’s government will stage war against corruption in public offices.

1 Magufuli’s government will stage war against corruption in public offices.

1 Magufuli’s government will stage war against corruption in public offices.

1 Magufuli’s government will stage war against corruption in public offices.

1 Magufuli’s government will stage war against corruption in public offices.

1 Magufuli’s government will stage war against corruption in public offices.

1 Magufuli’s government will stage war against corruption in public offices. 1.1.1The Tanzanian Revenue

Authorities treat big business people differently from the small ones.

1.1.1The Tanzanian Revenue

Authorities treat big business people differently from the small ones.

1.1.1The Tanzanian Revenue

Authorities treat big business people differently from the small ones.

1.1.1The Tanzanian Revenue

Authorities treat big business people differently from the small ones.

1.1.1The Tanzanian Revenue

Authorities treat big business people differently from the small ones.

1.1.1The Tanzanian Revenue

Authorities treat big business people differently from the small ones.

1.1.1The Tanzanian Revenue

Authorities treat big business people differently from the small ones.

1.1 Grand corruption deprives the government taxes from big business people.

1.1 Grand corruption deprives the government taxes from big business people.

1.1 Grand corruption deprives the government taxes from big business people.

1.1 Grand corruption deprives the government taxes from big business people.

1.1 Grand corruption deprives the government taxes from big business people.

1.1 Grand corruption deprives the government taxes from big business people.

1.1 Grand corruption deprives the government taxes from big business people.

1.1’ Corruption control leads to socio-economic development.

1.1’ Corruption control leads to socio-economic development.

1.1’ Corruption control leads to socio-economic development.

1.1’ Corruption control leads to socio-economic development.

1.1’ Corruption control leads to socio-economic development.

1.1’ Corruption control leads to socio-economic development.

1.1’ Corruption control leads to socio-economic development.

1.1’ Corruption control leads to socio-economic development. 1.1.1.1 Government workers compromise rule of justice.

1.1.1.1 Government workers compromise rule of justice.

1.1.1.1 Government workers compromise rule of justice.

1.1.1.1 Government workers compromise rule of justice.

1.1.1.1 Government workers compromise rule of justice.

1.1.1.1 Government workers compromise rule of justice. 1.1.1.1.1 Only small business traders are put to task to pay tax.

1.1.1.1.1 Only small business traders are put to task to pay tax.

1.1.1.1.1 Only small business traders are put to task to pay tax.

1.1.1.1.1 Only small business traders are put to task to pay tax.

1.1.1.1.1 Only small business traders are put to task to pay tax.

1.1.1.1.1 Only small business traders are put to task to pay tax.

1.1.1.1.1 Only small business traders are put to task to pay tax. & & & & & & & & & & & Figure 0.230: Recons tructed argume ntation structur e on corrupt ion control in public offices & Figure 0.231: Reconst ructed argume ntation structur e on corrupti on control in public

89

illogical to collect taxes from informal small business traders and allow an unlimited grace period to big business people. Practically, the project cannot be implemented. The symptomatic argument scheme indicates the way the focus is on those who earn less from their business instead of focussing closely on those earning more or following the tax collection law. This is a symptomatic feature of alleged corruption (Van Eemeren et al., 2008). Generally, the alleged argumentation represented in Figure 4.5 employs the pragmatic problem-solving argumentative pattern (Garssen, 2017a: 31). Thus, the desire to control the alleged corruption should be adopted because it will solve the problem of denying the government revenues. The current practice embraces big business traders and collects tax from the small informal business people. Therefore, applying the rule of justice in the revenue authorities will increase the national income, and justice will prevail.

Concerning the third dimension of topical potential, audience demand, presentational devices, and the confrontation stage, the topic is strategically selected. The war against corruption in public is stated to sensitise the public on the need to get a leader who dares stage war against corruption. In the opening stage, such a statement by the presidential candidate implies a commitment when already in office. According to Searle (1979b), a commissive entails a speaker meets the felicity conditions for implementing what they promise. Utilising presentational devices, staging war is something that captures the audience emotionally, a perspective realised as affect in appraisal analysis (White, 2011). Given the context of Dar es Salaam, Magufuli is aware of how dominant informal small business traders are and how corruption affects their business and the national income. Thus, he identifies the problem of corruption and expresses the will to control it. Presentational devices aiming at emotionally engaging the audience are referred to as emotional appeal (pathos) techniques in the Aristotelian perspective (Burke, 2014). It is from such aspects that the rhetorical effectiveness of the argumentation can be achieved without affecting the rational appeal (logos). Persuasion requires mutual agreement from the audience although there might be some elements of manipulation if not critically evaluated (Lakhani, 2005).

