How Do Authoritarian Regimes Use Architecture To Project Their Power?

Every region of the world has a different sort of regime, and its leaders are determined to portray that type of government via not just its ideology and policies but also through the structures that have existed in those jurisdictions throughout human history. Authoritarian regimes were put in place during the early decades of the 20th century, particularly after World War I. The relationship between architectural features and political regimes also occurred at this time. The architectural elements thus became models used by the administrations to represent the nature of the governance being perpetuated by the various rulers in their regions. The representativeness nature of architecture is observed in the monumental aspects of the architectural elements (Milne 1981, p. 131). Architecture is thus noted as an ideal representation by the rulers that are linked with the authoritarianism. The governments can be seen as keen on heavily investing in construction to build structures that reflect their thinking and philosophies. The built environment is usually bound to be political with many discourses aiming at exploring the various kinds of regimes that can be represented by particular architectural pieces. The imagination of combination politics and architecture usually results in the thinking that the totalitarian leaders are designing and building monumental edifices that are made to last for long periods of time. The relationship between the architecture and authoritarianism is further noted in the fact that in most cases, the architects do not involve the public in their designs, but seeks to use symbols that best represent the interests of their clients.

The tremendous structural changes over centuries can be perceived through a political lens gave the fact that the architectural designs are shaped by the need to express power and opinions. The relationship between authoritarian regime and architecture can also be observed to arise from the fact that there is always an association between art and politics. For instance, music as an art is seen as a vehicle that is utilized to convey different messages to required audiences (Day 2003, p. 172). Architecture as an art can, therefore, be used as a medium by politicians to assert their authorities in their countries. Furthermore, architectural pieces can also be associated with various societal issues with buildings and other structures usually being utilised to represent the prevalent political, social, and economic perspectives of the people and their regimes. Architectures and other professionals from all walks of life like doctors, scientists, artists, and writers can be observed to be at the service of the dictators who are in most cases have concentrated power in their hands. The professionals are therefore at the mercy of the dictators and must act only to their interests.

Various ways can be used to exert influence over the people by governments. One such method is through the physical expression of authority by the use of objects and structures by the rulers. Such demonstration of power is especially evident in national capitals in which legislative buildings and spatial elements are viewed as significant aspects of the city (Braunfels 1990, 13). Governmental authority and governance must be symbolic and representation of dominance as well as sovereignty. The governments also require symbols to legitimize their control and power. Some of the historical manifestations of power include castles, forts, and palaces. Castles and palaces are used to represent sovereign authority even though their designs and styles differ across various cultures. While forts are designed to protect the ruler’s extent of power, the places and castles signify the rulers’ power by differentiating them from their subjects. Apart from the palaces, forts, and castles, the other historical structures include courthouses, ruling domiciles, and others (Milne 1981, p. 132). The concept of equating the size of power is further evident in the modern world in which the houses that are used for governmental offices that are essential for showcasing supremacy over the subjects. The manifestation of power in architecture is especially evident in the Greek works in which the buildings can be seen as big and beautiful. The influence of the Greek expression is hence seen in many places around the world with the US being a perfect example of the country that adopted the style in most of their buildings. Such great works are available in Washington DC and homes. The purpose of this paper is to discuss how the authoritarian regimes are using architecture to express their project. A focus is thus made on Stalinist architecture, vanity projects by dictators, the architecture of the Roman Republic, and Nazi utopianism and Albert Speer.

Stalinist Architecture

Joseph Stalin was the single leader of the Soviet Russia in the 1930s and can be observed to have found the focus on the industrial development that was being perpetuated during the period. One of Stalin’s dreams was to transform Russia into a world superpower through various economic and political reforms. He thus made the people work hard to make the Soviet Union an industrialized communist country (Bown and Taylor 1993, p. 6). Stalin’s realization of the fact that art and especially architecture could be used to influence individuals to work extra hard in their lives as well as a way of exerting control played an essential role in shaping the Stalinist’s architecture that was more evident in Moscow that was used as the capital city. Furthermore, the need for outstanding planning was observed in the necessity of the monumental propaganda that was perpetuated by the regime. The role of propaganda is especially significant in the assertion of dominance and is essential for a ruler like Stalin. He thus created a repressive system in which everything was placed under state control. The architects were thus also placed under state control and therefore designed the buildings to reflect the perspectives of the government. Stalin created construction programmes to be implemented by the architects in which prisoners were used as a source of labour. Given the concentration of power at the hands of Stalin, every domestic and foreign policy could be seen to have become a self-preservation game leading to the distinct architectural style that has also been referred to as Socialist Classicism and Stalinist Empire style.

