Leadership and Negative Campaign in the Audience Democracy: A Discourse Analysis of Giorgia Meloni and Enrico Letta’s Negative Strategies During the 2022 Italian Election

1 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 
 
This thesis emerged from a curiosity to investigate the substantial presence of negative messaging employed 
by politicians in contemporary Western democracies. The motivation behind this curiosity stems from the 
observable increase in negative tones that have come to define electoral campaigns in recent years. Across the 
global political landscape, parties and candidates frequently resort to negative campaigning with a diverse 
array of tactics. For example, in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Donald Trump’s campaign utilized footage 
of Hillary Clinton’s collapse at a campaign event to insinuate a lack of stamina suitable for the presidency. 
Similarly, during the 2010 British election, the Conservative Party (Tories) launched a series of posters 
attacking Prime Minister Gordon Brown, attributing to him issues such as taking billions from pensions, 
doubling the national debt, and releasing 80,000 criminals early. Likewise, during the 2017 French presidential 
election, rumors circulated regarding the eventual winner, Emmanuel Macron, alleging his involvement in a 
secret plot, ties to the Rothschilds, or his sexuality. Negative campaigning also played a significant role in the 
campaigns of Marine Le Pen and Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who effectively criticized the established political class, 
fostering public Euroscepticism and nativism. These instances reflect a broader trend observed in Europe and 
beyond, where populist and extremist parties garner substantial support through negative political 
communication strategies. 
During the intensely contested electoral campaign of 2016, writer Rebecca Cusey characterized the American 
presidential election not as a crisis of party or poor candidates but as a crisis of America’s soul, heralding dark 
times for the country (Cusey, 2016). Notably, during that election, the use of friend/foe verbal tactics and 
deliberately brutal language reached a peak, possibly explaining why 85% of Americans believed that the 
political debate in America had become significantly less respectful, with 55% of respondents attributing the 
decline in standards to Trump (Doherty et al., 2016). 
This thesis aims to understand that negative campaigns can assume various tones and targets, which may differ 
depending on the context. Negative campaigning may reach different levels of political opposition, including 
the delegitimization of opponents, a process increasingly observed in several Western democracies. The Italian 
context, in particular, warrants investigation due to its extensive history of opponent delegitimization. Italian 
scholars have extensively discussed this topic, reflecting its academic relevance and widespread use in the 
Italian press. Additionally, politicians have begun to adopt this terminology, further perpetuating the agenda-
setting dynamic that impacts the general use of the term. 
The selection of the 2022 election as a case study presents a compelling opportunity to scrutinize the negative 
strategies employed by politicians. Giorgia Meloni, the leader of Fratelli d’Italia (Brothers of Italy), a far-right 
conservative party, emerged as the primary challenger in the competition, facing substantial criticism from the 
left and other parties outside the Right coalition. It is noteworthy that Meloni stood as the sole significant 
challenger, given that other parties in the election, including the Democratic Party, the Five Stars Movement,
2 
 
