PAVILION

tage of a semicircular hall, by contrast, is
that at least one person, the speaker, can
see and hear everyone equally well.
However, factions, contradictions and
distances emerge more readily as a
result. Moreover, any lengthening of the
semicircle leads to the formation of blind
spots from which it is impossible to see or
be seen.
If parliamentary architecture is to take
account of democratic principles it must
enable all the lawmakers to make themselves
heard and understood and to communicate
their views. The tension
between the architecture, which prescribes
a certain use and certain patterns
of behavior, and the debates in a parliament
bestows different powers on the
parliamentary players. Anyone occupying
the Speaker’s chair or a seat on the government
benches or controlling what is
going on behind the scenes obviously
has more power than a backbencher. But
it is not just the members of a parliament
who have power. The architecture does,
too. It determines not only how the members
of the parliament can communicate
with one another but also who speaks to
whom and about what. It determines who
sees and hears what. Moreover, it determines
whose voice counts. In a circular
chamber it is possible and sensible for
everyone to speak from his or her seat.
This makes it clear that a single opinion is
being expressed and that just one of
many possible viewpoints is being contributed
to the overall picture. If there is a
rostrum, however, the speaker addresses
the audience in a semicircle, having no
choice but to take up the sole legitimate
speaking position.
The wrestling over parliamentary architecture
shows that the ability to speak
and make decisions depends on the
opportunity to participate, to be present,
visible and audible. The existence of
political conflicts, the admission of various
persons (genders, generations), the
lively debate, the audibility of many different
voices, the articulation of approval or
disapproval can be hindered or reinforced
by architectural means.
Ever since the French Revolution the
hegemony of “representative democracy”
has rested on the semicircular model of
the classical Roman theater. The seating
arrangements put the focus on the rostrum.
According to the theory, it is performances
in the form of monologues that
gives shape and a voice to the people,
who for their part subsequently express
their will through their representatives.
Wherever “representative democracy”
has been introduced, it was not the result
of a plebiscite but of a decree issued by a
parliament, for which (on average) hundreds
of members were needed. The
number of representatives derives not
from the size of the population or from the
statistical average of the supposed political
elite but quite simply from the number
of seats in this type of theater.
III.
The key criterion of the political in traditional
political philosophy would appear
to be a decision based on rational consideration.
This criterion could be met
behind closed doors. Is not the holding of
a debate pure sham? Why do we need a
parliament? Why is the public space
important for political decisions? Does
the semicircle of members of a parlia-
ment constitute a satisfactory audience?
Is a television broadcast of the proceedings
sufficient or is a public only properly
established when it can articulate itself
and voice criticism and when anyone who
wishes can take part?
In answering these questions it is important
to distinguish between a public
space that collects or interrupts and the
political space that forms part of the
social space. The social arises from
spaces of ordered communication and
presumes that an assembly exists. The
political space uses aesthetic, disciplinary
and biological means to put people
in certain positions. It is characterized by
conditions of control, by the markings of
appropriation and by distancing mechanisms,
which identify the subjects and
stabilize them in the hierarchical
(genealogical, and the like) relationships
they have with each other (for example
hospitals, schools, prisons, parliaments).
In the political sphere power can therefore
be exercised and reproduced,
whereas the public space cannot be cordoned
off and controlled. On the contrary,
it is not subject to any unequivocal system
of perception, permitting a wide
range of insights, allowing anonymity and
opening up channels of communication
for new participants, new distributions
and new questions.
The public gallery is an alien element in
the classical theatrical architecture in
which the members of a parliament find
themselves. Like a wedge, it pries open
the closed nature of the parliamentary
system of perception and participation.
The penetration of the public into the
political space can only be explained by
the radical democratic currents of the
French Revolution.
Proceedings in the English Parliament
once took place behind closed doors if for
no other purpose than to pursue policies
directed against the king and his court. “I
spy strangers,” was the formal call for the
doors of the House of Commons to be
closed and for any potential listeners to
be removed.
From the point of view of enlightened
analysis there is no reason why the journalistic
debate should not relate exclusively
to texts, for instance to announcements
made by a parliament or government
followed by discussion of them in
specialist journals. Quite clearly, however,
that is not a satisfactory situation for
either the press or the public. Reports on
parliamentary activities and daily events
can reinforce or undermine the sovereignty
of a parliament. The physical presence
of watching journalists brings quite
different forces into play. In 1798, for
instance, the British secretary of war,
William Windham, complained about the
continual reporting and warned that press
coverage of the parliamentary debates
would inevitably transform the English
constitution from a representative one
into “an entirely democratic one”. And in
1826 Wellington wrote: “Discussions with
open doors, and the publication of the
discussions of a Legislative Assembly,
however desirable, are not absolutely
necessary for the existence of freedom or
good government in any country. Our
own regulations, and the principles on
which the discussions of our Houses of
Parliament are founded and carried on,
are that they are private and not to be
made public.”
But in what sense can discussions
[178]
[179]