Moscow is deemed as the epi center of Stalinist architecture as well as a sacred city for communist ideologies and a monument to Stalin who was regarded as the father of the nation and sun (Day 2003, p. 172). The monumental changes in the town were initiated by the 1935 Master Plan of Moscow Development. The government commissioned the major projects with an example seen in the Moscow University main building. The period of the form of architecture lasted until the end of the reign of Stalin and is primarily associated with the time 1933 to 1955. Stalin architecture, therefore, refers to the architectural designs and buildings constructed in that era. Stalin used the period for architectural experiments as he sought to impose his tastes and preferences on the Soviets. He favoured tall buildings and skyscrapers that could help in portraying the strong image of the Soviet Union.

Characteristics of Stalinists Architecture

One of the primary aspirations of Joseph Stalin was to manifest the power of the Soviet Union through drastic industrialisation. He craved to demonstrate to foreign nations about the prosperity of his country. To accomplish that goal he built new buildings that project his image and the communist school of thought. It can thus be noted that architecture was considered as an essential element of the image of Russia that was intended by the Stalinist’s regime as a world superpower (Bown and Taylor 1993, p. 11). The beginning of the Stalinist regime saw experimentation with various architectural styles such as classical references like the application of arches, columns, and mouldings that entailed elaborate capitals. The period also saw the abandonment of the modern styles in favour of Russian baroque and gothic styles. Even though the austere constructivist style was prevalent in the 1920s during the beginning of the Stalinist’s era, it can be observed that there was a strong need to show the glory of the Soviet Union as well as for supporting the propagandistic image of prosperity. As such, it can be noted that the Stalinist architecture is characterised by Seven-Sister trademark design of a stout base that has a crown-like design constructed at the top of the building.

The Seven Sisters buildings entail a central spire that is mounted on the tallest skyscraper. It is alleged that the central spire was not part of the original plan, but was only included after the order by Stalin (Day 2003, p. 172). It can thus be noted that Stalin’s tastes and preferences entailed designing buildings with the spire mounted at the tallest skyscraper. The seven towers and other high rise places have thus become critical landmarks in Moscow and are used as reminiscent of the Kremlin powers. The buildings that are towering into the sky are the places that were utilised by the Russian elites to study, live, and work. The Stalinist architecture is often perceived as some of the most controversial in history due to their grandiose and imposing nature as well as being thought of as resembling a wedding cake.

The main aim of such inclusion was to set the architectural pieces in the Soviet Union from those that already existed in the United States. All the buildings constructed during the Stalin era exhibited consistent characteristics regardless of the architect involved in the works. Symmetry and massive proportions were the other significant features of construction in the country and included the proper consideration of the architectural of the designs. Furthermore, the constructions were characterised by urban planning that was regarded as significant elements of the design process. Consequently, significant streets and straight avenues were constructed for ceremonial purposes and also to allow military parades. Such constructions not only emphasised the Stalinist’s government ideologies, but also helped to expose Russia to the world. It can further be observed that there was a close relationship between the architects and the government and hence the noted consistencies in the features of the architectural pieces.

Famous Stalinist Architecture

Some notable examples of the buildings as well as other prominent landmarks in the era of Stalin include the Raddison Royal Hotel (Hotel Ukraina), Kotelnicheskaya Embankment Building, Hilton Moscow Leningradskaya Hotel that is considered as one of the most luxuries hotels in Russia, Kudrinskaya Square Building, and Red Gate Building among others. The Hotel Ukraina arises from the shores of the Moskva River was commissioned by Stalin himself and was opened in 1957 as the Stalinist era was fading (Day 2003, p. 174). It can be observed that the Raddison Royal Hotel became the tallest building in the world for 19 years. The former Hotel Ukraina is still grandiose and is regarded as one of the most important art collection centers in Moscow that is helping in preserving the rich heritage of Stalinist rule. Kotelnicheskaya Embankment Building is another significant piece inspired by Stalin. The structure looks like a modern-day castle and is standing on the banks of the Moskva River with the building regarded as one of the collections of the Seven Sisters, a range of skyscrapers that are dominating the Moscow skyline. The mentioned buildings and others helped Stalin to stamp his authority in dictating how the cities were designed but also constructing historical landmarks that helped to project power (Bown and Taylor 1993, p. 47). The Seven Sisters can thus be regarded as the most prominent Stalinist architecture that was designed and built by the dictator.