and the Third Polo, as well as Meloni’s allies Berlusconi and Salvini, comprised members of the outgoing 
national unity government, helmed by Mario Draghi. Enrico Letta, the leader of the Democratic Party, 
positioned himself and the party primarily in opposition to Meloni and the Right coalition rather than as a 
member of the outgoing government, seeking a bipolar competition. Ultimately, Letta faced defeat in the 
election. The profiles of the leaders, the dynamics of the campaign, Italy’s multi-party system, the democratic 
context, and the nation’s political history all underscore the significance of examining negative campaign 
strategies through this case study. 
A theoretical framework is essential for understanding the democracy we experience today. Democracy has 
evolved significantly since its inception in Athens in the 4th century B.C. In recent decades, the central figure 
in political competition has shifted from parties to leaders who seek to exploit divisions within the electorate 
for public consumption. Bernard Manin’s Audience Democracy theory provides a foundational framework for 
understanding this shift. 
In the opening chapter, Manin’s theory is presented alongside contributions related to the actors in media 
politics. While this thesis does not delve into citizens’ engagement with negative campaigning, the genre theory 
is proposed as a sophisticated lens for understanding how people interact with various forms of communication, 
including politics. The chapter transitions to the role of the leader, exploring storytelling and Unique Selling 
Proposition techniques as effective tools in political communication. The intricate relationship between leaders 
and the media, particularly television, is analyzed, with insights into leadership styles exemplified by figures 
like Berlusconi. Lastly, the chapter portrays media institutions, highlighting the similar tools and strategies 
employed by both media and politicians to achieve their objectives. 
The subsequent chapter delves into negative campaign strategies within the framework of audience democracy. 
Richard Kaitz and Peter Mair’s cartel party theory serves as a backdrop, illuminating the potential shift in party 
competition towards spectacle and depoliticization. The chapter explores the interplay between negative 
campaigns and media coverage, emphasizing the potential negative spiral that may ensue. Rokkan and Lipset’s 
cleavages theory is referenced to understand the freeze and subsequent unfreezing of societal divisions 
mirrored in party politics. The emergence of new cleavages contributing to recent populism is also discussed, 
with an exploration of the intertwining dimensions of delegitimization in populist narratives. 
The final chapter serves as a case study, analyzing the 2022 election campaign in Italy through discourse 
analysis. The study focuses on the negative strategies employed by the two main coalition leaders, Giorgia 
Meloni and Enrico Letta. Research questions pertain to the variation in negative campaign use across media 
outlets, each candidate's extent of engagement in negative campaigning, and the targets of their negative 
campaigns. The chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the election campaign context and offers 
insights into leadership dynamics and discourse analysis results. 
In conclusion, this thesis contributes to understanding political electoral conflicts within the context of 
contemporary political communication, shedding light on the interactions among leaders, citizens, and the 
media. Through theoretical frameworks, multidisciplinary contributions, case studies, and discourse analysis, 
the thesis offers valuable insights into the evolving nature of democratic processes and the challenges faced by 
Western democracies.
3 
 
CHAPTER I 
AUDIENCE DEMOCRACY, LEADERSHIP, AND MEDIA 
 
 
1. The Audience Democracy 
 
In 1995, French sociologist Bernard Manin authored Principles of Representative Government, differentiating 
between Parties Democracy and Audience Democracy. Parties Democracy was distinguished by stability and 
predictability in voter decisions, influenced by intergenerational party affiliation and class-based electoral 
contrasts. Each political domain constituted a community with a top-down solid identification, transforming 
elections into expressions of trust rather than choices between specific policies. Public opinion expressions 
were organized through party cleavages, with parties shaping public sentiment through communication 
channels like associations and party press. This consolidation conferred entitlement to parties in the electoral 
arena, aligning public opinion contrasts with electoral divisions (Manin B. , 2010). 
In contrast, Audience Democracy has emerged due to increasing electoral volatility since the ‘70s (Manin B. , 
2010). Voters exhibit changing behavior from election to election, with the candidate’s personality becoming 
a central element in the decision-making process. In this context, the author explores the concept of a 
‘personalization of power,’ evident in both scenarios where voters appoint the head of the executive, making 
it the primary focus of elections, and in parliamentary systems where campaigns revolve around the leader 
rather than the party (Manin, 2010; Karvonen, 2010; Rahat & Kenig, 2018; Blondel & Thiebault, 2010). 
Two primary causes were identified. The first was that candidates no longer require party communication 
channels, as they can now communicate directly with the voters. Thus, political activists and militants have 
evolved into media experts. The second cause was the increasingly challenging conditions for elected officials 
in exercising power due to growing economic interdependence. In this context, it is more convenient for 
candidates to emphasize personal qualities and predispositions rather than tying themselves to specific 
promises. Political support is primarily based on personal trust rather than program evaluation. Thus, candidate 
evaluation revolves around their private and party-related images. The electoral campaign involves a 
contradictory process between different images. These mental representations need to be highly simplified and 
schematic for efficiency in communication costs. The leaders are those who find the cleavage in the electorate 
and bring it into the public scene, becoming representatives as long as they determine the existence of a non-
self-evident cleavage in the society (Manin, 2010). 
Citizens cast their votes based on the issues at stake in a particular election. At the same time, candidates tailor 
their positions according to surveys and polls, thereby shaping political divisions and targeting specific voter 
demographics. While parties continue to play significant roles in parliamentary proceedings and election 
campaigns, their traditional identities have eroded, and they have become adaptable tools in response to 
different situations. In instances of high stakes, voters often resort to instrumental voting, or they may cast 
their ballots as a means of sending a message to politics (Manin, 2010).
4 
 
