Legitimization and Proximization in Economic/Oil Corruption Court Discourse in Iran

 

Introduction

Economic corruption in Iran has evolved from a political issue to a deep-rooted societal concern, attracting considerable academic attention. The lack of a precise legal definition and the variety of interpretations in political and legal discourses has contributed to conceptual ambiguity. Nevertheless, economic corruption is a lens through which we can observe the unequal distribution of power and ideological control mechanisms in society. Discourse, particularly as examined through the lens of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), offers a robust and nuanced framework for uncovering the ways in which language shapes, reinforces, and challenges power relations in society. In the context of economic corruption, CDA allows researchers to move beyond surface-level meanings to reveal the ideological underpinnings of linguistic choices and the socio-political functions they serve. Corruption, in this view, is not merely an administrative or legal issue but a socially constructed phenomenon whose meaning and moral weight are continually negotiated through discourse.
This study adopts the premise that corruption is constituted through language and is shaped by the power relations and institutional contexts in which it is discussed. The courtroom, as a formal discursive arena, becomes a prime site for such investigation. Within this setting, legal actors do not simply enforce laws; they actively participate in constructing narratives of guilt, innocence, legitimacy, and deviance. This paper, therefore, seeks to explore how corruption is discursively framed, legitimated, and resisted in judicial discourse, with particular attention to the linguistic mechanisms that support institutional authority and hegemonic ideology.
 
 
 

Review of Literature

The study draws on existing CDA frameworks and key literature on power, ideology, and corruption. Works by Fairclough, Van Dijk, Cap, and Chilton form the theoretical bedrock. Breit (2010) and Kajsiu (2014) emphasized the role of media and public discourse in constructing corruption. Cap (2006, 2017) introduced proximization as a discourse strategy to frame distant threats as immediate dangers, thus legitimizing specific actions. This research builds on such insights to analyze how corruption is portrayed and delegitimized or justified in courtroom discourse.
 

Methodology

This study applies a Critical Discourse Analysis framework fed by cognitive linguistics and proximization theory. The research corpus consists of transcripts from the trial of Babak Zanjani and his associates in Iran's oil corruption case (2013–2015). The analysis integrates:
- Cognitive models to examine ideological structures
- Proximization theory to analyze spatial, temporal, and axiological strategies
- Legitimation strategies to understand discursive efforts to justify or oppose power
- Critical metaphor analysis to detect frames of moralization and threat
 

Disscussion

The analysis of the courtroom discourse revealed several interrelated strategies employed in the linguistic representation of economic corruption, particularly in the high-profile oil-related corruption trials in Iran. These strategies revolve around the concept of proximization, which enables the state and judiciary to present complex political and economic issues as immediate threats requiring urgent moral and legal responses. Three types of proximization, spatial, temporal, and axiological, emerged as central to how the judiciary constructed the narrative of corruption and justified its punitive stance.
Spatial proximization functioned as a rhetorical device through which the accused individuals, namely Babak Zanjani and his co-defendants, were depicted as external to the collective moral and national identity. In this framework, the defendants were discursively positioned as outsiders or enemies of the state, operating outside the shared values of the legal, ethical, and national community. The court narrative thus constructed a binary between the “self” (the judiciary, the nation, and its institutions) and the “other” (the corrupt actors), reinforcing a moral geography in which corruption was not just a legal violation, but an invasion of societal integrity.
Temporal proximization was another prominent strategy. Here, the defendants’ past actions—some of which had taken place years before the trial—were linguistically brought into the present through verb tenses, aspectual constructions, and rhetorical cues that heightened the immediacy of the threat. The court’s discourse framed these historical acts of corruption as if they were ongoing, thereby generating a sense of urgency and moral panic. Moreover, speculative future scenarios, such as the continued erosion of public trust or national economic collapse, were invoked to emphasize the potential consequences of leniency, thus justifying harsh legal outcomes.
Axiological proximization involved moral and value-laden binaries that further polarized the courtroom narrative. Defendants were framed in opposition to a set of positively evaluated concepts such as honesty, patriotism, religious devotion, and loyalty to the Islamic Republic. By contrasting the accused with idealized notions of civic virtue, the court intensified the perceived severity of their actions. The use of religious references, appeals to national loyalty, and evocations of ethical duty played a crucial role in aligning the judiciary’s position with dominant societal values. This strategy not only reinforced the moral clarity of the prosecution but also delegitimized the defendants on symbolic and ideological grounds.
In addition to these proximization strategies, the discourse also revealed multiple legitimation strategies aimed at securing institutional authority and public consensus. Judges and prosecutors employed religious, nationalistic, and legalistic rhetoric to justify their stance. References to divine justice, martyrdom, the sanctity of the nation, and the rule of law were recurrent. By doing so, the court aligned itself with widely respected sources of authority, positioning its decisions not merely as legal verdicts, but as moral and ideological imperatives essential for national survival.
Interestingly, the defense team and the accused individuals also attempted to construct counter-narratives. These counter-strategies included appeals to patriotism, past service to the state, and religious piety. Defendants presented themselves as loyal citizens who had made significant contributions to the country, particularly during times of economic hardship and international sanctions. Some invoked religious oaths or recounted previous instances of service to frame themselves as misunderstood actors rather than criminal conspirators. While these efforts aimed to reposition the accused closer to the national and moral “center,” the dominant narrative of the court often overpowered them through systematic delegitimization.
In sum, the courtroom discourse was not merely a legal process but an ideological event, where spatial, temporal, and moral proximization worked in tandem to reframe economic corruption as a national emergency. Through these discursive strategies, the judiciary successfully constructed a narrative that legitimized punitive measures while reinforcing broader political and moral hierarchies.
 

