IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v13y2023i2p21582440231175381.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Delegitimizing the Egyptian Regime: Negative Campaigning and Strategic Framing as Techniques to Demobilize Antagonists

Author

Listed:
  • Moeen Koa

Abstract

Islamist social movements are vital players in MENA’s political arena. This study explores how these movements attempt to delegitimize their rivals and the frames they assign to them in hotly contested situations. For this purpose, this study used content analysis to analyze the entire range of Arabic language communiqués issued by the Muslim Brotherhood from July 2013 to January 2019. The theoretical framework is based on negative campaigning literature and two concepts of social movements theory; legitimacy as a crucial moral resource and strategic framing as a technique to demobilize antagonists. This article demonstrates that the Brotherhood conducted a negative campaign to incriminate and undermine the post-2013 order and damage its image, credibility, and reputation. As part of this campaign, the movement deployed many strategies and negative frames to give harmful meaning to the regime, its institutions, ideas, and leaders. This study contributes to research in political communication by deepening the understanding of strategic framing as a technique to demobilize antagonists and demonstrating how moral resources lie at the heart of negative political communication campaigns. It argues that the Brotherhood uses strategic framing to raise doubts about the regime’s authenticity and sincerity.

Suggested Citation

  • Moeen Koa, 2023. "Delegitimizing the Egyptian Regime: Negative Campaigning and Strategic Framing as Techniques to Demobilize Antagonists," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(2), pages 21582440231, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:13:y:2023:i:2:p:21582440231175381
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440231175381
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440231175381
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440231175381?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alessandro Nai & Mike Medeiros & Michaela Maier & Jürgen Maier, 2022. "Euroscepticism and the use of negative, uncivil and emotional campaigns in the 2019 European Parliament election: A winning combination," European Union Politics, , vol. 23(1), pages 21-42, March.
    2. Lau, Richard R. & Sigelman, Lee & Heldman, Caroline & Babbitt, Paul, 1999. "The Effects of Negative Political Advertisements: A Meta-Analytic Assessment," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(4), pages 851-875, December.
    3. Kahn, Kim Fridkin & Kenney, Patrick J., 1999. "Do Negative Campaigns Mobilize or Suppress Turnout? Clarifying the Relationship between Negativity and Participation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(4), pages 877-889, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David Soberman & Loïc Sadoulet, 2007. "Campaign Spending Limits and Political Advertising," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(10), pages 1521-1532, October.
    2. Niederdeppe, Jeff & Avery, Rosemary J. & Liu, Jiawei & Gollust, Sarah E. & Baum, Laura & Barry, Colleen L. & Welch, Brendan & Tabor, Emmett & Lee, Nathaniel W. & Fowler, Erika Franklin, 2021. "Exposure to televised political campaign advertisements aired in the United States 2015–2016 election cycle and psychological distress," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    3. Sourav Bhattacharya, 2016. "Campaign rhetoric and the hide-and-seek game," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(3), pages 697-727, October.
    4. Wood, Reed M. & Juanchich, Marie & Ramirez, Mark & Zhang, Shenghao, 2023. "Promoting COVID-19 vaccine confidence through public responses to misinformation: The joint influence of message source and message content," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    5. Vincenzo Galasso & Tommaso Nannicini, 2016. "Persuasion and Gender: Experimental Evidence from Two Political Campaigns," CESifo Working Paper Series 5868, CESifo.
    6. Galasso, Vincenzo & Nannicini, Tommaso, 2013. "Men Vote in Mars, Women Vote in Venus: A Survey Experiment in the Field," CEPR Discussion Papers 9547, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Sonia Capelli & William Sabadie & Olivier Trendel, 2009. "Président, fais moi rire ! La communication politique entre peur et humour," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) halshs-00467982, HAL.
    8. Dikla Perez & Yael Steinhart & Amir Grinstein & Meike Morren, 2021. "Consistency in identity-related sequential decisions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(12), pages 1-26, December.
    9. Seerat Sohal & Harsandaldeep Kaur, 2019. "Communicating with Voters on YouTube: Content Analysis of the Relationship Between Advertisement Message Characteristics and Viewers’ Responses," Management and Labour Studies, XLRI Jamshedpur, School of Business Management & Human Resources, vol. 44(1), pages 17-35, February.
    10. Raphaël Soubeyran, 2009. "Contest with attack and defense: does negative campaigning increase or decrease voter turnout?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 32(3), pages 337-353, March.
    11. Kessler, Anke & Cornwall, Tom, 2012. "Does Misinformation Demobilize the Electorate? Measuring the Impact of Alleged 'Robocalls' in the 2011 Canadian Election," CEPR Discussion Papers 8945, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Adam M. Enders & Jason Gainous & Kevin M. Wagner, 2022. "Say it again with feeling: Issue ownership and candidate communication using Twitter," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(4), pages 959-974, July.
    13. Galasso, Vincenzo & Nannicini, Tommaso, 2016. "Persuasion and Gender: Experimental Evidence from Two Political Campaigns," CEPR Discussion Papers 11238, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Nunnari, Salvatore & Galasso, Vincenzo & Nannicini, Tommaso, 2020. "Positive Spillovers from Negative Campaigning," CEPR Discussion Papers 14312, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Archishman Chakraborty & Rick Harbaugh, 2010. "Persuasion by Cheap Talk," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(5), pages 2361-2382, December.
      • Archishman Chakraborty & Rick Harbaugh, 2006. "Persuasion by Cheap Talk," Working Papers 2006-10, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy, revised Oct 2009.
    16. Sourav Bhattacharya, 2006. "Campaign Rhetoric and the Hide-and-Seek Game," Working Paper 326, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, revised Jun 2007.
    17. Massimiliano Landi & Chun Seng Yip, 2006. "Campaign Tactics and Citizens’ Electoral Decisions," Macroeconomics Working Papers 22462, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    18. Mujtaba Isani & Bernd Schlipphak, 2023. "Who is asking? The effect of survey sponsor misperception on political trust: evidence from the Afrobarometer," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 3453-3481, August.
    19. Monica Escaleras & Peter T. Calcagno & William F. Shughart II, 2012. "Corruption and Voter Participation," Public Finance Review, , vol. 40(6), pages 789-815, November.
    20. Brett Gordon & Mitchell Lovett & Ron Shachar & Kevin Arceneaux & Sridhar Moorthy & Michael Peress & Akshay Rao & Subrata Sen & David Soberman & Oleg Urminsky, 2012. "Marketing and politics: Models, behavior, and policy implications," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 391-403, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:13:y:2023:i:2:p:21582440231175381. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.