No politics is devoid of metaphors at any time or place. However, this varies from one case to another, where metaphors, hyperboles and stereotypes are utilized, all the way to practicing forms of silence or political fasting. The Middle East region is no exception to this. Rather, the need for metaphor seems to be more pressing, due to prolonged and on-going factors, all of which combine towards establishing a political thinking and planning that tend to give metaphors a great deal of weight. 

Language forms a core part of the framework that governs and clarifies policies. This is clear within the framework of the relationship of politics to speech in general and the political role of language, being one of the pillars of soft power. It is especially enhanced when it comes to the Arabic language, as its rich capabilities extend beyond merely providing the politician with the ability to express their attitudes and policies, to the point of enabling them with tools for understanding, analysis and appreciation. This is particularly significant with the abundant use of rhetorical references and the sayings of wisdom, parables, poems, verses of the Qur’an and hadiths. Meanwhile, there is also this keenness to inculcate the political discourse with similes, metaphors and words that have a significant sound and a strong rhythm, which some tend to believe to be sufficient for demonstrating the political position, particularly the one directed locally. 

Political discourse in the region

Among the politicians in the Middle East, whether official or unofficial, the past is forced to be recalled, since religion and traditional culture greatly influence people’s assessment of political discourse, the actions of those who have decision-making power, and people’s pride in the past of Arabs and Muslims, when their state dominated the world in the medieval era.

This is quite apparent and undeniable in the political discourse of the ruling elite in Turkey, Iran and many of the Arab elites. Any quantitative or qualitative content analysis of political statements, dialogues, speeches, statements or publications will clearly reflect this. In religious, tribal, and clan conceptions, figurative language is very present in the world of politics, where declarations and recognitions outweigh evidence. Democratic governments find themselves in dire need of employing metaphors and figurative language, since they are concerned with convincing and appeasing public opinion, in light of transparency, accountability, freedom of expression and political criticism. Meanwhile, other ruling systems do not find themselves compelled to do so all the time, and thus tend to be more declarative. 

What enhances the inclination of officials in the region to the use of rhetoric is that they need to respond to religious political groups that employ these tools excessively, and use them in violent confrontation, justifying violence, wooing public opinion and affirming followers regarding their extremist ideologies. They also continuously refer to religious texts and ancient sayings which are saturated with eloquence and which celebrate metaphors.

The use of metaphors in conflicts

With the local and regional conflicts, which are rife in Middle East, rhetoric plays an important role for those in conflict. It is used in wars, whether international or civil, to fuel the fighting spirit, to mobilize the public around the goals of the combatants and to express the paths of battles in an exaggerated manner. Each side uses this trend to exaggerate the accomplishment of their soldiers and supporters, as well as degrading their enemies. Facts are obscured, especially with regard to those defeated or those that are gradually getting defeated, or those that do not hope for victory in the end.

What makes matters worse is the sectarianism adopted by religious organizations which are involved in civil wars, as is the case in Syria and Libya, and in the fierce armed conflict in Iraq. Furthermore, the Houthi militia in Yemen resorts to the frequent use of metaphor in its political and military discourse, whether in praise or slander.

The exacerbation of the political situation in several Arab countries comes as a result of demonstrations, protests and uprisings, where the use of metaphor plays a major role. This has been noticed in almost all cases, starting with Tunisia all the way to Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Algeria and Lebanon.

Employment of governments and the opposition

Even in resorting to elections as a mechanism for settling the political conflict, political competition desperately needs metaphors, whether in raised banners, broadcast statements, or public speeches and promises made to voters, in order to manipulate and deceive public opinion, or to coax it, even temporarily.

The use of metaphors by many authorities is also associated with the attempts to conceal facts, for many reasons, including “national security” and the people’s lack of readiness for political modernity, as well as the need to give thought and effort to the issue of economic development as an urgent priority, to confront severe financial backwardness. This definitely requires the availability of heaps of metaphors, which help obscure the truth particularly from the general public, who question the work achieved by the authorities.

On the other hand, most political opponents in various Middle Eastern countries find themselves in need of using metaphors to justify their inability to confront the authority or their failure to present effective programs, and for the purpose of practicing some kind of "wishful thinking". The latter seems to be a recurring behavior among many of these opponents, due to the widening gap between their desire and their ability, or possibly in identification with the discourse and action of the ruling authority, given that conditions cannot be improved. This puts opposition leaders in a position where they cannot present the truth to their party members or to sectors of public opinion that used to or still believe them. Thus, they resort to figurative language that may help them pass this tough situation.

Justification of external interventions

There are also consequences for external interventions. These interventions make different groups and organizations, and even ruling regimes, in a challenging position to this intrusive outsider that seeks to achieve its interests in any way, whether by deception or violence. Given the inability of all of these entities to make a strong and decisive confrontation, they bridge the gap between what they really have to do and what they are actually able to do, through forms of metaphors, through which exaggerations are made in terms of material and moral capabilities.

Likewise, the outsiders themselves use metaphors to penetrate and confront internal opponents who reject or oppose them. By reviewing phrases such as “benign intervention”, “freedom for Iraq”, “creative chaos” and “Desert Storm”...etc., it is quite clear how the US employed metaphor in implementing its policies in the Middle East.  

In conclusion, figurative language is not only present in Middle Eastern politics. In my recent book The Political Metaphor, which was published in a series recently, I cited many examples of the existence of metaphor in all political systems, Eastern and Western. However, it may be justifiable to refer to it being excessive in the Middle East, for the previously mentioned reasons and perhaps for other reasons that may unfold over time, as we follow the trend of evading facts, which has become prevalent in the political practices and discourses of the region.