Manin underscored specific evidence concerning the impact of the evolution of the media’s role and structure 
(Manin, 2014). He acknowledged the fragmentation of the public, heightened by the segmentation of 
communication channels. This segmentation was grounded in users’ preferences and diverse media offerings, 
potentially leading to the radicalization of opinions. Simultaneously, there has been a surge in the discrediting 
of politicians (ibid, 2014). Citizens tend to perceive all politicians as uniform. This perception emerged in a 
competitive environment where politicians increasingly strove to differentiate themselves by highlighting 
contrasts with one another. The frequent changes in government and the success of challenger politicians 
served as evidence of this trend (Manin, 2014). 
Since the last decades of the 20th century, another author has explored and analyzed the influence of media on 
politics. Zaller (1999) introduced the term ‘media politics’ to describe a political system where politicians aim 
to attain office and conduct their political activities, both during and after their time in office, through 
communication that reaches citizens via mass media. Like Manin, Zaller juxtaposed media politics with ‘party 
politics,’ wherein politicians strive to secure elections and govern as members of party teams (Zaller, 1999). 
The three principal actors in media politics are politicians, journalists, and citizens, each animated by a 
distinctive motive (Zaller, 1999). Politicians aspire to use mass communication to mobilize the public support 
they need to win elections and enact their programs in office. Journalists aim to produce stories that attract big 
audiences and emphasize their role’s independence and significance. Finally, citizens want to monitor politics 
and hold politicians accountable based on minimal effort. With relevant differences depending on the country’s 
context, these three actors, accumulated by the same public game field, pursue their goals with consequences 
and impact one to the other (Zaller, 1999). 
The increased volatility (Blondel & Thiebault, 2010) and public fragmentation (Manin, 2010) have impacted 
politics and media actors. Indeed, citizens’ exposition to the message may no longer be determined by the 
party. A less politically structured public has requested a less ideologically aligned political and media actor. 
Moreover, the increased relevance of political personalization, strengthened by the media, exacerbated this 
tendency (Blondel & Thiebault, 2010; Rahat & Kenig, 2018; Poguntke & Webb, 2005; Swanson & Mancini, 
1996). As a result, both actors have implied a communication style often oriented to images instead of 
programs, to conflicts instead of debate, frequently pursuing spectacularization and dramatization (Zaller, 
1999; Mazzoleni & Sfardini, 2009).  
Politicians and journalists play active roles in cultivating the spectacle and drama genres within their narratives. 
The unique strategies of each actor influence the selection of these genres. Employing these rhetorical devices 
can effectively shape the public perception of a politician (Mazzoleni, 2004) and expand the audience reach 
(Altheide & Snow, 1979), as public perception often influences voting decisions and informs a fragmented 
public that may have limited interest in engaging with public affairs (Karvonen, 2010). 
In postmodern politics (Norris, 2004), the incorporation of non-political elements and the shifting dynamics 
between audience and citizens warrant further examination. Truly, politics increasingly resembles spectacles. 
This challenges traditional notions of political engagement, as citizens are no longer required to mobilize or 
protest physically but are instead called upon to express consent (Manin, 2010). This consent, crucial for 
assuming political roles or positions, is often shaped by issues, policy proposals, and presentation of political
5 
 
content (Ventura, 2020a). Drawing parallels between audience behavior and citizens’ political engagement, they 
may approach political content similarly to how they engage with entertainment, seeking out preferences through 
established genre categorizations. 
 
 
 
