A dialectical representation of the de jury and de facto leaders in four of Shakespeare’s political plays

Abstract

This study is a critical examination of the dialectical representation of the concepts of De Jury and De Facto leaderships in four of William Shakespeare’s political plays, namely, Macbeth, Richard II, Henry IV, Part 1 and Henry IV, Part 2. The study had a threefold objective: to examine the dialectical representation of the De Jury leadership/kings in four of Shakespeare’s political plays; to explore the dialectical representation of the De Facto leadership/kings in four of Shakespeare’s political plays; and to draw the lessons from the dialectical representation of both De Jury and De Facto leadership in the four political plays of William Shakespeare. The study was majorly library-based and applied qualitative approaches, such as critical analysis of both primary and secondary sources of data were employed to decipher the dialectical representation of both De Jury and De Factor leadership in the aforementioned political plays of William Shakespeare. The study drew on from Jacques Derrida’s deconstructionist literary theory which involved a polemic reading of the four political plays in the critical examination of Shakespeare’s representation of both De Jury and Defacto leadership. The findings of the study showed that both De Jury and De Facto leaderships have both strengths and weaknesses. In the two leadership modes, ‘performance’ and ‘legitimacy’ are essential qualities for successful leadership. Hence, of the two methods of acquiring and maintaining power, the dejury and the defacto style of leadership are complimentary. Finally, the study recommended that future literary scholars should examine the place of the Shakespearean “Histories”—political plays/drama—in the discourse of Twenty-First Century global politics and governance, since they espouse pertinent issues on politics and leadership that keep to be reflected in the contemporary global world.