A Critical Discourse Analysis of Ideology and Power Relations in a Political Interview

Political interviews are important political actions that are conducted to explain the political trends, actions, views and stances. They are usually embedded with covert and overt political ideologies that aim to affect others' political positions, stances and shape public opinions. The researcher tries to detect the ideologies and power relations manifested during a prewar on Iraq interview conducted on BBC with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The researcher uses Wodak's (2015) critical discourse approach as a framework for the analysis with the aim of raising the awareness of the readers of the ideologies and power relations in such interviews. The results show the existence of a dynamic, powerful interaction as both sides use whatever power resources they have to dominate the interaction, exercising power and perpetuating their political ideologies.

Political interviews are a common and familiar recognizable genre of broadcast interaction that might include debates, talk shows, audience participation programs, etc., that are conducted with local, national or international people on political topics (Clayman, 2004:32).
Therefore, political interviews of all kinds are considered one of the means used in the political field for various purposes, such as presenting ideas, clarifying positions, and promoting, defending or attacking ideologies. They are also used to collect facts, information, and opinions for different communicative reasons from different people as they have influence, authority, and knowledge in certain fields or affairs.

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)
CDA is a branch within the field of linguistics that aims at investigating any relations between language use on one hand and the social and discursive practices in society (Wodak and Meyer, 2001: 2).
CDA is a "constitutive problem-oriented, interdisciplinary" that aims at analyzing any social phenomenon related to language use rather than merely analyzing linguistic units adopting complicated is multidisciplinary and multi-methodical (van Dijk, 2001: 352; Wodak and Meyer, 2008: 2). Moreover, CDA analysts deal with data within its wider cultural, historical social context(s) to reach a better understanding of the social, political and personal ideologies impeded within the language used as Wodak and Meyer (2001: 9) indicate.
Fairclough's (1995: 132-33) classical definition, which is regarded as the best representation of the definition, nature and aims of this field, is: "By critical discourse analysis, I mean analysis which aims to systematically explore often opaque relationships of causality and determination between (a) discursive practices, events and texts, and (b) wider social and cultural structures, relations and processes; to investigate how such practices, events and texts arise out of and are ideologically shaped by relations of power and struggles over power; and to explore how the opacity of these relationships between discourse and society is itself a factor securing power and hegemony".
While Wodak (1995: 204) agrees with (Fairclough, 1995), van Dijk (1998:1) adds that CDA focuses on the ideologies of power exercising, dominance, inequality, etc., of language within its sociopolitical contexts for the aim of discovering and resisting social inequality and power abuse. Moreover, it aims to raise the awareness of the language use by the dominant groups to direct and influence the dominated groups.
To sum up, CDA has developed linguistic analysis methods and approaches, which take into consideration the wider social, cultural and political context(s) of the establishment, social structures, power relations and hierarchies as ideologies embedded in the produced discourse. Fairclough (1989: 5) sees that critical means detecting any links or connections that pass by unnoticed by the lay people, while Wodak and Meyer (2001: 9) believe that being 'critical' means taking into consideration the wider social contexts such as social, political, cultural, etc. of the data under scrutiny.

Critique
Within the tradition of CDA, critical or critique does not mean negativity, but it means that the analyst must take a stance or a position with the aim of judging and prescribing rather than only observing and interpreting (Breez, 2011: 496).
It means taking a stance to stand with oppressed and dominated people or at least raise their awareness of any hidden ideologies and/or the exercising of power within various texts, including political ones. This will lead to a better understanding of the ideological motivation of the produced discourse and allow CDA analysts to present a valid and sound type of analysis. Van Dijk (1995: 21) indicates that ideology is a "specific basic framework of social cognition with specific social structures and specific cognitive and social functions" rather than a system of a set of ideas and opinions.

