Presidential Rhetoric in the COVID-19 Pandemic Era : Jokowi ’ s Aristotelian Rhetorical Leadership Models Before and After Implementation of Lock Down Policy

Presidential rhetoric evolved across the globe. Knowledge regarding the ways the presidents in democratic countries, which followed the presidential government system, such as Indonesia, advanced Aristotelian rhetorical leadership models in the covid-19 pandemic era, has, however, under-developed. Selecting president Joko Widodo (Jokowi) as a study case, this work raises the following question: what types of Aristotelian rhetorical leadership models performed by Jokowi before and after semi-lock down policy (PSBB) and how did he advance such rhetorical leaderships models? Focusing on such questions, this work adopts the president’s rhetorical leadership models, posited by Teten (2007) and Aristotelian rhetoric models, formulated by Gottweis (2007), as a conceptual framework. The materials posted in official Facebook pages of president Joko Widodo were extracted using the classic content and the qualitative and thematic content analyses. The findings are follows. Soon after the covid-19 pandemic outbreak took place in Indonesia, he attempted to develop the following types of rhetorical leadership, which are the identification, the authority and the directive rhetoric and the etho -logo-, and patho-centric Aristotelian rhetoric. Based on Indonesia case, this work offers the following knowledge contribution. It gives us new knowledge of 9 Aristotelian rhetorical leadership models, which are the etho-, logoand patho-centric identification rhetoric, the etho-, logoand patho-centric authority rhetoric and the etho-, logoand patho-centric directive rhetoric models. Not merely the presidents, but also the local governments’ leaders could adopt such rhetoric models when they want to resolve diverse issues resulting from the pandemic.


Introduction
The outbreak of coronavirus has been taking place across the globe. This pandemic has been widely acknowledged as entailing huge negative impacts on not merely the global and national public health systems, but also the global and national economic and political orders. As this pandemic disrupted such systems and orders, most of top-leaders of the executive body of the governments within and across countries kept striving to establish not merely the workable policies, but also rhetorical strategies to do so. However, while such trends have been visible in Indonesia, types of Aristotelian rhetorical leadership models advanced by the presidents in the emerging democracies when they proposed and delivered such policies and the ways developed such models, have been under-researched.
Based on such background, this work selects President Joko Widodo (Jokowi) as a study case and raises the following questions. what types of Aristotelian rhetorical leadership models performed by Jokowi before and after semi-lock down policy (PSBB) and how did he advance such rhetorical leaderships models? Focusing on such questions, this work proposes the following proposition. Jokowi is likely to adopt not merely three models of rhetorical leadership, as posited by Teten (2007), but also three modes of Aristotelian rhetoric, as formulated by Gottweis (2007) when he got to deal with the public issues resulting from the covid-19 related problems.
Such a proposition is developed through the following sections. The first section discusses developments of the president rhetoric as a sub-field of presidency studies. The second section clarifies the elements that constitute rhetorical leadership and Aristotelian rhetoric. The third section outlines the research propositions, methods and design. The fourth section presents the research findings. Discussion and conclusion are, respectively, chronicled in the last two sections.

Theoretical Framework President Rhetoric as a Sub-Field of Presidency Studies
In democratic countries, which followed the presidential government system, the elected-president commonly has the following three types of political powers. The first is a constitutional power. The second is president's political power as a public/influential figure that represent the party he/she associated with. The third is a presidential power to persuade the people and influence public opinion (Windt Jr, 1986). The ways the president manage this power usually termed as the president rhetoric (Windt Jr, 1986).
President rhetoric has been considered as a part of presidency studies. It focuses on not merely 'presidential public persuasion', but also how such persuasion carries out effects on 'the ability of a President to exercise the powers of the office' (Windt Jr, 1986). It is oriented to evaluate the public statements made by the president when he/she proposed and carried out political policies and managed politics of the administrations as well. It is also directed to examine the audiences addressed and targeted by the president while delivering these statements, type of the media he/she considered while doing so and the ways he/she delivered these statements either. It is also advanced to understand the degrees to which the president obtained and succeeded or failed in managing the public supports and political endorsements from members of Congress/Parliament (Windt Jr, 1986).
Studies on president rhetoric are commonly oriented to address the following issues. The first is the nature of presidential rhetoric and how it functions 'in a democratic society' and/or 'should function to further democratic processes' (Windt, Jr 1986). The second is the characteristics of the presidential office and the people' expectations to the person who occupied this office (presidential ethos). The third is transformation of the president rhetoric and the ways the president managed the media and public agenda using particular rhetorical strategy (Windt Jr, 1986). The fourth is the ways the president advanced his/her rhetorical strategies and styles when he/she address the agenda-setting of the media (Windt Jr, 1986). The fifth is the rhetorical strategies and styles advanced by the president within contexts of governing and campaigning periods and the differences between such rhetorical strategies and styles as well (Windt Jr, 1986). The sixth is the nature of political language adopted by the president when he or she carried out particular rhetorical strategies and styles (Windt, Jr, 1986) Presidential rhetorical studies are commonly oriented to explore 'how public language and public arguments influence the exercise of presidential powers' (Windt Jr, 1986). Such studies are directed to achieve the following objectives. The first is to understand 'how the rhetorical presidency functions and should function' (Windt Jr, 1986). The second is to examine developments of the president rhetoric and rhetorical strategies and styles, which not merely direct, but also influence his/her capability in managing political policies and administration (Windt Jr, 1986).