Vanity Projects by Dictators

Authoritarian leaders like manifesting their powers through various projects that may not be meaningful in any way. In most of the instances, the dictators will commission specific structures not for the benefit of their subjects, but as a way of establishing monuments that serve to project their power, legacy, opinions and even propaganda. In totalitarian regimes, the leaders usually exhibit grandiose ambitions and are always keen on outdoing one another through breath-taking projects in their scopes. Since the dictators have unlimited power to stamp their authority on the countries in which they are ruling, it can be observed that they are likely to use such capabilities in establishing projects that suit their desires and ambitions.

Given the fact that power allows individuals to use resources, dictators are known to engage in the construction of projects that may be regarded as useless and utmost waste as structures do not serve any significant benefit despite their vast sizes. Despite the fact the plans may have a wow factor to any visitor, most of the times, the long-suffering subjects are not given the opportunity to benefit from the structures. Vanity projects by dictators are found all over the world in different periods of history. A few are highlighted in this paper. In Africa, the Basilica of Our Lady of Peace in Yamoussoukro, Ivory Coast is considered to be one of the projects undertaken in vain without serving a purpose (Mazrui 1999, p. 8). The church build by the dictator Houphouet-Boigny is made entirely out of Italian marble and stained glass with room to accommodate up to 18, 000 worshippers in its nave.

The Mafra National Palace in Portugal is an example of another project constructed not for any use but due to the availability of resources at the disposal of a dictator. Having a never-ending supply of gold from Brazil, King Joao V of Portugal who had intended to build a monastery decided to upgrade by making a baroque palace that had almost over 1200 halls with approximately 52,000 workers drawn from all over the country to work in the project. The king intended to have all the rooms decorated as lavishly as much as possible. Construction led to the spending of so much money that the country almost went bankrupt.

The Palace of Parliament in Bucharest, Romania is also one of the vanity projects established an authoritative ruler with the total disregard of the potential consequences and the application of the plan for the public good. The building has over 365,000 square meters and is the world third tallest building whose idea was initiated by the despot Nicolae Ceausescu. The house that led to the demolishing of churches, hospitals, and religious buildings also caused the displacement of over 40,000 people from their homes. 70% of the house is said to be unoccupied regardless of the fact that the building is costing over the US $6 million per year just to heat and light (Light and Young 2010, p. 5). Over 700 architects, 5000 army personnel, and 20,000 building workers, as well as 1.5 million factory labourers, were involved in working in the project with the construction activities occurring in 3 shifts per day. Despite the efforts and resources put into the building, no benefits are being accrued from the construction.

Rungnado May Day Stadium in North Korea is another instance of a despot using the power available to him or her. The show of power is indicated in the essence that North Korea has been seen as trying to manifest its might through architecture most of which are bulk concrete in which the Rungnado stadium is an example. The arena had the ability to seat over 150,000 and was built not because there was a need for such a structure but because of the neighbours, South Korea won the bid to host the 1988 Olympics. The dictator Kim Jong-Il thus decided that anything that could be accomplished in the South was also possible in the North. Another structure in North Korea that is not useful in spite of being of grand scale is the uncompleted Ryugyong Hotel in Pyongyang. The hotel was planned to compete against the Westin Stamford Hotel of Singapore that was being built by a South Korean firm in the mid-1980s. However, due to the ending of funding due to the crashing of the Soviet Union led to the collapse of the construction activities.

Nazi Utopianism and Albert Speer

The Nazi Utopianism was characterised by Adolf Hitler envisioning Berlin as not the capital of Germany but also as the main city in the world especially during the periods leading to the WWII. It can, however, be observed that Berlin was not as organized as Hitler would have wanted it. Hence, in 1937 plans were made for the Welthauptstadt Germania,“ or World Capital Germania. Germania was supposed to be an awe-inspiring metropolis inspired by the Roman architecture (Rosenfeld 1997, p. 190). The designs of the planned city were rooted in the spirit of intimidation and were grandiose just as much the other urban plans. Hitler was sure of winning WWII, and one of his primary priorities was to monumental transformed to make it as the capital city of the Nazi-run world. The dictator wished Berlin to be comparable as a world capital to only some of the ancient civilisations like Babylon, Egypt, and Rome. The planned Berlin was therefore intended for outside Paris and London with the idea represented in a city with grand boulevards and bloated marbles.

The lack of order in Berlin made it look like most of the European cities at the time that was big and not logical. Furthermore, Hitler had always disliked Berlin deeming it as dirty and disdainful and not right for his leftist attitudes. Hitler thus approached Albert Speer to design a Nazi utopia that would correspond to the world domination. The two became close as they were professional colleagues who shared similar political perspectives. Hitler and Speer thus devised a plan for the entire capital city for which the concentration camp prisoners began cutting stones in late 1937 (Gispen 1999, p. 37). The vision of Germania was not only for bringing order to Berlin but was also seen as essential in manifesting the Nazi power to the world.

