Full of False Formality

Upon reading Act I of Richard II, it struck me as odd and sort of sad that politics do not appear to have changed much since the time in which this play takes place: the people in charge follow proper protocol to each other's faces, and then proceed to plot and scheme behind each other's backs.

To demonstrate my point, half of Act I, Scene III consists of Bolingbroke and Mowbray being asked to address the cause of their dispute, listing their grievances, and preparing for a duel to the death. They must go through the formality of making their cases publicly known before the rest of the court. If they had truly wanted to, they could have just run up to one another and stabbed each other in the gut. Of course, they do not do this partly for expositional reasons; the audience needs to know the cause of the conflict to get a sense of the background of these characters. However, I believe they also do not do so in order to maintain a proper allegiance to the policy of the moral code. King Richard, likewise, does not let them fight, but instead banishes them, to prevent any royal blood from being shed.

It is interesting to note, then, that each of these characters has a secret, or ulterior motives, behind these "noble" exteriors. It is revealed in Act I, Scene II, for example, that John of Gaunt (who was seen in the previous scene talking calmly with King Richard) actually hates Richard and wishes him dead. Also, we will later discover that Mowbray is lying in his claim that he did not carry out the king's order to kill Thomas of Woodstock. Furthermore, Bolingbroke is accusing Mowbray simply because it would be treasonous to directly blame the king for making the order - in other words, he is taking a sneaky route to direct accusation. In addition, in Act I, Scene IV, we discover that Aumerle, Bolingbroke's seemingly faithful cousin, actually wishes his permanent banishment. As he says to Richard, "Marry, would the word 'farewell' have lengthened hours/And added years to his short banishment,/He should have had a volume of farewells" (1.4.15-17). Finally, later in this scene, Richard is relieved at the news of John of Gaunt's imminent death, because the money he can reap from his estate will help furnish the country's war with Ireland. He does not care that his poor uncle is about to die of grief for his son's banishment. Therefore, no one is whom they seem, and it seems that no one can really be trusted.

The question I have is this: Has much really changed in the world of politics since this time? It seems to me that today, politicians are full of a lot of rhetoric and formal niceties, yet can at times be plotting to further their own career at the expense of others. This may be a jaded, pessimistic view of our world, but I think it has a certain level of validity. Thoughts?