Izmir City Councils Building

Democracy serves as the organizational structure for determining and forming government within society. It provides a methodology for establishing our internal social order and pursuing our external interests. While democracy isn’t inherently tied to any physical space, its effective implementation requires spaces for assembly and debate. Therefore, the structures of democracy are born out of necessity, constructed to serve our needs.

So, what approach should be taken to design political conditions in the 21st century? A historical look at the evolution of democratic spaces from ancient Greek Athens to modern times reveals that the formal paradigms of these structures have remained relatively unchanged. The inherent flexibility and functionality of democratic spaces have persisted throughout history. These spaces can be defined as a spatial paradigm where the act of gathering comes to life, encompassing parliamentary structures as well.

Ultimately, it’s important to recognize that time and space are interconnected. Society, comprised of individuals, cannot be expected to engage in discussions and negotiations in the name of democracy at every moment. However, every instance of gathering holds political significance and contributes to democracy. Therefore, architecture can be considered democratic if it encourages or facilitates participation in democratic politics among those who inhabit or work within it.

From this perspective, the goal isn’t to confine democracy to parliamentary meetings but to embrace it holistically, encompassing the majority of public interactions. An idealized assembly should be so democratic that it welcomes all classes. It should engage with the street and the square, breaking down barriers that traditionally divide people based on social status.

In this context, the proposed space aims to challenge these divisions by fostering dialogue and opening up boundaries. Spatial variations on the ground floor, such as the stepped space leading to the street, aim to transform the area into a forum space accessible to all. The design draws inspiration from the spatial logic of stoas, semi-open buildings historically used for public gatherings and negotiations. While not strictly parliamentary, stoas represent spaces where democracy operates continually.

In light of these considerations, it’s essential to address radical democracy as a means of coexistence in today’s diverse world. Radical democracy seeks to create a system where differences are acknowledged, freely expressed, and protected through compromise. By rejecting essentialist models and emphasizing the active participation of citizens in decision-making, radical democracy promotes continuous debate and negotiation, rather than eliminating dissenting voices.

Designing a space that embodies radical democracy in Konak Square, instead of representative democracy, can shed light on the relationship between space and democracy and promote transparency in governance.