In the Pragma-dialectical perspective, at every stage of argumentation, arguers must observe both rhetorical effectiveness and reasonableness in the argumentative move (Van Eemeren & Houtlosser, 2002). In the argumentation stage, the topic against corruption is capitalised on. Magufuli provides concrete examples that the move to task informal small business traders to pay tax, while leaving big business traders free of taxation, is a typical symptom of

90

corruption. The audience expected to know who exactly benefits from the perceived corruption. Thus, Magufuli mentions public servants, especially in the revenue authority, as the area of grand corruption. In one way or another, the issue of numbers is necessary for a political campaign, evading tax is risky but not as critically riskier as overtaxing small businesses. Addressing business and taxation issues touches business people and the rest of the electorate. In addition, avoidance is employed as a form of a fair strategic maneuvering. The government is left aside; all blames are directed to the workers in the Tanzanian Revenue Authorities. The arguer, furthermore, appeals to liberal and conservative presumptions. Grand corruption in Tanzania has been a critical issue before and by 2015.

The opposition parties have alleged, and they still accuse the government led by CCM of failing to control corruption. Magufuli decides to capture the electorate by pledging to control deep rooted corruption. In addition, the association strategy is demonstrated in that Magufuli demonstrates sympathy to informal small business traders although he does not strategically suggest a system that would impartially treat all business people. In the concluding stage, Magufuli pledges to solve that kind of bias in tax collection for the common good of the people of the United Republic of Tanzania. He assures the audience that, if elected as president, he will enforce the rule of law and ensure a fair taxation system in the tax collection departments. However, in the real sense, taking advantage of the low level of education of many people, he strategically maneuvers by not stating it clearly that even small business people are going to pay tax in formally a systematised way. In his conclusion, he emphasises that he intends to control corruption that undermines the development efforts, especially the move to collect tax.

In respect to the fourth dimension, the freedom rule is successfully demonstrated as represented in Figure 4.5. On behalf of the ruling party, Magufuli admits the allegations that corruption was and still is a problem in the fourth-phase government. Hence, in his arguments, he provides scenarios in which informal small traders are taxed by the Tanzania Revenue Authorities and big business traders are released from paying tax but not in good faith (see arguments 1.1,1.1.1,1.1.1.1, and 1.1.1.1.1). Magufuli takes the burden of proof to explain why he thinks the revenue authorities do not observe the rule of law. He explains how grand corruption is involved in releasing such big business people from paying tax. Relating to the standpoint rule, Magufuli seems to conciliate though strategically. The opposition party camp claims on several campaign occasions that Magufuli cannot manage to control

91

corruption in the government led by CCM. To persuade the audience, Magufuli advances his persuasive persona institutionalising his personal identity instead of the party’s identity. He manages to consistently use the first person singular ‘I’ in pledging to control corruption. Magufuli provides examples of alleged corruption in the revenue authorities. Thus, he observes the relevance rule of the critical discussion. The conclusion is reasonably stated suggesting reinforcing the rule of justice in the tax collection departments.

In the fifth dimension of evaluating derailment, Magufuli projects the allegations of corruption to the Tanzania Revenue Authorities, instead of directing them to the fourth-phase government. It is not clearly stated in his argumentation opposing corruption that the government is, to some extent, responsible. Mainly, a statement which could be fallacious strategically is stated in a way that it becomes an observation of the critical argumentation rules. As such, the government is responsible for eliminating corruption, Magufuli’s avoidance can be viewed as concealing the reality about grand corruption.

In the sixth dimension, that is, maintaining rhetorical effectiveness and reasonableness, effectiveness is maintained through using the means of strategic maneuvering, such as appealing to liberal and conservative presumptions. Moreover, the arguments are reframed to reserve face of the ruling party, CCM. Other devices that are presented are dissociation, association, and persuasive persona when Magufuli presents himself as a morally upright person, instead of presenting himself as a CCM candidate. This is done to transfer Magufuli’s credibility to the ruling party. By doing this the argumentation on corruption control is effective. Concerning reasonableness of the argumentation in Figure 4.5, the speaker applies argument by analogy explaining how difficult it is to implement government strategies to collect tax while revenue authorities do not abide by the rule of justice by treating all business people impartially. In addition, examples that are provided about grand corruption in the country are relevant; that they appeal to peoples’ emotions to perhaps support Magufuli in the war against corruption. The validity rule is clear. To have a fair society where there is noboby above the law and the rule of law is observed, it is necessary to put in place clear corruption controlling mechanisms. Therefore, the argumentation is pragmatically consistent because, in the context of Tanzania, grand corruption was critical before Magufuli came into power. The desire to control grand corruption is possible because the president has the power to do so. It can be concluded that, in the Pragma-dialectical perspective, Magufuli’s argumentation in Figure 4.5 was effective and reasonable.

92