When language is a weapon

As some of you may know, I write the Replay section you hear on Spotlight Audio each month. We present the voices of people who have been in the news and explain the language they use. The language we use when giving background to recent events is just as important.

A few years ago, my choice of words led to a discussion within our editorial team. Why had I labeled Pakistan's head of state, then Pervez Musharraf, a dictator? someone asked. I explained that a dictator is somebody who dictates policy as an individual and who expects everyone to obey because there is no legal opposition.

We had previously referred only to Robert Mugabe, Saddam Hussein, and Kim Jong-il as dictators in the present tense. Each one ruled or rules with an iron fist from within a cult of personality. Musharraf may have been a borderline case as concerns that last item, but he had seized power in a military coup and had completely stifled the opposition.

The Pervez perversion

To me, Musharraf had always been a dictator. The English-language press referred to him neutrally for several years as "General Musharraf". But in the days following September 11, 2001, that changed. Even though he was still a general, and even though he had never been elected to office, he was suddenly referred to as the "president" of Pakistan. This couldn't have happened by chance. Or was it coincidence that America needed his help right then in fighting terrorists?

We've seen the reverse happen, too. Manuel Noriega of Panama, who had a similar history, was referred to as "General Noriega" until the US decided to get rid of him in 1989. Then he became a "Panamanian dictator" — first to President George Bush, Sr., then to the media. Noriega's days were numbered.

At the same time, American newspapers and television were having no problem referring to Saddam Hussein as "the Iraqi president". But when Hussein invaded Kuwait, then a key US ally, in 1990, Bush began referring to him as a "dictator" and the media quickly followed suit. Bombs followed.

Language is always a political instrument — even a weapon. It made war morally justifiable to many readers and viewers who wouldn't otherwise have cared.

The Hosni dilemma

Which brings us to Hosni Mubarak. Mubarak took over when the democratically elected president, Anwar Sadat, was killed. At first, Mubarak was referred to as the "acting president", then simply as "president" — which he remained for the next 29 years, despite having had only a few referenda and a single rigged election to legitimize that title.

Shortly after the protests in Egypt began last month, though, news stations in both America and Germany began calling him a "dictator". The only people being interviewed are opposition protesters. This is their language, and the media have chosen a side. It's obvious to the journalists that Mubarak has to go. It wasn't obvious to them a month ago.

In spite of this, Hillary Clinton has continued to refer to "President Mubarak" as recently as this week. It's meant to be a sign that my government is still talking to him, and is trying not to intervene.

So as I collect material for the April Replay, this question of language keeps coming up. One of the segments is very likely going to be about "the Hos". What should I call him?