Legitimizing Power Through Language: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Tokayev and Lukashenko's Rhetoric

This dissertation examines how post-Soviet authoritarian leaders strategically use political discourse to manage public opinion and control collective behavior during mass protests. Using comparative critical discourse analysis (CDA) of President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev's speech during the January 2022 protests in Kazakhstan and President Alexander Lukashenko's speech at Independence Square in Belarus in 2020, the study examines two distinct modes of authoritarian legitimation: securitization and disciplinary demobilization versus populist emotional mobilization. Using Fairclough's three-dimensional model, the analysis focuses on textual features, discursive practices, and the broader social context to demonstrate how language creates ideological meanings and shapes public responses. The findings demonstrate that Tokayev's rhetoric relies on securitized frames that portray protesters as "terrorists" and external threats, aimed at stoking fear, discouraging political participation, and legitimizing the use of force. In contrast, Lukashenko's discourse mobilizes collective identity through emotional appeals, "people versus enemy" narratives, and calls for unity and loyalty, reinforcing his populist style of authoritarian governance. A comparative analysis reveals that, although both leaders employ different approaches and threat constructions, they pursue different communication strategies: Tokayev demobilizes society through fear and uncertainty, while Lukashenko mobilizes support through emotional engagement. This thesis contributes to our understanding of how authoritarian regimes in the post-Soviet space adapt their rhetorical tools to maintain legitimacy and public control, demonstrating the central role of discourse in the reproduction of authoritarian power.