Presidential Rhetoric: Rhetorical Leadership and Aristotelian Rhetoric Models
There have been diverse factors that determine the powers of the president and presidency office. These factors include both institutional and personal-related factors (Neustadt, 1960(Neustadt, , 1976. The latter incorporates the president's leadership and rhetorical styles (Windt Jr, 1986;Teten, 2007). This work assumes that these factors determine the power of the president to persuade nor merely the politicians who take positions in the legislative/parliamentary institution, but also the people (Neustadt, 1960). Such proposition is detailed as follows.
The president who ruled the government and occupied the presidency office commonly follow particular leadership styles. While doing so, he/she might adopt rhetorical models to address various audiences. The rhetorical models adopted by the president are directed to show not merely his or her 'view of what the people should and should not do', but also political policies he/she proposed and prioritized to fulfill expectations of the people (Teten, 2007). To achieve such goals, the president commonly adopts a popular political appeal. Such effort is usually carried out using the following three rhetorical leadership models, which are the identification, the authority and the directive rhetoric. Characteristics of these models are detailed as follows.
The identification rhetoric is a rhetorical leadership model that is directed to leverage capability of the president 'to speak to the people and also seek to convince them that he is on their side, on the same page with them' (Teten, 2007). As the president adopted it, he or she favors using the following words, which are our, we, and us. Such effort is conducted to show that he or she is in a same place or having a similar standing position with the people (Teten, 2007).
The authority rhetoric is alternatively, a rhetorical model, which is specified to highlight a standing position of the president as a commander in chief. The president who adopted it preferred using the words I, me and my (Teten, 2007). As the president deployed it, he or she is likely interested to point out that his or her 'rhetoric holds value largely because of that position alone' (Teten, 2007).
A slightly differently, the directive rhetoric is understood as a rhetoric leadership model that is specified not merely to persuade the targeted audiences, but also to shape and influence the public opinion. The president who took up this model commonly prefer adopting not only the words I, me and my, but also the words you, your, and yours to achieved the following objectives, which are 'to exercise his (her) presidential authority', 'give commands and place the need for performance on his audience' (Teten, 2007). In this respect, the words I, me and my commonly are used to highlight his or her 'remarks towards a certain audience', while the words you, your, and yours are directed to point out 'the need for action on someone other than the president himself' (Teten, 2007).
Despite of adopting such rhetorical types, the president might also adopt the logo-, the patho-and etho-centric Aristotelian rhetoric (Gottweis, 2007). These models are formulated based on the elements that constitute the basic Aristotelian rhetorical model. These elements consist of ethos, pathos and logos. Gottweis (2007) realized that this model is quite helpful to analyse rhetorical political communication strategy advanced by political actors. This model however, lacked explanation regarding the ways and the degrees to which political actors prioritized these elements when they proposed and delivered political messages and policies.
In consideration of such issue, Gottweis (2007) proposed the logo-, patho-and ethocentric Aristotelian rhetorical models. A slightly contrasting with the basic Aristotelian rhetorical model, each of these Aristotelian rhetorical models visualized type of rhetorical component that is likely prioritized by political actors. Those who adopted the logo-centric Aristotelian rhetorical model consider the logos as a central element that construct his or her rhetoric much more, as compared to either ethos or pathos. Those who advanced the patho-centric Aristotelian rhetorical model instead, preferred prioritizing the pathos as a principle component that direct his or her rhetoric much more, as compared to either ethos or logos. Those who followed the etho-centric Aristotelian rhetorical model alternatively, prioritized the ethos as a primary rhetorical element that constitute his or her rhetoric much more, as compared to either logos or pathos.

