1 Answer | Add Yours
The most evident point of similarity between both rulers is their centralized notion of power. Mubarak was the primary power broker as he ruled Egypt while Macbeth operated in the same capacity. They both enjoyed the benefits of ruling without much in way of formidable opposition or limitations. Yet, in looking at the roles their wives played in their exercise of power, I sense a fundamental difference.
Lady Macbeth was instrumental in the ascendancy of her husband. In the initial stages, what he lacked, she demonstrated. His reticence was matched with her defiance. She was able to move him into a position of power, something that she coveted just as much as he did. She was critical in his ascension and envisioned herself as being able to rule just as much as he did. Suzanne Mubarak does not seem to play that much of a role in her husband's ascent to power. She was focused more on social justice in her studies and her advocacy for such causes was extended when she became First Lady of Egypt. Mubarak did not demonstrate a reticence towards taking power. There are plenty of accounts that suggest Mubarak had some type of role in the assassination of his predecessor, Anwar Sadat. Very little mention exists that Suzanne Mubarak had a role in the ascent to power. Additionally, Suzanne Mubarak operated more as a traditional wife to her husband, marrying him when she was 16. There was quite a long gap between his ascent to power and their marriage, indicating that unlike Lady Macbeth, she was not geared towards manipulating her husband into the real of political power as they were married. While there is much evidence to indicate that she economically profited from her time in office as First Lady, she does not seem to possess that manipulative and fierce drive behind her husband's rise to power as Lady Macbeth possessed.
We’ve answered 334,085 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question