Crisis Leadership: Language, Power, and the Construction of Legitimacy in War Narratives

Abstract Focusing on wartime narratives, this study demonstrates how language functions as a tool of power and legitimacy, revealing discursive patterns that operate not only in politics but also in corporate and institutional contexts. Using a qualitative CDA approach, the paper analyses how political leaders employ language during crises to justify decisions and manage military operations. Through comparative analysis of recent scholarship and our examination of speeches and statements by top political figures involved in the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, the study identifies conflict framings, recurring themes, linguistic choices, and rhetorical devices used to legitimise “Us” and delegitimise “Them”. The findings indicate that crisis leaders rely heavily on the victim—savior dichotomy, constructing “Us” through themes of victimhood and moral superiority, and depicting “Them” through savagery, and moral decline—compounded by marked evaluative lexis, specific syntactic patterns, and frequent rhetorical devices. The paper argues that understanding how leaders construct wartime narratives to justify violence can enhance awareness of analogous discursive strategies in organisational crisis contexts and support more ethical, transparent, and responsible communication practices.