In representative democracies (if not in all polities maintained by conventions and practices other than brute force alone) politics is essentially a question of language, that is to say, of thousands upon thousands of linguistic utterances and exchanges which take place in the context of an elaborate set of generally accepted conventions: a civil servant functions as the skilled user of a particular language; a politician, via the framework of an electoral campaign or parliamentary procedure, wins support by means of what he or she says; a diplomat sustains or negotiates international relations by employing a highly charged but very restricted code of euphemisms; and so on (comparative and contrastive claims can be made for lawyers, trade unionists, television reporters, indeed for all political and social actors).

Language acts to maintain, challenge or effect changes within the political status quo; and the relationship between political language, convention and ritual is of crucial importance here. Ritual normally constrains participants who wish to effect change. Occasionally, however, language within ritual can bring about significant change (the brilliant speech in the National Assembly which swings the vote, the emotional appeal at conference which saves the party from scission, and so on).