Material and Methodology
Having considered the ideas of these authors, this work proposes the following propositions. In the covid-19 pandemic era, president Joko Widodo favours adopting not merely the identification, the authority and the directive rhetoric (Teten, 2007), but also the etho-, logo-, and patho-centric Aristotelian rhetoric (Gottweis, 2007). He is likely to manage such effort when he propose and implement the semi-lock down policy to tackle diverse public issues resulting from the covid-19 pandemic.
He is likely to adopt the words our, we, and us to develop the identification rhetoric (Teten, 2007). He also favours using the words I, me and my to establish the authority rhetoric (Teten, 2007) and deploying the words I, me and my and combine them with the words you, your, and yours to advance the directive rhetoric (Teten, 2007). He is likely to highlight his personal background or experience or personalities when he adopts the etho-centric Aristotelian rhetoric and adopt the anger, fear, sympathy, personal and non-personal (social) appeals and the secular and religious ethical appeals when he advances the patho-centric Aristotelian rhetoric, as well (Brinton, 1988;Duke et al., 1993;Keen, 2006;Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005;Bernstein, 2009). He may consider both the inductive and deductive logical appeals when he follows the logocentric Aristotelian rhetoric and exploit the aforementioned elements to address the targeted audiences and manage political legitimacy of his governments as well (Insead & Green JR, 2016).
To evaluate such propositions, this work organizes the following efforts. Firstly, this work adopts the case study method. The reasons for doing so are as follows. This method is considered as 'an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-world context' (Yin, 2014). This method has long been considered as a practical research strategy to examine 'either a single or multiple cases' and generate 'numerous levels of analysis' based on such a single or multi cases either (Eisenhart, 1989). Those who adopted it could be much more capable in collecting and combining diverse types of data derived from archives, reports and observations, evaluating both the qualitative and the quantitative evidences (Eisenhart, 1989) and extracting such data and evidences to 'provide description' and 'generate a theory' or concept as well (Eisenhart, 1989;Yin, 2014). Due to the following reason, this work adopts the descriptive single case study as a research method. This method could help the researchers who focus on 'what question' (Yin, 2014) to collect and analyse the data derived from either the contemporary or the non-contemporary events (Yin, 2014).
Secondly, this work combined this method with the rhetorical analysis. There are two type of rhetorical analyses, which are the thin and the thick rhetorical analysis (Price- Thomas & Turnbull, 2018). Due to the following reasons, this work adopts the second. While the first is merely directed to 'understand rhetoric as a mere technique: that is, as a technical discipline concerning the arrangement and delivery of speech' (Price- Thomas & Turnbull, 2018), the second is instead, oriented to explain the rhetorical materials formulated and delivered by political actors as essential elements to 'search for and maintenance of power' (Price- Thomas & Turnbull, 2018). In contrast with the first, the second considers the rhetoric as a 'pragmatic mechanism through which discourses can be built and through which both stable and fluid meanings are put into play' (Price- Thomas & Turnbull, 2018). It also sees that the 'rhetoric is interconnected with deeper power structures' and also 'a situated practice interacting with its social and historical context (Price- Thomas & Turnbull, 2018).
The second also offers the following befits. It 'locates rhetoric as more deeply embedded in social relation' (Price- Thomas & Turnbull, 2018). It also considers all elements that constitute Aristotelian rhetoric (ethos, pathos and logos) and places them in every rhetorical situation either. Adopting it allows the researchers to integrate rhetorical analyses with the others 'modes of political analysis' (Price- Thomas & Turnbull, 2018). This makes them being much more capable in examining the rhetorical materials delivered by political actors not merely as political messages, but also as types of logical, ethical and personal characters performed by these actors publicly (Price- Thomas & Turnbull, 2018).
As a part of the presidency studies, the president rhetoric study also considers not merely the presidential papers, oral histories, and personal interviews with former presidential associates', but also all public documents released by the president, as the primary data (Thomas, 1977). In consideration of this, this work selects the materials posted in official Facebook of President Joko Widodo before the semi-lockdown policy was being implemented (2-31 March) and after this policy was being carried out (1 April-31 May 2020), as the primary data.
Thirdly, this work, as adopted the idea of Rooduijn and Pauwels (2011), extracts these materials using a classical content analysis approach. The reason for doing this is 'the validity of assisted computer content analysis is seen as turning out 'to be lower than that of the classical approach' (Rooduijn & Pauwels, 2011); though it offers a better accuracy, as compared to this approach (Rooduijn & Pauwels, 2011). To do so, it takes each of these materials as a unit analysis. As supported by two trained coders, it counts the intensity of the elements that constitute the identification, the authority and the directive rhetoric (Teten, 2007) and the etho-, logo-, and patho-centric Aristotelian rhetoric (Gottweis, 2007) and covid-19 related problems included in these materials, codes them in SPPS 23 and assess them using statistical descriptive.