Ideology
One of the aims of CDA is to 'demystify' discourses by deciphering ideologies to raise the awareness of people and to ease the process of enlightenment, emancipation and resistance to power imposed by others (Eagleton 1994: 15). Schwarzmantel (2008: 29-43) classifies ideology into two types; the first refers to the hegemonic dominations and control, while the second refers to the "broad range of views which cover the central aspects of how society should be organized, answering  such questions as what the role of the state should be, what forms of difference or differentiation between people should be  accepted, and which rejected". This last type is considered the basis for the critical analysis of this paper, as it passes without notice by ordinary people, which mainly contributes to revealing the different ideologies contained in the text. In political interaction, participants tend to ideologically use whatever powerful tools, strategies and authority to defend their political positions and stance, which this paper aims to detect and analyze.

Power and Power Relations
Power means the ability to influence others' minds, views, and stances and the ability to influence the course of events. It is also seen as the degree of imposing agendas, plans, ideologies and evaluations over others (Brown and Levinson, 1987:77).
The source of power is derived from wealth, physical strength, sex, age, and the state, in addition to the political, institutional, and religious authority. It is known that people with different levels of power negotiate these powerful levels to achieve their aims and agenda, which ultimately results in different hierarchies of power (Holmes, 1995:17).
During any interaction, especially the political interviews, dynamic interactions and different levels or hierarchies of power relations emerge within the wider political, social and ideological contexts. These power relations can be manifested overtly or covertly according to the ideological situation(s) and context(s) (Luke, 1996: 23). He (ibid.) also adds that exercising power can be conducted through visible coercion and by shaping the beliefs, perceptions, ideas and desires of individuals and/or groups.
Holmes (2005: 32) sees power as a more complicated phenomenon, which is "a systemic characteristic, a transformative and nonstatic feature of interaction that is both enacted and contested in every interaction". Weiss and Wodak (2003: 15) see power as an ideology that can be manifested within the use of language in multiple ways: "Language indexes power, expresses power, is involved where there is contention over and challenge to power".
Language is not powerful by itself but rather in the hands of those who use this language and the way(s) they use it to serve their ideology(ies) (Thomas, 2004: 10). In other words, how the powerful people are "produced and used" or/and "sold and consumed" this power (van Dijk, 2011: 33-34).
Powerful people usually tend to use different strategies of powerful language, such as persuasion, dissimilation, manipulation, etc., to achieve their ideological aims socially and cognitively (van Dijk, 1993: 254). Therefore, power is the ability to influence the course of events and the ability to influence ideas, attitudes and positions. Thus, every person or institution seeks to exercise power to different degrees to achieve (ideological) goals. The use of language filled with ideologies is one of the means of this power exercising that others do in order to persuade, manipulate and change ideas socially and mentally.

The Analysis Method
As the researcher is after the ideologies embedded in the selected political interview, he chooses the critical approach of Wodak's DHA (2015) as this proposed approach is able to detect the ideological representations within its wider social and political context(s).
The researcher, at first, adopts a critical model to analyze the selected data, hoping that he will be able to reach a detailed set of tools and strategies used by both sides at the end of the analysis.

The Model of Analysis 3.1.1 Wodak's (2015)'Discourse-Historical Approach' (DHA)
It is a 'context-sensitive' method, which takes into consideration any political and historical aspects of discursive behavior (Reisigl and Wodak, 2001: 13) Wodak's (2015) approach represents a combination of the socio-cognitive approach and the discourse-historical approach (Wodak, 1996:3) as it adopts the 'socio-philosophical orientation of critical theory'. This critical method consists of the following three related dimensions, as explained in Figure No. (1):

Text/Discourse Critique:
It aims to detect and reveal any "inconsistencies, self-contradictions, paradoxes and dilemmas" of the structures of text and discourse. This represents analyzing any linguistic tools and strategies used in producing discourse.

Social Critique
It aims at "demystifying" any persuasive or manipulative features, strategies or nature of the produced discourse. This includes the context(s) that lead affect the interpretation process of the discursive structures of the receivers. Furthermore, the text is analyzed within the social and cultural context(s) in order to present ideologies and try to link the text to other texts, i.e., intertextuality.

