DETAILS OF THE RESEARCH

What do Asian parliament buildings reveal about the appropriation of political and architectural models in the course of the 20th century?

Spatial location of buildings and plenary halls: what might this tell us about the importance of each branch of government? Architectural style and ornamentation: what meanings and symbolism are being displayed? Models and transfers: What types of political models and architectural designs can we see appearing through appropriation?

Taking a series of four parliament buildings in Asia as individual case studies, this research will involve a systematic study of these highly political and symbolical environments in an attempt to decipher the appropriation of diverse political and architectural models, and the meanings conveyed.

TIME PERIODS

The first parliament buildings arose either as a response to or were erected by the colonial powers around the beginning of the 20th century. WWII and Japanese occupation and defeat saw colonial power diminished and challenged. By 1963 the colonialists had departed and new countries emerged or re-emerged. Slowly a series of parliament buildings materialise representing these ‘new’ states.

East and Southeast Asia struggled to establish their political structures and economies in the 1950s and 60s. Some emerged as economic powerhouses during the 1970s and 80s. By the 1990s, an Asian economic miracle gained recognition. The immense growth was temporarily halted during the dramatic Asian financial crisis of 1997-8 that plunged the region into economic and political chaos. With mainly self and regional support, survival encouraged a new self-confidence. One manifestation is a series of new parliament buildings.

Therefore I propose to work with three time periods:

up to 1945
from 1946 to 1997
from 1998

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

To understand the context in which the decisions for these buildings occurred it’s essential to place them within their historical period. In what way was the situation of colonial rule, or the (finished) process of decolonisation, or the reception of colonial heritage relevant to the decision to erect parliament building and to its design? From a postcolonial perspective, Kusno links “the construction of architecture and urban space to the political imaginings of the colonial and postcolonial world” (2000). What models for these types of building were available and current at the time? This part of the investigation concerns the historical, political and decision making context in four Asian countries on the one hand, and knowledge of the (European, Soviet or other) architectural models that were available on the other.

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

Concerns the initial idea for a building, choice of architects, and various stakeholders’ (politicians, society, architects, institutional and international) influences on the decision-making that enabled any political and architectural models to be manifested in the building.

Who were the relevant stakeholders in the process of deciding on the realisation and design of a parliament building? Why was such a location, architectural style, or decoration chosen? What was the process of appointing an architect? How did they determine a particular plenary hall model?

THE BUILDING

The building itself provides a physical setting in which to study the outcomes of the decisions made. I will use three criteria to analyse each building: location, plan, and architecture:

Rhetoric of Location

What is the significance of the chosen location: of national, historical or religious significance? Is it on a hill, island, riverbank, city square, or in a park? What is the political message conveyed by this choice of urban setting?

Typology

What is the spatial segregation between the legislative, executive and judicial powers, and the seat of the head of state? How far apart are the plenary halls of the two houses (in a bicameral system) in the spatial layout of the parliament?

Architecture (Style and Decoration)

What type of architectural style has been adopted? Are the decorations conveying religious, ideological, national, historical, cultural or monarchical messages? As to the seating arrangements in the plenary hall: why was the Westminister model, the school class model or the semi-circular theatre arrangement adopted?

PROCESS OF TRANSFER AND APPROPRIATION

It's already observable that some building styles, plenary hall layouts, and political models, which had their origins in Europe, have been transferred to and/or adapted, transformed and appropriated by the Asian polities selected. Drawing upon an extensive literature on postcolonial relations and cultural entanglements, I will carefully study the stages and stakeholders in this process of adaptation and appropriation. What political models were adopted or adapted by the modernising, revolutionary or decolonised countries, and in what way can we see these choices reflected in the arrangement of parliamentary architecture?