Is there a perfect way to organize parliament buildings and legislative chambers? The question sounds abstract, but it arises surprisingly often as a very concrete challenge. It was set in the 90s, when Scotland needed a parliament building after the devolution of the United Kingdom. This is also discussed when a country decides to build itself a new capital - like Brazil in the 50s, Nigeria in the 80s or Indonesia today. It is also set up when a country - like India recently - decides that it needs a new parliament building to distance itself from the legacy of colonialism.
The parliament building recently opened by Prime Minister Narendra Modi is part of a wider project to renovate the part of New Delhi where government buildings are concentrated, known as Central Vista. Modi, a diligent builder of his own cult of personality, has come under fire for his decision to do it himself, instead of leaving the honor to the head of state. That is why twenty opposition parties boycotted the event.
Despite the controversy surrounding the ceremony and complaints about the cost of the project, the interior design of the triangular building that replaced the Raj-era structure appears to be receiving mostly positive reactions so far. But for every building of this kind, the question must also be asked of how well it represents the democratic process itself and, more importantly, how much it contributes to it. Winston Churchill once said: "First we build buildings, then buildings build us".
The premises of the parliament should perform two functions: to make it easier for citizens to understand what each side in a political dispute represents and to enable MPs to hold cabinet members accountable with maximum insight from the wider public. This means that the organization of parliament should affirm the key role of the legitimate opposition - in the form in which it has been most widely accepted at least since 1826, when the English politician John Hobhouse used the phrase: "her majesty's loyal opposition" in a debate in the lower house - thus granting to the opposition the function of a kind of "shadow government". In short, the physical arrangement of ministers and representatives of the opposition is very important.
Of course, in presidential systems, such as the one in the United States, members of the cabinet do not go down among the legislators. American presidents have no obligation to expose themselves to direct and public questioning by elected representatives. When Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi tore up a copy of Trump's 2020 State of the Nation address, it was one of the rare examples of public critical interaction between Congress and the president.
In parliamentary systems, on the other hand, ministers see each other eye to eye with representatives of the opposition in legislative bodies, thus their political differences are vividly dramatized. This may explain Churchill's belief that British parliamentary democracy and its two-party system were shaped primarily by the fact that the space of the lower house of parliament was elongated, not semicircular, which made the differences in the political positions of the two parties strikingly obvious. He also said that "the small and intimate space of the parliamentary house is very important", because it allows politicians to address each other directly, looking into each other's eyes, "short, informal intrusions and exchanges" in "free debate".
But not everyone agreed with Churchill. Former German chancellor Helmut Kohl, for example, demanded that in the restored Reichstag in a united Germany, the distance between government officials and deputies be increased compared to the original plan.
In West Germany after World War II, Chancellor Konrad Adenauer advocated a more emphatically hierarchical organization of space. Following the tradition established by Otto von Bismarck, he requested that the benches for the chancellor and ministers be placed at a level higher than the level of the lectern from which the deputies address the audience. So the speakers have to turn their backs to the audience and look up every time they criticize the ministers behind the lectern.
The shape of the Russian Duma follows an even more authoritarian "school classroom model". Members of Parliament sit in front of the government arranged in rows of benches like obedient schoolchildren. In Austria, speakers have to turn their backs to MPs when addressing the ministers sitting behind them. (There are no reserved seats in the lower house of the British Parliament.)
In France, ministers occupy the first row of semicircular benches, and deputies sit behind them - according to the arrangement introduced in the 30s. The organization of the Potemkin parliament in Hungary is similar. In the Israeli Knesset, ministers sit around the table with their backs to the deputies.
Contrary to Churchill's belief, the semicircular form of parliament has one advantage. Legislators could easily see each other, for example, when responding to someone else's speech - an advantage highly valued by the male part of the citizenry in the Ecclesia, the governing body of ancient Athens.
German lawyer Christoph Schönberger points to the organization of the Italian parliament as a good example of a democratic solution: ministers sit at the table in front of deputies who can address them directly from their seats. They look at each other face to face, and there is no clearly defined hierarchy in communication. Interaction is encouraged; the division of roles is clear to outside observers; and everyone sees the reactions of all the other participants in the discussion.
Of course, it would be naive to believe that a semi-circle form - or even a full circle, as they tried in West Germany before moving to Berlin - always ensures harmony in the relations of political opponents. It is enough to look at the footage of South Korean lawmakers pushing and pulling each other, even though they are sitting in a semi-circular parliament. We should also not forget that the hémicycle (semicircle) is a Jacobean invention.
With all this in mind, we must not allow ourselves to be misled by the elegance of the modern parliament building in India. We would do better to pay attention to the anti-democratic tendencies displayed by Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party. The government of India promotes an aggressive ideology of Hindu nationalism and suppresses the opposition. Last March, opposition leader Rahul Gandhi was expelled from Parliament based on a highly questionable court decision.
The real symbol of Modi's intolerance is another building: the Hindu temple currently being built in Ayodhya, on the site of a mosque demolished by Hindu nationalists in 1992. The Parliament building is a symbol, but also a place of centralized and (at least in theory) inclusive decision-making; some other types of buildings are more useful for building exclusive identities.
(Project Syndicate; Peščanik.net; translation: Đ. Tomić)
Bonus video:
