Discourse Theory of Ernesto Laclau

Oct 13, 2025 by leolavanderia.com.br 142 views

Analysis of Critical Discourse on President Soekarno's State Speech on August 17, 1966

Introduction

On August 17, 1966, President Soekarno delivered a state speech that had a profound impact on the Indonesian people. This speech was not only an official statement from a president, but also a vehicle to reveal various important issues at that time. In his speech, Sukarno tried to improve his image which declined after the September 30 Movement (G30S) event and the transition of power that shook his position and prestige. By utilizing this speech, Sukarno tried to attract the sympathy of the Indonesian people while rebuilding his image in public.

Theoretical Framework

This analysis uses a critical discourse analysis approach to understand more in the context and meaning contained in the speech. In this study, the approach from Michel Foucault was used to explain how the power relationship was formed when Sukarno delivered the speech. Foucault's Discourse Theory believes that language and discourse have the power to form social reality, which in this case is clearly seen how Sukarno tried to build a narrative about guided democracy as a solution to the existing problems.

Furthermore, the perspective of Teun A. Van Dijk was used to explore Soekarno's thoughts and the type of discourse he wanted to form. In this context, it can be seen that Sukarno not only talked about guided democracy, but also tried to distinguish between liberalism and democracy that cited Pancasila. Thus, there is a clear antagonism between these two forms of government, which is the core of the speech.

Discourse Theory of Ernesto Laclau

The discourse theory of Ernesto Laclau provides an understanding of how a discourse can be a hegemony. In the speech, Sukarno referred to what he called the "crucial period" in Indonesian history, which was a liberal period of democracy. In his view, guided democracy is not just an alternative, but is the essence of Pancasila Democracy and Indonesia's true democracy. Through this speech, Sukarno created a narrative that opposed the liberal democracy by discussing "guided democracy" as a solution to the nation's future.

The Concept of "Crucial Period"

The importance of the concept of "crucial period" shows that Sukarno wanted to describe the situation faced by the Indonesian people as a big challenge. By comparing and contracting between liberal democracy and guided democracy, he not only positions himself as a leader who understands the needs of the people, but also tries to change the public's perspective on the two systems. In this context, Sukarno's speech was not just rhetoric, but was a strategic effort to reclaim community support.

Impact of the Speech

Through this analysis, it can be concluded that Soekarno's speech on August 17, 1966 had a significant impact in forming public discourse and presenting narratives about democracy in accordance with the Indonesian context. Discourse that Sukarno brought succeeded in becoming a hegemonic discourse in which "Guided Democracy is Pancasila Democracy" into a belief that is carried by many people. Thus, this speech is not only a reflection of the current political situation, but also influences the way people understand and respond to the challenges faced by the nation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the analysis of President Soekarno's state speech on August 17, 1966 reveals the strategic use of language and discourse to form a hegemonic narrative about democracy in Indonesia. By utilizing the theoretical framework of Foucault, Van Dijk, and Laclau, this study demonstrates how Sukarno's speech was not just a reflection of the current political situation, but also a strategic effort to reclaim community support and shape the public's understanding of democracy in Indonesia.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations can be made:

Further research is needed to explore the impact of Sukarno's speech on the Indonesian people and the formation of public discourse.
The use of critical discourse analysis as a methodological approach can be applied to other political speeches and texts to understand the power dynamics and social reality formation.
The concept of "crucial period" can be further explored in the context of Indonesian history and its impact on the formation of public discourse.

Limitations

This study has several limitations that need to be acknowledged:

The analysis is limited to a single speech and may not be representative of Sukarno's overall discourse.
The use of critical discourse analysis as a methodological approach may be limited to the context of Indonesian politics and may not be applicable to other contexts.
The study relies on secondary sources and may not provide a comprehensive understanding of the historical context of Sukarno's speech.

Future Research Directions

Future research directions can include:

Exploring the impact of Sukarno's speech on the Indonesian people and the formation of public discourse.
Applying the use of critical discourse analysis to other political speeches and texts to understand the power dynamics and social reality formation.
Further exploring the concept of "crucial period" in the context of Indonesian history and its impact on the formation of public discourse.
Q&A: Analysis of Critical Discourse on President Soekarno's State Speech on August 17, 1966

Q: What was the significance of President Soekarno's state speech on August 17, 1966?

A: The speech was significant because it was a strategic effort by Sukarno to improve his image, which had declined after the September 30 Movement (G30S) event and the transition of power that shook his position and prestige. By utilizing this speech, Sukarno tried to attract the sympathy of the Indonesian people while rebuilding his image in public.

Q: What was the main theme of the speech?

A: The main theme of the speech was the concept of "guided democracy" as a solution to the nation's future. Sukarno tried to distinguish between liberalism and democracy that cited Pancasila, creating a clear antagonism between these two forms of government.

Q: What was the role of Michel Foucault's discourse theory in the analysis of the speech?

A: Foucault's discourse theory was used to explain how the power relationship was formed when Sukarno delivered the speech. According to Foucault, language and discourse have the power to form social reality, which in this case is clearly seen how Sukarno tried to build a narrative about guided democracy as a solution to the existing problems.

Q: What was the significance of the concept of "crucial period" in the speech?

A: The concept of "crucial period" was significant because it showed that Sukarno wanted to describe the situation faced by the Indonesian people as a big challenge. By comparing and contracting between liberal democracy and guided democracy, he not only positions himself as a leader who understands the needs of the people, but also tries to change the public's perspective on the two systems.

Q: What was the impact of the speech on the Indonesian people and the formation of public discourse?

A: The speech had a significant impact in forming public discourse and presenting narratives about democracy in accordance with the Indonesian context. Discourse that Sukarno brought succeeded in becoming a hegemonic discourse in which "Guided Democracy is Pancasila Democracy" into a belief that is carried by many people.

Q: What are the implications of the study for understanding the power dynamics and social reality formation in Indonesia?

A: The study demonstrates how Sukarno's speech was not just a reflection of the current political situation, but also a strategic effort to reclaim community support and shape the public's understanding of democracy in Indonesia. This highlights the importance of critical discourse analysis in understanding the power dynamics and social reality formation in Indonesia.

Q: What are the limitations of the study?

A: The study has several limitations that need to be acknowledged, including the analysis being limited to a single speech and may not be representative of Sukarno's overall discourse. Additionally, the use of critical discourse analysis as a methodological approach may be limited to the context of Indonesian politics and may not be applicable to other contexts.

Q: What are the future research directions for this study?

A: Future research directions can include exploring the impact of Sukarno's speech on the Indonesian people and the formation of public discourse, applying the use of critical discourse analysis to other political speeches and texts to understand the power dynamics and social reality formation, and further exploring the concept of "crucial period" in the context of Indonesian history and its impact on the formation of public discourse.

Q: What are the implications of the study for understanding the role of language and discourse in shaping public opinion and policy in Indonesia?

A: The study highlights the importance of language and discourse in shaping public opinion and policy in Indonesia. It demonstrates how Sukarno's speech was a strategic effort to reclaim community support and shape the public's understanding of democracy in Indonesia. This has implications for understanding the role of language and discourse in shaping public opinion and policy in Indonesia, and highlights the need for critical discourse analysis in understanding the power dynamics and social reality formation in Indonesia.