Figure 1. Stages of the Qualitative-Thematic and Content Analyses: An Example
Finally, this work evaluates these materials using the qualitative-thematic and content analyses, as posited by Boyatzis (1998), Braun and Clarke (2006) and Butler-Kisber (2010). Such analyses were organized through the following stages, which are familiarising with the data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes and producing the reports. Two coders were deployed to carry out such analyses. Figure 1 visualises an example regarding the ways such analyses were conducted. These efforts were conducted to generate the following findings.

Results and Discussion
The finding indicated that before semilock down policy was being implemented, President Joko Widodo adopted the following types of rhetorical leadership, which are the identification, authority and directive rhetoric (Teten, 2007) when he attempted to tackle

•
The president uses the words I, me and my while proposing or managing political policies directed to resolve the public issues resulting from the covid-19 pandemic Authority rhetoric

•
The president emphasizes the inductive or the deductive logical approaches while proposing or managing political policies directed to resolve the public issues resulting from the covid-19 pandemic The pathocentric Aristotelian rhetoric

Themes
The pathocentric Aristotelian authority rhetoric

•
The president uses the words our, we, and us while proposing or managing political policies directed to resolve the public issues resulting from the covid-19 pandemic

•
The president highlights his personal background or experience or personalities while proposing or managing political policies directed to resolve the public issues resulting from the covid-19 pandemic The etho-centric Aristotelian rhetoric

Identification rhetoric
The etho-centric Aristotelian identification rhetoric Reports diverse public issues resulting from the covid-19 pandemic. As seen in figure 2, he favoured adopting the third much more, instead of the first and the second. Moreover, the finding also exhibited that while attempting to resolve such public issues, he also developed three models of Aristotelian rhetoric, which are the etho-, logo, and patho-centric Aristotelian rhetoric (Gottweis, 2007). As displayed in figure 3, he preferred establishing the second much more, instead of either the first or the third. He did such efforts to address the following three public issues, which are the public health, economic and education issues. As exhibited in figure 4, he considered both the first and the second, but prioritized the first much more. The finding also indicated that after semilock down policy was being implemented, President Joko Widodo adopted the identification, authority and directive rhetoric (Teten, 2007) when he kept striving to tackle diverse public issues resulting from the covid-19 pandemic. As seen in figure 5, he also favoured adopting the third much more, instead of the first and the second. He also developed the etho-, logo-, and patho-centric Aristotelian rhetoric (Gottweis, 2007). As displayed in figure 6, he preferred establishing the second much more, instead of either the first or the third. He did such efforts to address the following three public issues, which are the public health, economic and education issues. As exhibited in figure 7, he considered both the first and the second, but prioritized the first much more.  The findings, overall exhibited that either before or after semi-lock down policy was being implemented, President Joko Widodo preferred adopting the identification, authority and directive rhetoric (Teten, 2007) and the etho-, logo-, and patho-centric Aristotelian rhetoric (Gottweis, 2007) when he attempted to tackle diverse public issues resulting from the covid-19 pandemic. However, as seen in figure 8, total numbers of the identification, authority and directive rhetoric models he advanced after this policy was being implemented were larger, as compared to total number of these models he established before this policy was being carried out. Similarly, as seen in figure 9, total numbers of the etho-, logo-, and patho-centric Aristotelian rhetoric models he developed after this policy was being organized were also larger, as compared to total numbers of these models he performed before this policy was being conducted. Such Aristotelian rhetorical models, as seen in figure 10, were overall, directed to address the public health and economic issues resulting from covid-19 pandemic.