Future Critique:
It aims to set and develop any rules of clarification by the critical analyst(s) to reduce any future usage of such language by revealing the ideological aims and stance behind such usage and their effectiveness on others (Reisigl and Wodak, 2001: 4).
This stage is considered the last stage of the model and current analysis, which aims to reveal the strategies and tools used in the selected political interviews through which the researcher hopes to put a list of some of them to help researchers in future research. This adopted model is explained in Figure No The uniqueness of this approach is the emphasis on the background information of the produced discourse and their connection synchronically and diachronically with other events and context(s) to reach a better understanding of the aims and ideologies that lie behind such discourse (Wodak, 1995: 209;Wodak and Ludwig, 1999:12).
This critical approach seems suitable to be adopted in analyzing the selected data as it combines both the "socio-cognitive approach and the discourse-historical" in its methodology of analysis. Therefore, the researcher tries to analyze certain aspects of discourse in its socio-historical dimensions with the aim of detecting any cognitive influence on the attitudes and stances of others because of the embedded ideologies and the resulting dynamic power relations of the interaction and the produced discourse.

Data Selection
The researcher chose a political interview with the British Prime Minister (henceforth, PM) Tony Blaire on the "BBC channel" on the "NEWS NIGHT" program on Thursday, 6 February 2003, 22:09 GMT., right before the war in Iraq. In this interview, the PM tries to convince the host, the audience and the British citizens to support the idea of entering the war against Iraq with the USA to take down the regime of Saddam Hussein because he is developing weapons of mass destruction.
The researcher analyzes only 6 excerpts of the long transcript of the interview for three reasons: the first is to show the degree of validity and effectiveness of the model used and to show the readers the way of applying this model and how it can detect the ideologies, whether over or covert. i.e., adopting a qualitative approach rather than a quantitative one. The researcher takes into consideration analyzing the rest of the interview to reach valid and sound conclusions that can be applied and generalized. The third reason is to avoid any redundancy and repetition due to the nature of the research.
The researcher focuses on the dynamic power relations between the two sides and, after that, detects the way they present their ideological stance and position by using language to affect others.

Data Analysis Excerpt 1:
"JEREMY PAXMAN: Good evening, welcome to a Newsnight special in which we'll be cross-examining the Prime Minister on the confrontation with Iraq." "After yesterday's performance at the UN, America looks more determined than ever to go to war." "Our government is George Bush's closest ally, yet many here and around the world would not believe the case for war has been made." "Tonight in the Baltic Centre in Gateshead, we've invited the Prime Minister to face an audience of ordinary people from here in the north-east, all of whom are skeptical about the arguments for war with Iraq." "Facing them is the Prime Minister. He has confessed himself, worried he has not yet made the case for war." "Tonight, taking questions from our audience and from me, he'll have the chance to do so." "Prime Minister, for you to commit British forces to war, there has to be a clear and imminent danger to this country -what is it?" "TONY BLAIR: The danger is that if we allow Iraq to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, they will threaten their own region; there is no way that we would be able to exclude ourselves from any regional conflict there was there as indeed we had to become involved last time they committed acts of external aggression against Kuwait." The host starts his show by greeting the audience and introducing his guest and the topic of the interview, i.e., "The British Prime Minister on the confrontation with Iraq". Then, he presents a background about the topic with a very detailed extension, and then he directs a question to his guest.
The statement of the PM is generally clear; however, it might be argued that his answer lacks specificity in terms of the actions taken and the time frame. This results from the constraints imposed by a spoken conversation rather than a pre-written statement.

i. Power Relations
The host sets the topic(s) and the agenda of the interview and exercises his power of conducting the cross-examination by directing questions and selecting topics in spite of the authority and the position of the PM. As a result, the PM becomes in a position where he has to defend himself against the challenges of the skeptical audience as well as the challenging of the host.
The used questions are direct, challenging and require direct answers, which forces the PM to provide. Such a strategy presents a challenge against the decision, argument and justifications of war.
The PM assumed that Iraq's development of these weapons would inevitably lead to provoke a regional or international conflict. Critically, there is no tangible evidence provided by any international organization, or even by the PM himself, that Iraq possesses such weapons.
The PM takes a strong position and speaks from the standpoint of the authority and status he possesses, imposing himself as an expert on the Iraqi issue. This strategy of using power effectively contributes to convincing others of the correctness of his position and creating a strong impression that convinces others to support his position in this matter.
Critically speaking, the PM uses fear, historical precedent, the strong assumption of inevitability, and collective national and international security in addition to his powerful, authoritative position to justify his decision of the need for this kind of intervention in Iraq. These strategies helped him shape the public opinion of the British people to support the military action against Iraq.