1.1 The Genre Theory 
 
While the functionality of genre in discursive activity might need to be more evident, we universally 
acknowledge its significance in the cultural realm. Audience assessments of audiovisual products are shaped 
by their ability to recognize specific genres. From the consumer’s viewpoint, genres serve as a well-established 
habit, a classification criterion, and an indispensable parameter for navigating the media production landscape 
- a tradition rooted in literary practices spanning millennia (Grignaffini, 2022). Genres are cultural categories 
that transcend the confines of media texts and function within the industry, among audiences, and in cultural 
practices (Mittel, 2001). 
Industries lean on genres to produce programs, define their identity, and schedule content. Audiences use 
genres to structure their practices, create organizations, plan conferences, develop websites, express personal 
preferences, engage in daily conversations, and shape viewing habits (Mittel, 2001). 
There are no standardized criteria for defining a genre, particularly in television, where categorization can be 
based on factors such as setting, actions, impact on the audience, and narrative forms. This diversity of 
attributes underscores that genre categorization is not dictated by internal factors within the texts (Mittel, 2001; 
Grignaffini, 2022). 
Genres arise solely from the intertextual relationships between multiple texts, linked through cultural practices 
such as production and reception. Because genres rely on intertextual factors, it is crucial to comprehend the 
context in which genres operate, evolve, and disseminate. Focusing on the internal and external boundaries 
between genres only obscures their fluid transitions from one edge to another (Mittel, 2001). 
Genres should be viewed as discursive practices (ibid, 2001). The discursive approach aligns genres with what 
Michel Foucault termed ‘discursive formations.’ These formations originate from the ground up, starting with 
individual micro-instances rather than emerging from centralized structures or single power sources. Therefore, 
the history of genres needs to be explored as a fluid and active process, avoiding a teleological perspective. In 
conclusion, Mittel stated: “This approach enables us to deal with cultural politics; it requires that we situate 
genre within power relations. Just as Foucault asserts that discourses are always processes of power, genres 
are also constituted by power relations. Genres are not neutral categories but are situated within larger power 
systems and thus come ‘fully loaded’ with political implications” (Mittel, 2001, p. 20). 
Genres emerge, encompassing the exchange of everyday life and literary, legal, scientific, and journalistic texts 
(Bakhtin, 1986). Language takes shape in individual and concrete utterances, spoken and written, by those 
participating in various realms of human activity. Bakhtin noted: “Each separate utterance is personal, of 
course, but each sphere in which language is used develops its own relatively stable types of these utterances.
6 
 
These we may call speech genres” (Bakhtin, 1986, loc. 1081). Bakhtin expressed concern about the tendency 
to consider the functionality of language solely from an individual perspective. At times, language is analyzed 
with the attribution of a collective personality, often referred to as ‘the spirit of the people.’ However, this 
approach also overlooks the essential significance of the plurality of speakers. He criticized the scientific 
fiction of diagrams representing communicative activity by emphasizing the speaker’s activity and the 
passivity of the listener. Thus, he wrote: 
 
“The fact is that when the listener perceives and understands the meaning (the language 
meaning) of the speech, he simultaneously takes an active, responsive attitude towards 
it. He either agrees or disagrees with it (completely or partially), argues it, applies it, 
prepares for its execution, and so on. Moreover, the listener adopts this responsive 
attitude for the entire process of listening and understanding, from the very beginning – 
sometimes literally from the speaker’s first word” (Bakhtin, 1986, loc. 1191). 
 
Ensuring a response or reactive understanding is determined by several aspects. Each speaker’s purpose defines 
the comprehensiveness and forms that construct the utterance. The speaker’s intention primarily manifests in 
choosing a specific discourse genre. The reference depends on the author and the discourse plan, which 
determines the linguistic choices and the genre. No neutral utterances exist, and the author’s evaluation 
influences lexical, grammatical, and compositional choices. Intonation is a constitutive feature of the utterance 
(Bakhtin, 1986). Bakhtin argued that learning to speak means constructing utterances with generic features. 
Each speaker is also an interlocutor. They are never the ‘first speaker.’ A speaker presupposes not only the 
existence of the linguistic system they are using but also the existence of previous utterances, both their own 
and others (Bakhtin, 1986). Thus, we can recognize the type of discourse we are listening to from the beginning 
and predict its duration, compositional structure, and conclusion. The more we master genres, the more freely 
we use them, the more fully we reveal our individuality in them, and the more perfectly we execute our 
discourse plan (Bakhtin, 1986). 
The author emphasized that a passive understanding of discourse is also one form of active reception by the 
listener. Sooner or later, what is heard and actively understood will elicit a response in subsequent discourse 
or the listener’s behavior. In most cases, complex cultural communication genres seek a delayed action 
(Bakhtin, 1986). 
Bakhtin’s invitation was to study discourse starting from its genres, meaning those more or less stable and 
typical forms belonging to various areas of human activity. These durable and distinct forms guarantee and 
determine the understanding and behavior of the listener, acting as cognitive bridges. 
To comprehend this, it is crucial to study the author of the discourse, their plan, and the recipient to understand 
the recurring choice of expressive elements in each utterance.
7 
 