Joko Widodo's Mixed Models of Aristotelian Rhetorical Leadership
Extractions of the materials posted in Joko Widodo's Facebook page using the qualitative content and thematic analyses reveal the following findings. He favoured combining some elements that constitute rhetorical leadership models with one or two component that construct Aristotelian rhetoric models. Such trend was visible before semi-lock down policy was being implemented in Indonesia.
For example, on 30 March 2020, he posted the following statements in his Facebook page.
These statements were directed to address potential public health crisis triggered by the people who went to their hometown to celebrate Eid al-Fitr. While addressing such issues, he not merely adopted the logo-centric, but also the logo-centric rhetoric models using the inductive appeal. He also adopting the authority rhetoric using the word I (Teten, 2007) and the directive rhetoric to ask the leaders of the Indonesian local governments (Governor, Mayor and Head of Districts) to persuade the people who had been moving to their hometown (Teten, 2007). Such trend was visible when he highlighted the need to take semi-lock down policy, as seen in the following image, as the workable choice to protect the Indonesian people from covid-19. While doing so, he adopted not merely the logo-centric Aristotelian model (Gottweis, 2007), but also the identification, authoritative and directive rhetorical models (Teten, 2007: 675).
Such trend was also perceivable soon after semi-lock down policy (PSBB) was being implemented as well. As seen in the subsequent image, 9 days after this policy was implemented, he pointed out diverse groups of the people who suffered from covid-19 pandemic and highlighted the public economic security programs he was going to carry out to help these groups. While doing so, he adopted not merely the logo-and the patho-centric Aristotelian rhetoric models (Gottweis, 2007), but also the identification rhetoric model (Teten, 2007: 675).
Such trend was also visible around one month after this policy was being implemented. As seen in the following image, he evaluated the effectiveness of this policy and realized the consequences of this policy on the people populated in four Indonesian provinces, which adopted it. While doing so, he preferred establishing not merely the authoritative and directive rhetoric models (Teten, 2007), but also the patho-centric Aristotelian rhetoric model (Gottweis, 2007).
Extraction of the materials posted in Joko Widodo's Facebook page using the qualitative content and thematic analyses, overall, indicated that President Joko Widodo favoured adopting president's rhetorical leadership models, as posited by Teten (2007) and Aristotelian rhetoric models, as advanced by Gottweis (2007). While doing so however, he preferred combining some elements that constitute these models. He managed such effort to address two main public issues resulting from the covid-19 pandemic, which are the public health and economic issues.

Conclusion
President rhetoric is a part of presidential studies. Moe (2009) argued that the existing literature of such presidential studies are commonly descriptive and not sufficiently offering theoretical knowledge. While such issues have been not fully resolved by scholars who studied phenomena related the presidency, most of investigations focusing on the presidency-in general-and president and presidency rhetoric-in particular have been conducted primarily within the specific context of the US politics. Whilst such issues remained prevail, we lacked workable theoretical framework to understand Aristotelian rhetorical leadership models advanced by the presidents in the emerging democracies, which followed the presidential government system, such as Indonesia, when they proposed and delivered pollical policies to resolve diverse problems evolving in the covid-19 pandemic era. Thomas (1977) suggested that those who organized the presidency studies need to develop innovative and solid theoretical models, which are needed to capture diverse elements related with the presidency and factors that determine the power of the president and presidency. However, though within the last couple of decades diverse researches focusing on president rhetoric have been growing substantially, knowledge of the ways the presidents in such democracies advanced types of Aristotelian rhetorical leadership models during the covid-19 pandemic era, has been under-developed.
This work is among the first that attempted to fill such knowledge gap. Having selected the Indonesian case, this work has explored types of Aristotelian rhetorical leadership models established by Joko Widodo in the covid-19 pandemic era. More specifically, it has examined the degrees to which he advanced these models and the ways they performed these models before and after the semi-lock down policy being implemented in Indonesia. It has also reported that soon after the covid-19 pandemic evolved in this country, he kept striving to develop the following types of Aristotelian rhetorical leadership, which are the identification, the authority and the directive rhetoric and the etho-, logo-, and patho-centric rhetoric.
This work offers the following knowledge contribution. It gives us new theoretical framework, which is needed to understand Aristotelian rhetorical leadership models established by the president in democratic countries, which followed the presidential government system, such as Indonesia and the US. This framework consist of the etho-, logo-and patho-centric identification rhetoric, the etho-, logo-and patho-centric authority rhetoric and the etho-, logo-and patho-centric directive rhetoric models. This quit meets with Thomas's (1977: 173) suggestion regarding the need for the scholars of presidency studies to build a workable theory or concept that could be used for conducting comparative presidency researches.
Using Joko Widodo case during the covid-19 pandemic era, this work has also provided understanding of application of this framework in Indonesia's democracy. This framework could be adopted to understand rhetorical models advanced by not merely the presidents, but also the leaders of local governments when they want to resolve diverse issues resulting from the global pandemic diseases, such as covid-19.