House of Cards: Comparing the British and the American TV Series from a Constitutional Perspective

Pólemos 2018; 12(1): 107–122 Giacomo Delledonne* House of Cards: Comparing the British and the American TV Series from a Constitutional Perspective https://doi.org/10.1515/pol-2018-0007 Abstract: The aim of this essay is to compare the two House of Cards TV series – the British one and the American one – from a constitutional viewpoint. In so doing, the contribution tries to answer some research questions: how are the constitutional systems of the UK and the US respectively portrayed in the two TV series? More generally, how can contemporary political dramas approach constitutional issues? Keywords: House of Cards, TV series, UK Constitution, US Constitution, political drama 1 Introduction The aim of this essay is to compare the two House of Cards TV series – the British one and the American one – from a constitutional viewpoint. In so doing, the essay tries to answer some research questions: how are the constitutional systems of the United Kingdom and the United States respectively portrayed in the two TV series? More generally, which are (some of) the possible approaches to constitutional issues in political dramas? The two House of Cards series can be described as two of the most promi- nent examples of contemporary political drama, alongside with other TV series like Borgen, The West Wing and, more recently, Marseille. Their distinctive feature is that they both rely, although with major changes, on a common literary source, the trilogy of novels by Michael Dobbs which were published between 1989 and 1994.1 For this reason, the authors of the two series drew on 1 Michael Dobbs, House of Cards (London: Harper Collins, 1989), To Play the King (London: Harper Collins, 1992), and The Final Cut (London: Harper Collins, 1994). Michael Dobbs himself was a political insider, having been heavily involved in the daily operation of the Conservative Party machine under Margaret Thatcher’s leadership in the 1980s. See also Paul Smith, “‘You *Corresponding author: Giacomo Delledonne, Scuola superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy, E-mail: [email protected] Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 4/11/18 11:53 AM 108 Giacomo Delledonne Michael Dobbs’ trilogy – with the American authors also building on the British series – and adapted it to television. Interestingly, Michael Dobbs also revised the contents of his novels as the episodes of the British series were televised, in a very peculiar interplay between literary sources and TV adaptations. The British series was written by Andrew Davies and released by the BBC between 1990 and 1995. It is made up of three serials – House of Cards, To Play the King and The Final Cut – each of which includes four episodes. The American series has been created by Beau Willimon. So far, five seasons have been released by the streaming service Netflix since 2013, one per year. Each season includes 13 episodes, with 65 episodes overall. These data make it possible to get a basic understanding of the huge structural differences between the two series, which also reflect massive evolution in the genre of television series since the early 1990s. As will be shown later, these differences in size also affect the way each series depicts “its” own constitutional system. In considering the two House of Cards series, this essay will combine two different methodological insights. On the one hand, the most “obvious” strategy for analysing the two series, insofar as their contents are relevant to constitutional law, is to focus on their “realism,” thereby meaning the adherence of the plot to “reality,” both in general terms and in light of the constitutional framework of, respectively, the United Kingdom and the United States. On the other hand, it is possible to use the constitutional order as a starting point: in that case, the question is how, and possibly whether, the (evolving) British and American constitutional orders lend themselves to being transposed into television series. The simultaneous use of these two perspectives makes it possible to focus not so much on the supposed “realism” of the two series, as on the respective plausibility of their plots. What should be avoided, in my opinion, is a somehow pedantic discussion about inaccuracies and contradictions the authors might have incurred: still, both series are marked by a close relationship between the fictional plot and the actual constitutional, political and historical background. Indeed, the authors have taken care of emphasising the “links” between Francis Urquhart’s and Frank Underwood’s worlds and the constitutional history of, respectively, the UK and the US. It will suffice to mention some examples: the British series is full of references to Margaret Thatcher’s 11-year premiership, IRA terrorist attacks, and the negotiation of the Treaty of Maastricht. Key figures and moments of American constitutional history are mentioned throughout the course of the American series. More specifically, in both series it is possible to identify a watershed between history and fiction. In might very well think that; I couldn’t possibly comment.’ House of Cards de Michael Dobbs,” Parlement[s]. Revue d’histoire politique 13.2 (2016): 121–129. Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 4/11/18 11:53 AM House of Cards 109 the British series, Henry Collingridge is elected as Leader of the Conservative Party and appointed as Prime Minister in 1990, just after Thatcher’s downfall. In the American series, President Barack Obama decides not to stand for re-election after his first term in office, after which the Walker-Matthews Democratic ticket wins the presidential election in 2012. The time framework of Seasons 4 and 5 coincides with the presidential campaign of 2016. In this respect, both series invite their audience to engage in a subtle comparison between fictional events and real political developments: this is sharply different e. g. from some less recent examples of political fiction, in which a specific political and institutional context is easily recognizable but is only vaguely portrayed and provides little more than a colourful atmosphere.2 2 The British series: A relatively faithful picture of the state of the unwritten constitution in the post-Thatcher years An appropriate starting point for this analysis might be drawn from the British constitutional vicissitudes in the run-up to the ominous Brexit referendum on 23rd June 2016.3 I will draw two examples from the political developments of those months. In February 2016, Boris Johnson, then the Conservative Mayor of London, announced that he would support the Leave option during the campaign. Interestingly, Boris Johnson’s statement generated considerably more public attention than the quite extraordinary decision by Prime Minister David Cameron to suspend the convention of collective ministerial responsibility.4 Meanwhile, the pro-independence First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, took a distinctively peculiar stance with regard to the Brexit referendum, as she stressed the close ties between membership in the European Union and the 2 See e. g. two very good novels by Georges Simenon, Maigret and the Minister (trans. Daphne Woodward, New York: Melville House, 2011) and The President (trans Moura Budberg, London: Hamish Hamilton, 1969). In both of them, reference is made to the institutional context of the 3rd and 4th French Republics only in very vague terms. 3 See interesting analyses by Claudio Martinelli, “I presupposti del referendum e i cleavages costituzionali aperti dalla Brexit,” Diritto pubblico comparato ed europeo 18.3 (2016): 803–818; and Francesca Rosa, “Referendum e democrazia parlamentare nel Regno Unito dopo Brexit,” Astrid Rassegna no. 14/2016. Available at www.astrid-online.it/rassegna (last access 23rd August 2017). 4 See Adam Tomkins, Public Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 137. Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 4/11/18 11:53 AM 110 Giacomo Delledonne Scottish question,5 so much so that some commentators became increasingly suspicious of possible “friendly fire” coming from Scotland. Indeed, some Scottish nationalists looked more interested in an independent Scotland than in a United Kingdom remaining in the European Union.6 Also, the late Martin McGuinness, then Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, made it clear that he, like many other nationalists in Northern Ireland, was feeling uncomfortable about the possibility of the UK withdrawing from the EU.7 In what respect are these examples, drawn from recent developments in British politics, relevant to an analysis of a TV series dating back to the early 1990s? Indeed, they show very clearly how different Francis Urquhart’s world is from today’s Britain. In fact, by the time Francis Urquhart had become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the Local Government Act had eliminated the Greater London Council, viewed as a bulwark of far-leftist opposition; further- more, a Scottish Parliament in its own right would only be established under the Scotland Act 1998, while direct rule had been implemented in Northern Ireland since 1972. In the British House of Cards series, there are neither a Mayor of London nor a First Minister of Scotland nor a First Minister of Northern Ireland: for his rise to Prime Minister and subsequent political survival, the leading character does not face any relevant rivals outside Whitehall and Parliament Square. At most, he has some occasional contacts with media magnates. As for the crucial question of the European single currency, Urquhart’s main concerns are generated by his deputy and would-be successor, Tom Makepeace.8 In this respect, the British series might be described as an interesting document of the state of the British Constitution in the post-Thatcher years, just before the New Labour Government launched an ambitious, wide-ranging agenda of constitutional reform.

Load more