2. The Leadership 
 
2.1 The Evolution of Election Campaigns 
 
The evolution of election campaigns offers a thorough depiction of the political landscape in democratic 
nations over time. 
Pre-modern campaigns were characterized by direct interpersonal communications between candidates and 
citizens locally, with short-term, ad hoc plans established by the party leadership (Norris, 2004). The party, 
intermediated by the partisan press, was supported by solid party identity and loyalty. European parties were 
based on stable sectoral cleavages in the electorate, with the divisions of class, religion, and region providing 
solid electoral support (Lipset & Rokkan, 1967). Citizens experienced local-active politics with rallies, 
doorstep canvassing, and party meetings. Campaigns were the occasion to reinforce partisan supporters rather 
than to produce new converts. Radio and film deployment in the 1920s indirectly supplemented the 
newspapers, starting to nationalize the campaign even before the age of television (Norris, 2004). 
Modern campaigns were characterized by political leaders coordinating the party organization closely at a 
more central level (Norris, 2004). External consultants like opinion pollsters and media experts advised leaders. 
The principal forum of campaign events was national television. Politicians and consultants conducted polls, 
designed advertisements, tried to set the public agenda, organized news conferences and photo opportunities, 
handled the press, and battled to dominate the television news offer. Frequently, resources were external to the 
party organization. The focus on television campaigns has strengthened the spotlight on the party leadership, 
moving from cleavage-based and issue-based conflict towards a ‘personalization’ of politics (Blondel & 
Thiebault, 2010; Swanson & Mancini, 1996; Poguntke & Webb, 2005). Because the campaign’s primary focus 
was located within national television studios, most voters became more distant and disengaged spectators. 
Parties contributed to developing catch-all strategies designed to attract voters from outside their core 
constituency, dismantling some traditional vote predictors. Indeed, class and religion cleavages provoked 
weaker predictors of voting behavior in many countries as party competition over issues, images, and 
leadership roles became increasingly important from the 1970s onwards. (Norris, 2004) 
Television heightened the visibility of leaders, favoring those with telegenic qualities. Since the widely known 
television debate between J. F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960, leaders have been predominantly judged 
by the audience based on their performances on television. For example, when the moderator, Howard K. 
Smith, greeted and presented both candidates at the beginning of the debate, candidate Nixon greeted and 
introduced himself to his physical interlocutor, turning and acknowledging the moderator. In contrast, 
candidate Kennedy, who better understood the dynamics of television, greeted and presented himself not to 
the moderator but by focusing on the camera, addressing approximately sixty-five million viewers (NewsHour, 
2020). 
Eight years after his defeat, Nixon made another run for the presidency, employing a strategy that capitalized 
on the power of television. Nixon organized town hall meetings, which were broadcast on TV. The panel
8 
 
consisted of individuals from diverse backgrounds, including homemakers, plumbers, and an African American 
taxi driver. Nixon’s consultants brainstormed ways to ensure supportive voices in the panel. Eventually, they 
realized that a more effective strategic maneuver would involve stacking the audience with Nixon supporters. 
Even if impartial interviewers posed the questions, a predominantly supportive audience reacting 
enthusiastically to Nixon’s answers created an impression of success, thereby enhancing his performance 
(Timeline – World History Documentaries, 2022). 
During the 1992 debate, a challenger candidate, Bill Clinton, was awarded by citizens and the media as the 
more empathic and dedicated to the moment and, as an extension, the country’s moment. Candidate Clinton 
was able to connect with the audience. On the other side, one of the other candidates, the incumbent President 
George H. W. Bush, looked at his watch during Clinton’s answer, letting everyone feel that he was not 
interested in or maybe bored by this commitment (CBS NEWS, 2012). 
Post-modern campaigns are characterized by professional consultants in advertising, public opinion, 
marketing, and strategic news management, becoming more co-equal actors with politicians (Norris, 2004). 
They assume a more influential role within the government, engaging in a permanent campaign (Blumenthal, 
1980) and coordinating local activities more tightly at the grassroots level. The news media are also 
fragmented, providing opportunities for newer forms of party-voter interaction facilitated by the Internet. 
Power relations in politics and society are contingent upon the unique characteristics of the leader (Ventura, 
2019). Indeed, the electoral strategy focuses on image-building and the candidate’s position in the competitive 
field. Public appearances serve as occasions for the public to form opinions on the candidate, which will be 
coherent with their voting decision (Norris, 2004; Karvonen, 2010; Mazzoleni, 2004; Mazzoleni & Schulz, 
1999; Swanson & Mancini, 1996). 
 