Part of the monumental plans was to construct the Berlin Olympic Stadium for the 1936 Summer Olympics that were intended to project the Nazi power to the whole world. Furthermore, a larger arena that would have accommodated over 400,000 spectators was also planned alongside the Olympic Stadium. However, only the foundation of the structure was made with the intended construction stopping due to the beginning of WWII. The stadium would have been the biggest in the world today by a considerable margin had it been completed.

Albert Speer was thus Hitler’s selected and trusted architect who had an influential role in designing some of the significant structures envisioned by Hitler. Having acquired his architectural license in 1927, Speer impressed Hitler due to his structural talents that soon after the former become Chancellor, the latter was made Hitler’s architect. Speer was thus rewarded with prestigious commission, including the designing of Germania as a way of rebuilding Berlin. Some of the grandiose plans in which Speer was involved include the design of the searchlights and parade grounds as well as the banners of the Nurnberg party. Speer was made minister for armaments and war productions where he was charged with overseeing the production, transportation, and placement of the articles (Rosenfeld 1997, p. 191). Speer was further given the final authority to manage the industrial production of armaments the power by which he is accused of expanding a system that exploited the slave labour. The forced labour was primarily provided by the concentration camps and was useful in maintaining the production of war materials. Speer was feted during his time as a minister and long afterward for his role in increasing the armament production. As an influential architect, he was a respected individual in the Nazi party as well as becoming a member of Hitler’s inner circle.

Speer was thus known as the ‘Third Reich’, first architect and is known to have developed numerous designs towards the transformation of Berlin in his capacity as the overseer of the project. However, only small proportion of the plans were constructed between 1937 and 1943 with the war seen as responsible for halting the efforts to build what would have become the world’s largest city. Some of the completed projects included the broadening Charlottenburger Chaussee and situating the Berlin Victory Column in the center away from its original location. Other plans for the construction of the Great Hall were shelved due to the impending war (Rosenfeld 1997, p. 194). The defeat in the war saw the buildings that were demolished to pave the way for the implementation of the plans were never replaced according to the grand design. The envisioned plan was to see Berlin being rebuilt along a central 5-kilometre boulevard also known as the Avenue of Splendour. The boulevard was to be surrounded by prestigious buildings celebrating the Nazi power. The new city was to be magnificent with the statues and avenues to be designed to last for over 1000 years. Characterised with the evictions of residents from their apartments to allow the construction of the utopian city, it can be noted that such acts were not a hobby of the dictator but a representation of the ideologies that were behind the regime.

Adolf Hitler is considered as one of the worst dictators in history and is one of the most infamous due to his fascist policies that led to the WWII. He rose to power after the First World War through the National and gained control of German in 1933. He established concentration camps in which over 6 million Jews and other were killed in the holocaust. On the same note, his attack on Poland in 1939 led to the WWII. 1941 saw Germany occupying most of Europe and North Africa. His goal was to expand the German living space through a series of wars to allow them to inhabit and exclusively dominate the whole world. The fights should thus entail struggle for vast tracts of land that would enable the German to settle. Furthermore, he wanted his subjects to raise large families that were able to replace the casualties of war as well as for providing for the expansion of the army. The first target of such war was to be against Czechoslovakia that was deemed to be easy followed by fighting tough opponents like Britain and France (Gispen 1999, p. 36). The other targets were Russia and the US respectively. After overcoming such objectives then it was clear that no other country could stand in the way of Germany giving Hitler the opportunity to be the global leader. By the time Hitler was assuming power in 1933; military preparations had been put in place for such wars. The short goal was to develop the necessary weapons for attacking the western powers, while the long-term objective was formulated for the confrontation with the US. It is due to such fascination with ruling the world that Hitler intended to build Germania, a global capital that was stronger and authoritative.

As the center of the world, Germania was planned to be intimidating as it was grandiose to enable the assertion of the complete power over the global subjects. The Hall of the People (Volkshalle) that was supposed to be one of the major projects envisioned was thought to accommodate up to 180,000 and was designed to be twice as large as St Peter’s Basilica in Rome. The most significant element in having such magnificent and grandiose building was to show off the Nazi Reich. Since many Nazi leaders kept the prisoners busy cutting the granite stones even though they knew that the construction had stopped due to the war one can learn the dark sides of the Nazi authoritarianism regime as led by Hitler. Further demonstration of power is observed in the command to construct an underground highway to connect Hitler’s palace to the Volkshalle. The intention of Germania was to intimidate with the manifestation of power seen in the lack of amenities for city dwellers. Except for the grand stadium, there are no public parks in the plans as well as for the transit systems to be used by all the other individuals living the city (Gispen 1999, p. 36). Further demonstration of totalitarianism is therefore observed in the lack of consideration of the subjects with all the basic structures intended to serve the regime. The defeat of Germany in the WWII, therefore, left the utopian city to fossilize forever as the plans to construct such a city were thwarted.

