Based on theories of argumentation, political communication, and political philosophy (Habermas and Arendt), this study examines how ad hominem, straw man, and red herring function not only as logical fallacies but also as strategic mechanisms for constructing public perception. The analysis is grounded in a case study of a protest in Tirana, where citizens’ demands and political reactions serve as an example of the shift in public debate from substantive content toward personal delegitimization and symbolic narratives. The paper argues that this process represents a weakening of communicative rationality and the deliberative function of democracy.

1. Introduction: Logical Fallacies as Instruments of Political Discourse

Logical fallacies are forms of invalid reasoning that formally violate the rules of logic, yet in discursive practice often serve as tools of persuasion and influence.² In contemporary political communication, they should not be understood solely as epistemic defects, but as functional mechanisms for shaping public perception.

In many cases, political communication does not aim at verifying truth, but at competing over its interpretation. This leads to the loss of the epistemic function of argumentation, which becomes a strategic instrument.

The case of the protest in Tirana, where Dritan Goxhaj read citizens’ demands and political reactions focused on delegitimizing him and the broader context of the protest, represents an empirical illustration of this dynamic.

2. Ad hominem: The Shift from Argument to Person

The ad hominem fallacy occurs when a claim is rejected by attacking the person who presents it rather than addressing the content of the argument.³

In the case under analysis, public labeling of Dritan Goxhaj shifts attention from the protest demands to the identity of their intermediary.

This creates a significant epistemological deviation:

from content analysis
to subject evaluation

This form of communication weakens public rationality, as it makes the validity of an argument dependent on the identity of the speaker rather than its coherence or factual basis.

3. Straw Man: Distortion of the Opponent’s Argument

The straw man fallacy consists of distorting the original argument into a weaker version, which is then easily refuted.⁴

In political discourse, citizens’ demands are often reduced to generalized or distorted interpretations, thereby avoiding engagement with their actual substance.

This creates a simulation of debate, where what is refuted is not the real argument but its misrepresented version.

4. Red Herring: Shifting the Focus of Debate

The red herring fallacy refers to the diversion of attention from the central issue toward unrelated secondary elements.⁵

In the case of the protest, public attention is shifted from:

the content of citizens’ demands
toward
the identity and motives of intermediary actors

This process transforms debates on public policy into symbolic and narrative conflicts.

5. Public Sphere and Communicative Rationality

According to Jürgen Habermas, the public sphere operates on the basis of communicative rationality, where the validity of arguments is determined by their strength rather than the position of the speaker.⁶

When political communication is dominated by perceptual strategies, a shift occurs toward instrumental rationality, where the goal is not truth but influence over public opinion.

In this context, logical fallacies are not merely deviations, but indicators of a distorted structure of public debate.

6. Case Study: The Tirana Protest as an Illustration of Distorted Communication

The event in which Dritan Goxhaj read the protesters’ demands, followed by political reactions from Edi Rama and Taulant Balla, constitutes an empirical case in which the mechanisms of distorted public discourse become evident.

Three main transformations can be observed:

from citizens’ demands → to personalization of the intermediary
from policy-based debate → to political delegitimization discourse
from institutional analysis → to political and perceptual narratives

This shift indicates a problematic tendency in political communication, where responsibility for addressing citizens’ demands is replaced by the management of public perception regarding those demands.

7. Hannah Arendt: The Crisis of Truth

Hannah Arendt argues that politics enters crisis when it becomes detached from factual truth and when political language ceases to refer to reality.⁷

In such conditions, political discourse no longer serves to understand the world but to reconstruct it through competing narratives.

Labeling political actors and shifting debate from argument to person contributes to this process.

8. Structural Consequences for Democracy

When logical fallacies become a stable component of political discourse, they produce structural consequences:
weakening of the deliberative function of the public sphere
increased political polarization
shift from substantive politics to symbolic politics
fragmentation of political reality
declining trust in institutional communication

In this way, the crisis of political communication becomes a crisis of democracy itself.

9. Conclusion

Democracy is not only an institutional system but also a form of social communication based on argument, transparency, and public rationality.

The restoration of public reason requires:

respect for the substance of citizens’ demands
clear separation between fact and political interpretation
reduction of personal delegitimization strategies
strengthening of substantive policy debate

In this sense, the analysis of logical fallacies is not merely a theoretical exercise but a critical tool for understanding how discursive power is structured in society and how it affects the quality of democracy.

Footnotes:

1. John F. Kennedy, public speech (widely attributed quotation in political discourse and conflict theory literature).
This quotation is frequently used in political theory and democratic studies to illustrate the argument that the restriction or closure of peaceful channels for expressing political dissent can increase the likelihood of radicalization. Although it is not traceable to a single verifiable textual source, it has acquired an aphoristic and interpretative status in contemporary political analysis and public discourse studies.

2. Irving M. Copi & Carl Cohen, Introduction to Logic, Pearson.
This work is considered a foundational textbook in both formal and informal logic within the Anglo-American philosophical tradition. The authors define logical fallacies as violations of valid reasoning structures and emphasize the distinction between formal and informal fallacies. A key contribution of the work is the observation that fallacious arguments often appear persuasive due to rhetorical structure, even when they are logically invalid.

3. Douglas Walton, Ad Hominem Arguments, University of Alabama Press.
Walton provides the most comprehensive contemporary treatment of ad hominem reasoning, arguing that such arguments are not universally fallacious in all contexts. They become fallacious when they replace engagement with the content of an argument with attacks on the character, motives, or identity of the speaker. Walton also distinguishes between legitimate uses of personal critique (e.g., credibility assessment) and illegitimate uses in political discourse.

4. T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning, Wadsworth.
Damer develops a practical and systematic framework for identifying faulty reasoning in everyday and public discourse. He emphasizes that the straw man fallacy is particularly significant in political communication because it creates the illusion of refutation while actually replacing the original argument with a distorted or simplified version, thereby avoiding substantive engagement.

5. Douglas Walton, Informal Fallacies, Cambridge University Press.
In this work, Walton conceptualizes informal fallacies as context-sensitive phenomena embedded within dialogical exchanges. The red herring fallacy is defined as a strategic diversion from the central issue of a discussion toward unrelated or secondary topics, thereby disrupting the logical progression of argumentation without directly refuting the original claim.

6. Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, MIT Press.
Habermas analyzes the historical emergence and transformation of the bourgeois public sphere and introduces the concept of communicative rationality. This model presupposes that the validity of arguments is established through reasoned discourse rather than authority, power, or manipulation. When communicative processes are dominated by strategic or instrumental rationality, the deliberative function of the public sphere is systematically weakened.

7. Hannah Arendt, Truth and Politics, in Between Past and Future.
Hannah Arendt examines the inherent tension between political action and factual truth, arguing that political discourse often relies on narrative construction rather than empirical reality. When factual truths are replaced by competing interpretations, political communication enters a crisis of truth, undermining the capacity of societies to make rational and informed collective decisions.

Tirana,24.06.2026