The Politics of Public Space

In the Introduction to Companion to Public Space, Vikas Mehta and Danilo Palazzo make one of the most important observations in the first paragraph, where they write about how private sectors often try to regulate access to public spaces to “limit dissent.” This suggests that any kind of difference in opinion, or protests for that matter can flourish when it happens in the appropriate physical space, a role fulfilled by public spaces in the case of cities. Louis Kahn’s National Assembly Complex faces one such public space, a large plaza, located in the heart of Dhaka, the capital city of Bangladesh. For over twenty years, the leading political parties had kept that plaza closed to visitors. However, when the autocratic government leader was ousted following a month-long citizens protest, one of the first acts of celebration involved breaking into this very public space that had been closed off for decades. People rejoiced and celebrated the fall of an autocratic regime and their newly gained independence at this public plaza, which also sits next to the very monument which represents democracy for the nation. This is yet another proof that public spaces belong to the public, and such spaces have the power to interlink the social, political and economic aspects of a citizen’s life.

However, I question the authors’ suggestion of the city being a “neutral field of expression.”  To quote Desmond Tutu, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” If a city, or a public space in it, is to be a “forum for dialogue, debate, and contestation,” and if scholars “should approach the exploration of public space without boundaries,” how can neutrality of a public space be a possibility? Is neutrality even desirable in situations where artists can project unusual or even unethical perspectives, through artworks with racist or sexist connotations?