Constructing Legitimacy through Language

Parliamentary debates in Zambia represent a critical arena where language functions as a primary tool for constructing power, shaping political legitimacy, and negotiating collective identity. Employing Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), this study examines how Members of Parliament (MPs) strategically deploy linguistic resources to frame political realities within a highly polarised environment. Utilising a qualitative design, the research analyses official parliamentary records from the 2023/24 sessions through thematic analysis. The findings reveal that MPs use pronouns, metaphors, modality, evidential appeals, and procedural language as key discursive strategies to assert authority, perform accountability, and challenge opposing positions. Moral and religious metaphors are shown to frame political conduct as an ethical obligation, while populist and nationalist rhetoric fosters solidarity by simplifying complex socio-economic issues into accessible binaries. Procedural language, invoked by the Speaker, serves both to discipline debate and reinforce institutional authority, whereas opposition MPs craft counter-narratives to contest dominant framings and reclaim legitimacy. This study demonstrates how parliamentary discourse simultaneously reflects and reproduces broader ideological struggles over governance, morality, and national identity. By situating these debates within the CDA framework, the analysis illuminates the discursive mechanisms through which power relations are enacted, contested, and sustained within Zambia's multiparty democracy.