Conclusion

Corruption trials function as ideological theaters in which language plays a central role in staging power, constructing authority, and shaping public perception. Far beyond the adjudication of legal guilt, these trials become performative spaces where narratives of national identity, morality, and justice are negotiated and reinforced. The court constructs legitimacy not only through the formal procedures of law but also through carefully crafted spatial, temporal, and moral proximization strategies that frame defendants as existential threats to the collective well-being of society. By positioning the accused as outsiders to the moral and political order—both geographically and ideologically—the judiciary affirms its own role as guardian of national integrity and public ethics.
The findings of this study underscore the pivotal function of discourse in legitimizing punitive actions. Through the selective use of temporal cues, the past is recontextualized as an urgent present; through spatial metaphors, corruption is cast as an invasive force; and through axiological framing, moral binaries delineate the boundaries of acceptable citizenship. These rhetorical strategies not only justify legal penalties but also mobilize public opinion, reinforcing hegemonic values and strengthening institutional authority.
Ultimately, the analysis reveals that judicial discourse in corruption trials is not ideologically neutral. Instead, it is deeply embedded in broader socio-political goals, including the reproduction of power structures, the reinforcement of ideological conformity, and the management of dissent. In this sense, the courtroom emerges as a site of symbolic governance, where the law becomes a vehicle for the articulation and reproduction of dominant ideological formations.
 
References

Beetham, D. (1991). Towards a Social-scientific Concept of Legitimacy. In: The Legitimation of Power. Issues in Political Theory. Palgrave, London. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-349-21599-7
Breit, E. (2010). “On the (Re) Construction of Corruption in the Media: A Critical Discursive Approach”. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(4): 619-635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0177-4
Cap, P. (2006). Legitimization in Political Discourse. Cambridge Scholars. ISBN (10): 1-4438 - 2569-7.
Cap, P. (2017). The Language of Fear. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59731-1
Chilton, P. (2014). Language, Space and Mind. Cambridge University Press.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Media Discourse. London: Arnold.
Van Leeuwen, T. (2007). “Legitimation in discourse and communication”. Discourse & Communication 1 (1): 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307071986
Kajsiu, B. (2014). A discourse analysis of corruption: Instituting neoliberalism against corruption in Albania, 1998-2005. Ashgate. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315564661
Van Dijk, T.A. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. SAGE. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446217856
Hart, C. (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science: New Perspectives on Immigration Discourse. Palgrave Macmillan London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230299009
Reyes, A. (2011). “Strategies of legitimization in political discourse: From words to Actions”. Discourse & Society 22(6): 781–807. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926511419927