Shakespeare’s usurpation theme reflected in modern flawed governance

Sebastian

I remember

You did supplant your brother Prospero.

Antonio

True.

And look how well my garments sit upon me

The Tempest, Shakespeare

The subject of usurpation has been a major one in history, as old as civilization itself. It has been a recurrent theme in the works of the great William Shakespeare, unequalled among the dramatists of all time. Many of his plays have plots and themes that revolve around a world controlled by flawed governance, by usurpation – the unlawful theft of governments, the obsession for power in the mind of man, or the seizing of kingships by illegitimate pretenders.

There is nothing in the turbulence of history, no experience real or imagined in the thought or the actions of mankind, that has not been treated by literature. Nothing exists that affects states or societies, vulnerable humanity or hostile environment, whether in thought or action, in love, fraternity, treachery or war, that has not been the subject, theme, motif or plot in the works of literature. So that when something happens in real life, it is always possible to turn to the pages, or to the oral transmissions, of fiction, poetry or drama and find something that relates to it, or that provides us with some lesson, warning, advice or resolution. These works might not always find solutions to the problems, but they certainly make us aware, conscious or forewarned.

When it comes to Shakespeare, many moderns raise the question of relevance. In his best known and most acclaimed tragedy, Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, the hero is perplexed when he sees an actor on stage, playing the part of one who grieves for Hecuba. He wonders how this actor, who never even knew Hecuba, could show such convincing grief, while he, who is supposed to be righting the wrong of the murder of his father, is failing to feel similar passion and carry out his duty.

For Hecuba!

What’s Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba, That he should weep for her? What would he do, Had he the motive and the cue for passion

That I have?

Shakespeare wrote and performed in London more than 400 years ago. What is more, he was a white Englishman, performing before queen and king at a time when the practice of African slavery plagued and damned us on the other side of the world. Furthermore, our decimation served to build and enrich English society, and when that system failed, it was replaced by Indian and Asian indentureship which continued the same thing.

That, among other post-colonial considerations, has led some to question the relevance of Shakespeare and his ilk to present society. Why should we, in this modern twenty-first century technological age have to study him? He and his literature are past history, let us focus on our contemporary writers, subjects and concerns. The answers to those questions and the strong justification for Shakespeare in today’s world lie in those very same contemporary subjects and concerns.

The relevance of Shakespeare is in the very fact that we can read him after four centuries and still see a reflection of ourselves. What he had to say in Elizabethan society rings true, in loud echoes today, reminding us of our present society and in the behaviour of mankind among us in Anno Domini 2020. And we can take as an example, this same theme of usurpation.

The most urgent problem confronting the Guyanese nation in March 2020 is one concerning the legitimate transfer of power, and the threat of the subversion of that by processes and means that lack transparency, integrity and legitimacy. The declaration of votes in a democratic election has become shrouded in suspicion that the ballot is being supplanted.

How many times have we seen this, warnings of its terrible rebirth, or a stirring of consciousness, a call to be aware of its existence and likely consequences in drama? Power, the grab of power through the ballot or by any means necessary, the subversion of due process, or the attainment of power with little regard for the law. These themes and plots re-occur in the plays. We are reminded time and again in both comedies and tragedies: The Tempest has a core theme of usurpation; Hamlet is based on the illegitimate occupation of the throne; Macbeth, or Richard III or Julius Caesar, all have at their core, power by corrupt or dishonest or sinister practices.

In The Tempest, Prospero, Duke of Milan, is illegally supplanted by his brother Antonio. But the play conjures up a kind of culture of usurpation which seems to continue in cycles as if it is the done thing or the thing to do. Shockingly, Antonio justifies it by the fact that he is prospering from it. He stole the Dukedom and boasts, “look how well my garments sit upon me”. He recommends it to Sebastian, brother of the King of Naples. Just as how I took Milan illegally, you can take Naples. Here is a society perpetually contaminated by corruption, and, moreover, those who have seized power see nothing wrong with it or the means by which they obtain it.

This is further borne out by the theme of conscience. Alas! In those societies it does not exist.

Sebastian

But for your conscience –

Antonio

Ay sir. Where lies that? If ‘twer a kibe,

‘Twould put me to my slipper. But I feel not

This deity in my busom. Twenty consciences

That stand ‘twixt me and Milan, candied be they, And melt ere they molest.

Conscience to the villains in these plays is an alien concept and is of no value since it has no role to play in their hanging on to power. On the contrary, were it to emerge, it might just serve to impede them.

Hamlet

The play’s the thing Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king.

When Hamlet decides to perform a play in order to re-enact the scene of King Claudius murdering his father, he thinks the king will be overcome by conscience. He does not suspect that remorse is the furthest thing from Claudius’ consciousness. When he kneels to pray, he soon gets up, admitting “My words fly up, my thoughts remain below//Words without thoughts never to heaven go”. The king has no conscience. Among these usurpers there is the consistent absence of any sense of decency, honesty or propriety. They are quite comfortable with holding office regardless of how it was attained.

This business of coming to power by unlawful means is pursued in other plays, with the case of Macbeth among the most outstanding. But there are differences. Macbeth had a conscience. One of the things that make the play an interesting study is that he is a reluctant villain, pushed to the overthrow of his royal cousin by various circumstances and people, including his wife. He is a tragic hero because he is not in the same class as Claudius or Antonio, but still has some decency, which of course is worn away bit by bit as he deteriorates. His persistent conscience is, of course, the ghost of Banquo, who appears only to him and can be seen by no one else, even in a crowded room.

Shakespeare’s plays have a pervasive theme of political turbulence that will persist and plague a head of state as long as the natural order has been violated. These plays follow the belief in Elizabethan times in the great chain of being, the natural order and divine kingship. The creed was that the universe was governed by a natural order which fixed everything in its place, including the elements, the animals, human beings and God. There was a chain of being based on a hierarchy governing everything, high and low, with God at the very top, moving down the hierarchical chain from the highest to the lowest among humans, animals, plants and metals.

It was believed that a king was not crowned by man. He was highest among humans, because he was anointed by God. And because it was a divine appointment there was the principle of divine kingship. A king could not be removed by man. To do that would be a disruption of the natural order and if anyone committed regicide, the society would be plagued by persistent political unrest.

Those who assumed power by unlawful means in Shakespeare’s plays, therefore, generally had to fight off turbulent times, rebels and civil wars. King Henry IV, for example, had a “troublous reign”. He was not a villain or a usurper, but it was the untimely killing of his predecessor that opened the gate for his crowning.

In Guyana today when due process in an election has been violated, when there are questions of transparency and threats of disruption in the natural order, Shakespeare may be remembered. There is no question of his relevance in spite of 400 years.