The advantage of euphemisms

In this reform era, some Indonesian politicians are using euphemisms purposely in the political campaign while they try to attract the public's attention, others do not use them in the political field. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. I will argue in support of using euphemisms.

In the context of politics, it goes without saying that euphemisms are used largely because some politicians are trying to avoid a loss of face. For instance, our party "does fish in troubled water", especially in using the social safety net fund. The dying metaphor used as a euphemism is called a euphemistic metaphor. Public opinion is much impressed by the use of denial combined with a denying metaphor for the sake of concealing the fact that they used the fund.

Other forms of euphemisms used are derived from borrowed words, such as money politics, lip service, status quo, etc. Another euphemism is derived from hyperbole, such as this party is new, its platform is new, etc. And the last is derived from understatements, such as this party is anticorruption and our party is not with its crony.

There has been wide interest recently in euphemistic expressions used prevalently by our politicians, especially executive officials. For instance, in saying a bank will be closed, "liquidated" is used, or saying that a company will be sold, "privatization" is used.

Not only is it important for pleasing the public, but also it is important for the sake of loss of face. First, the reason for using euphemisms is that the users try to replace an unpleasant word or words to avoid offense. Second, those who are engaged in making mistakes, errors or corruption should euphemize the word or words to disguise the fear and animosity by using the euphemism as the good instrument for denial. In short, euphemisms are not only useful for giving a favorable impression to the public but are also useful for hiding a dreadful fact or a lie.

On the other hand, one disadvantage is that the IMF contribution has a negative impact, since it is not really a contribution but a loan from the IMF. In this case, the public is cheated or deceived by the words IMF contribution or IMF grant. Therefore, we could say that it is not transparent or democratic. In this context, this kind of euphemism has a negative impact.

For my part, I must argue in favor of using euphemisms. As far as we are concerned, politics itself is a mess of lies. And, as a matter of fact, politicians dislike displeasing others if they can avoid it. That is why euphemisms will suffer. In other words, euphemisms are good instruments for saving face. Accordingly, politicians who deal with corruption use denial as a euphemism.

Although euphemisms have a negative impact, since there is a point of deception, they have, in my opinion, many advantages, such as "Indonesia is a developing country" to replace "Indonesia is a debtor country". Developing has a sense of progressiveness and optimism. Accordingly, we can use euphemisms as long as they are not harmfully misunderstood.

RUSMAN RONI

Malang, East Java