Political Leadership Identities and Communication-Action Alignments of Selected Democratic Party Presidents

Political communication is a politician's veritable tool for policy and leadership character revelations. Its importance underlies and massive government investment in public communication so that governments make calculated human capital commitment. Political leaders and communicators are or should usually be deeply rooted in, influenced, and limited by certain (un)written codes. This study examined how two democratic party presidential standard bearers, American Obama and Nigerian Obasanjo, presented whatever they said; and why they did, or not do as told. The thesis problem was mainly unravelling identifiable comparisons, and communication identities of two flag-bearers that turned executive presidents and how their presidential political communication correlated, linked, and affected the polity to which it was communicated. The paper answered two research questions: what were the politics and political communication identities of two presidents, and how much did their politics, or stipulated leadership roles align with their actual actions? Related literature was reviewed. The study fitted into two models, using two political communication theories: mainly 'Aristotelian Political Rhetoric and 'Constructivism' as theoretical guides. Using original communications of two presidents, this comparative and historical study – requiring qualitative methodology – bridged the sparse scholarship on comparative presidential leadership and political communication. Purposively selected sample population were collated, analysed and interpreted, deploying multiple instruments, majorly content and discourse analyses chosen for their effectiveness at measuring predetermined variables. Selected published presidential communication totalling 336 obtained from secondary sources formed the sample population. Main findings revealed both presidents largely differed in their communication-achievement alignment, though they had similar political background. They were more widely divergent in their communication identities in accomplishment of statutory political leadership responsibilities. The paper concludes that the presidents did less of policy actions on their talking points.