ii. Ideology
Both the host and the audience are in the position of attacking the ideology of the PM and his government concerning the issue of entering the war against Iraq with the USA. The host starts his attack by indicating that people do not believe the war case that has been made and presented. This is a critical stance against the dominant ideology of supporting the war against Iraq, which forces the PM to defend his position.
The observed tone of the presenter is challenging and assertive in a direct and confrontational style by asking tough questions to hold the PM accountable for his decision. This indicates a critical approach and views against the government's position on the war.
The PM uses different strategies to answer the host's question and defend himself. He emphasizes the potential danger of Iraq's mass destruction weapons, such as biological, chemical and nuclear, which evokes urgency and insecurity. This strategy frames Iraq as a threat to the region and the world. This framing paves the way for the PM to justify his decision to enter the war, as it is not possible to exclude the UK from this conflict based on collective security. This imposes the idea that war is necessary to achieve stability and peace in the region and to prevent global destabilization.
The PM invoked a historical dimension to the conflict to justify Britain's entry into the war and to strengthen the argument for military action by mentioning the issue of Iraq's attack on Kuwait. This justification imposes on the recipients that Britain is doing this as a reaction against the irresponsible Iraqi behavior and to prevent a larger conflict and reduce any danger that Iraq poses to the region and the world.

Excerpt 2:
"JEREMY PAXMAN: But right now, there is no danger; it's a danger sometime in the future." "TONY BLAIR: I've never said that Iraq was about to launch an attack on Britain, but if you look at the history of Saddam Hussein, there is absolutely no doubt at all that he poses a threat to his region." "If he was to use chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in the rest of his region, there is no way that Britain could stand aside from that, or indeed the rest of the world." "And that is precisely why we have had 12 years of United Nations resolutions against him."

i. Ideology
The host's ideological position here is to attack the PM's statement of the immediate danger imposed by Iraq as he tries to shift the attention and the direction of the interview to the possible threat instead. This strategy allows him to put in a frame the justification against any necessity claim by the PM to take immediate action.
The PM's immediate response counter-attacks this serious accusation, which targets the ideological position of his attempts to convince others of its correctness and validity. Therefore, he resorts directly to the historical dimension to reinforce his credibility and claims about the notion of "threat" imposed by Iraq and Saddam in a subjective and context-dependent way. Furthermore, this strategy allowed him to construct an ideological narrative that helped him shape and get the support of public opinion and support for his actions about Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime as this regime represents a consistent threat, implying a perception of the ongoing thereat.
Moreover, the PM concentrates on the potential consequences of any weapons of mass destruction that Iraq might possess in this region of the world, which justifies his actions to keep the peace and stability in this region and the whole world. In other words, he tries to put his actions and ideology in a frame, as they have a sense of necessity and obligation rather than any other for the sake of international peace rather than any other ideological position. This necessity goes in line with the UN resolutions against this threat imposed by Iraq, as he stated clearly.

ii. Power Relations
The host exercises his power by asking a question challenging the PM's answer(s), claims, ideological positioning and justification of the necessity for intervening against Iraq. The host puts himself in the position of a critical observer who takes the responsibility of questioning the ideological motivations of the PM behind such a stance. He also raises these questions about the attempt to shape policy decisions and public opinions with the war by the PM.
The PM holds his power and authority to support his ideological position and the credibility and validity of his argument. He resorts to the historical dimension of the conflict in a way that pushes the forming and shaping of public opinion by presenting himself as an expert, well informed and knowledgeable person who has the ability to define and interpret this conflict. These are certain manifestations of power and authority that he wants to show to the public as a whole. Furthermore, he also wants to enforce the idea that he is one of the legitimate international political leaders who must take immediate action against the mass destruction weapons of Iraq to keep international stability and peace. The guest's answer contains attempts of evasion and modifications to distance himself from the idea proposed about the complete containment of Saddam. This modification can be interpreted as an attempt to align himself with the changing circumstances and emerging developments.
The PM uses strategic ambiguity in his response by stating "up to a point". This allows him to provide multiple interpretations and flexibility to avoid any potential criticism or scrutiny. This ideological position prioritizes situational responses and adaptability over any predetermined positions.
Moreover, the host's inquiry aims to question the current political state of the effectiveness of the international sanctions, while the PM's answer acknowledges the limitations of this containment as a reflection of challenges and the complexities of this kind of policy.
Such ideological perspectives help perpetuate and shape the national public opinions and views concerning these actions by using language.

