Democratic dimensions: measuring democracy in (and through) physical institutions

There are many means by which the quality – and, conversely, the degradation – of democracy can be studied and appraised. These discussions often incorporate such inter-related ‘dimensions’ as accountability, freedoms, rule of law, equality, participation and pluralism (see: Morlino & Diamond 2004). Such dimensions are institutional, in two senses: they pertain to established, formalised, and even ritualised practices and behaviours, and they are often derived from and/or associated with particular buildings or areas. There is substantial value, then, in examining the physical institutions within which these dimensions can literally and/or symbolically be found (or be found lacking). A parliament, for example, is (in theory) a space that facilitates accountability, participation and pluralism, and a place that symbolises these dimensions. However, access to (and within) these spaces is often strictly regulated, even for their ‘everyday users’, i.e. members and staff; therefore their subjective meaning(s) as democratic ‘places’ can be heavily circumscribed. In this paper I show how the democratic quality of physical institutions can be studied in accordance with both space and place, i.e. embodying both objective functions and subjective meanings. To adapt a well-known statement from Winston Churchill, we shape our buildings (as spaces) and afterwards our buildings shape us (as places). Subsequent to outlining this theoretical framework, I present and discuss preliminary findings from go-along interviews: accompanying an ‘everyday user’ while interviewing them and thereby exploring a particular area dynamically, literally and conceptually. These go-along interviews took place in and around the UK Parliament, with interviewees raising themes of belonging, inclusion and exclusion within purportedly democratic spaces and their resulting (non)status as democratic places. The preliminary findings constitute new insights into the nature of (supposedly) democratic spaces, and how such spaces are experienced subjectively, as places, by their ‘everyday users’. Discussions around the physical dimensions of parliaments (i.e. their structure, design and location) provide us with an opportunity to examine the democratic dimensions of the systems they represent (i.e. accountability for/to whom, and participation in/for whom?). The representativeness of ‘public’ institutions – as a synecdoche of ‘the nation’ and its respective political system – can thereby provide a means of measuring the quality of democracy. Such discussions also allow us to contemplate how parliaments, as spaces, can be reformed; for instance, how they can both facilitate and valorise accountability, equality and pluralism. Reforming these spaces can thereby present a case study for reforming the political systems that they facilitate and represent. This paper is thus a timely contribution to discussions of democratic quality and degradation (and the appropriateness of various means for measuring it) and the ‘democratic’ use of both physical and virtual space, as well as the complex relationship between physical place and democratic space.