 
 
2.2 Narrative Techniques: Storytelling and Unique Selling Proposition 
 
Two practices have emerged at the intersection of politics and media (Maarek, 2011). Storytelling, a 
communicative strategy, originated in management and marketing in the United States in the 1990s. The 
strategic practice of telling stories arises from two impulses. On the one hand, companies felt the need to learn 
how to communicate the values and rules of the organization. On the other hand, there was an ongoing crisis 
in brand loyalty. Brands were losing their appeal even to more discerning consumers. Thus, the need arose to 
construct stories to engage consumers in an emotional and lasting relationship with brands (Salmon, 2010). 
This practice can also be adopted in politics, especially in the face of a similar crisis of party loyalty. As Ventura 
wrote, “Political leaders, whether they are candidates or leading a government or opposing it from the 
opposition, narrate themselves and their horizons, their visions, primarily through a sort of ongoing storytelling 
that unfolds through public speeches, often autobiographical books, and appearances on television shows...” 
(Ventura, 2019, p. 75). 
Given that building the leader’s image is one of the primary goals of political marketing, storytelling is an 
essential tool in this regard. The image represents the leader subjectively elaborated by the recipient (citizens
9 
 
and the media). The leaders’ image reflects their history and, therefore, must be consistent with the 
development of the character. The narration of oneself takes the form of an engaging drama, “the hero, the 
captain, the reformer, the father or mother of the nation, the stern parent, and the nurturing mother... 
Furthermore, that self is represented (or an attempt is made to represent it) in a manner consistent with the 
outlined horizon” (Ventura, 2019, p. 76). 
Another tool derived from marketing is the Unique Selling Proposition (USP). The USP consists of two 
dimensions: it seeks a ‘differentiating factor’ and simplification. The first dimension, differentiation, revolves 
around highlighting at least one element that distinguishes the product (or candidate) from all others, and the 
specific advantage of that product is communicated based on this element. In the political context, marketing 
will emphasize the unique characteristic that truly and solely belongs to the candidate, be it their young age or 
maturity and experience. The voter must interpret this differentiating element positively (Maarek, 2011). For 
example, in the 1992 American presidential elections, independent candidate Ross Perot structured his image 
by focusing on the fact that he was the only political novice, and thus the only one still immune to corruption 
and sensitive to the problems of the average American, unlike his two political opponents who had lost touch 
with reality (Maarek, 2011). 
The second dimension, simplification, results from the public discourse’s tendency to struggle with accurately 
conveying complex messages. For this reason, experts believe it is not wise to transmit more than one message 
within a single act of communication. Here are some successful examples of USP in action. In 1983, UK Prime 
Minister Margaret Thatcher based her campaign messages on the success of the Falklands War, portraying 
herself as the defender of the remaining British Empire (Ventura, 2019). Another example is Bill Clinton’s 
choice in 1992 to center his campaign on the economy, with his advisors, James Carville, and George 
Stephanopoulos, constantly reminding him to mention the economy in all his public appearances. The 
catchphrase “It is the economy, stupid!” became legendary (Maarek, 2011). 
 
 
 
2.3 The Leaders Era 
 
The personalization process that invests political dynamics puts greater centrality on the individual (Blondel 
& Thiebault, 2010; Rahat & Kenig, 2018). This happens in favor of television, with the visual simplification 
of a leader representing a party (Poguntke & Webb, 2005; Swanson & Mancini, 1996). Cameras aim to capture 
intimate and expressive information that minimizes the distance between the audience and the politician 
(Ventura, 2019). 
Leadership determines the ability to narrate. Indeed, leadership represents a mode of power. Power is 
considered the capacity to influence someone’s behavior or some events. For this characteristic, it is a relational 
concept (Ventura, 2019). The legitimacy of this appears in various forms, encompassing soft power, hard 
power, and smart power (Nye, 2009). Soft power is exemplified when the capacity to influence others’ 
preferences is harnessed through alluring, persuasive means, exploiting emotions to engender identification 
with the leader’s offering. The strategic deployment of soft power mainly relies on impactful communication