ii. Power Relations
The power imbalance between the two sides is represented in the following: The host sets the agenda of the conversation, asks the questions and controls the interaction. This role gives him the authority and power to ask the PM for clarification and shape the interactive discourse. II.
The host has the ability to repeat what has been mentioned before by the PM to force him to give an explanation. Moreover, the strategy of interruption can be seen as a powerful tool to control the interaction and assert statements in favor of his ideological position. III.
Furthermore, the PM uses language in a way to avoid holding complete responsibility for the situation and, at the same time, keeps himself reasonable to show the public his own authority and power. IV.
In the meanwhile, the PM uses evasive strategies to distance himself from such a statement, which aims to keep narrating in a way maintaining control and protects his political reputation. The PM uses "well," which indicates that he needs time to arrange his thoughts. He provides a direct answer because of the host's repeated questions. He also uses "we" to spread responsibility and give the impression that all are involved in the issue.
The PM uses the strategies of assertions and assurance, explanation and justification, evasion and interruption, and reference to inspectors. He uses all these strategies combined together to support his ideological political position and to create an impact that his actions are justifiable and necessary.
He starts by asserting that he has always claimed that the UN sanctions and containment measures have contained Saddam's regime to a certain point. He also explains that these sanctions start to crumble this regime, which motivates the subsequent negotiations to tighten the imposed sanctions. He forces the ideological presupposition that the original sanctions are not fully effective and require further measures.
The PM uses evasive strategies to support his ideological position by using hedges, for instance. However, the host interrupts him to avoid any further evasive information that aids the PM in elaborating this ideology.
The PM effectively tries to resort to the wider historical and situational contexts of the conflict by mentioning the point of the forced departure of UN inspectors. This helps him support his argument of connecting the inspectors' absence from Iraq and the imminent challenging danger of this regime. This successfully provokes the host to interrupt the PM to forbid him from completing his point.

ii. Power Relations
This excerpt represents a clear example of the power negotiation between the two participants, which can be explained as follows: The host still has the power to direct the interview to challenge the PM's political leadership, decisions, ideology and actions. He challenges the PM by referring him to his previous statement concerning the sanctions that the PM tries to minimize to hold him accountable for his statement. This also represents a challenge to the PM's credibility and his claims. The host also has the ability to choose the topic, continue or terminate and start another one.
The PM, as a holder of significant political authority and power, tries to exercise this authority by defending his ideological political position and justifying his actions. He stands for his statements and expands them as requirements to wider necessary actions to achieve their main aims, i.e., the imposed sanctions against Saddam's regime.
However, the power imbalance is clear for everyone for the sake of the PM as he holds the more institutional power and authority that help him direct others' minds and attitudes and/or affect ideological positions and stances in his favor in addition to controlling the flow of the information provided.
However, both of them have a degree of power and authority that allows them to affect others' ideas, opinions, minds and ideologies. The host has the power of media influence, while the PM has the power of political authority and position. Therefore, each one of them seeks to leverage information and advantages that support his ideological perspective and shape public opinion.

i. Ideology
The host directly contradicts and challenges the credibility of the PM's statements and claims by focusing on and asserting that UN inspectors did not put out of Iraq, but they left after the American government warning of potential bombing, which indicates the resort to the political dimension of the issue.
There is also a dispute over the mentioned fact(s) by both sides. The host accuses the PM of not being accurate about the point raised while the PM presents an alternative explanation of the departure of UN inspectors because they could not do their job. This means that the PM also questions the accuracy of the host's information.
This presents an ideological critical stance against the possible military intervention against Iraq and the justification provided by the PM as an ally to the US government.
However, the following points indicate the ideological positions of each side: 1. The ideological representation of the host is skeptical of the actions of the PM and his ally, the US government. He presupposes that they both forced the UN inspectors to leave Iraq and forbade them from continuing their task assigned by the UN resolutions. This also presupposes a critical stance concerning the expected war against Iraq and the invasion after that by using external coercion as a factor in the inspectors' withdrawal. 2. The PM tries to resort to the legitimacy of the Security Council as the basis and justification for the UN inspectors' decision to leave Iraq. This strategy of appealing to the international decisions of the UN is a strategy used to enforce his legitimate ideological political decision and the credibility of his stance and to undermine the host's counterargument. Therefore, he resorts to the wider social political context(s) of the issue. 3. The PM focuses on the point of providing an alternative point of view, emphasizing the UN inspectors' inability to do their assigned task due to the restricted access to the weapon sites in Iraq. He also focuses on the point that their withdrawal from Iraq was a result of the UN resolution rather than as a result of the warning of the US government. 4. Continuing the same topic with disputing over interpretation between the two sides concerning the departure of the UN inspectors and the efficiency of their work due to the obstacles put by Iraq. In other words, they try to present their own interpretations to serve their own ideological positions.
5. Both sides try to clarify and justify their points of view; the PM strongly does this by interrupting the host. He also tries to presuppose that the UN inspectors cannot and will not be able to do and perform their assigned tasks and duties, which led them to decide to leave Iraq. In other words, both of them try to assert their ideas as true and effective.
In sum, these adopted ideologies of both sides are important to shape and direct the public ideas, opinions, viewpoints and stances concerning the raised issues. Moreover, they help enforce the ideological, politically powerful stance concerning the issue raised. ii.

Power Relations
The host's powerful position is manifested through many points: i. He has the power to stay on the same point raised without changing the topic of the discussion. i.e., the matter of UN inspectors' departure from Iraq. ii.
The host challenges the PM's statements, continues seizing the power of questioning this political figure, and holds him responsible for his previous statements, assertions and actions. iii.
Holding his position of asking and questioning the ideas and justifications of the PM. Moreover, he puts himself as a critical interrogator of the PM's ideological position. iv.
The host continues challenging the PM version of events by asserting that the departure of the UN inspectors is a result of the US warning rather than the UN decisions. This represents questioning the credibility of the PM. On the other hand, challenges Blair's version of events by asserting that the inspectors left Iraq due to the threat of bombing from the American government. By doing so, he questions the credibility of Blair's position and challenges his narrative.
The PM, as an international political leader of a super power, holds his authority by: i. Strongly defending his political position and actions. ii.
Resorting to the wider context of the crisis of the departure from Iraq which as he said, according to the inability of UN inspectors to do their duties, iii.
Holding and exploiting his powerful authority as a leader of international super power to shape the narrative version and try to affect others. Moreover, he presents his alternative version of the events to justify his ideological position. iv.
In spite of starting with an expression of apology and softening, the PM continues softening his disagreement with the host's ideas and opinions. This keeps the discourse continue with a respectful tone and a high level of politeness.

The Results
From the above analysis and the analysis of the whole interview, the researcher managed to list the linguistic strategies and tools that are ideologically and powerfully used by both sides. They are: The host i. Argumentation, ii.
Controlling the interaction, viii.
Topic selection,

The PM
i. Answering, ii. Assertion, iii. Clarification, 8. The PM seems often tries to evade the question when he is stating facts in order to avoid implicating himself. He also uses "we, us" to enforce that the issue here matters to all and to reduce responsibility. The host to enforce his ideological position does the same. 9. All these distinctiveness are motivated ideologically using whatever power both sides have during the interview. The host uses ideologically different strategies to shape the public opinions and affect their political stance such as ideologically answering, clarifying his position, correct and contradict the accusations of the host, asserting and reasserting his positions, rationalizing his position and decisions, define and redefine his ideological stance, with rebuttal and counter-argument. He also shows himself to the public as an expert.
Funding: This research received no external funding.