Architecture of the Roman Republic

The architecture of the Roman Republic is probably one of the most famous buildings in the world with the ancient construction perceived as having endured the test of time for over 2000 years. The Roman architecture is different from the Greek, Egyptian, Persian, and Etruscans styles that all portrayed some elements of monumental aspects (Welch 2006, p. 496). The grandeur of the latter styles is primarily demonstrated externally with the buildings made to be impressive when viewed from the outside since all the architects were made to rely on the post-and-lintel system. The post-and-lintel system refers to the utilisation of two upright posts like columns and horizontal block (lintel) laid across the top. The interior spaces were limited in size given the fact that the lintels were heavy since most of the internal spaces areas were used to support heavy loads.

The Roman architecture differed from the above styles primarily due to experimentation and hence the utilisation of the concrete, vaults, and arches. Arches were essential in the construction of structures. The Romans used the semi-circular arches in the construction of bridges and aqueducts in their cities and other parts of their colonies as well as on large scale architecture. In most of the cases, the arches did not use mortar but relied on the precision of the utilisation of the stone dressing in building processes. An arch can be defined as a curved structure that is made of materials like stones, concrete, and even steel. The Romans were very proud of the arcs that were essential in supporting the construction of other buildings that could have not been possible as the structures supported heavy loads. It can thus be observed that it is the Romans who first figured out how to use the arches in the development of various complex architectural pieces.

Such innovations thus allowed the Romans to create the interior spaces that could not be achieved in other areas like in Greek, Egyptians, and Persian architecture. The primary concern of the Romans was to shape interiors that were equally attractive as the external and not just filling the spaces with structural supports (Welch 2006, p. 497). Furthermore, the Roman cities were primarily focused on the forum that was a large plaza surrounded by significant buildings. The forum was the center for economic and civic as well as religious activities in the cities. The durability of the Roman buildings can thus be seen to have been accomplished through their unique inventions that enable the utilisation of materials and methods to enhance the quality of their buildings.

Materials, innovations, and methods played a significant role in Roman architecture. Before the invention of concrete, a volcanic stone known as tufa that was native to Italy was primarily used for the buildings. Another example of the materials utilised is travertine, used as an alternative to tufa given its durability and off-white colour and hence an excellent substitute for marble. Marble was not popular during the Republican period, however, after some time, the material become fashionable. Augustus is an example of a leader who promoted the development using marbles due to his ambitious construction projects. The Roman concrete was later developed and together with the use of mortar, the innovations made the architectural pieces to be much stronger as well as making the works by the architects and other workers to be relatively easier (Welch 2006, p. 495). Since concrete takes the shape of the moulds and frames in which they are poured, creativity was further enhanced in the resulting buildings that were hence more fluid in shapes. The primary aim of the Roman architects was to manifest the power of Rome as well as providing the basic needs to its citizens as observed in the construction of infrastructure like bridges, roads, and water supply ducts. The importance of architecture can be observed as having played a crucial role in the shaping of the socio-economic beliefs of the Roman Empire in which the rulers sought to assert their authorities in their colonies. It can thus be indicated that the manner in which the power was represented manifested the changing various social models and allegiances. The presentation of authority through the architectural pieces is therefore critical elements of the Roman regimes that can be seen as having had significant influence in the world through conquering and colonization of the various regions.

The architecture in the Roman republic was elaborate and complex infrastructure that was useful in the provision of the basic services to the citizens. Examples of such architectural pieces are the public and private baths that were designed to enable people to access hot baths. The baths were usually made of a collection of dressing rooms that contained warm and cold bathrooms as well as other activities that are essential for athletic and grooming. The Baths of Caracalla and Baths of Stabiae in Naples are instances of bathhouses constructed by Roman architects as part of their development in the construction industry.

Another example of the elaborate architectural works is noted in the Roman villas. The villas constituted a development of extensive buildings and a large farm for the purposes of economic and residential purposes. The Villa of Hadrian in Tivoli is a representation of a well-preserved case of the villas (Welch 2006, p. 497). The villas were associated with class and power as only the prominent members of society such as the ruling class could afford to live in such residences. The emperors stayed in such houses that were located in some of the best places in the land. For instance, Emperor Augustus possessed a home on the Palatine Hill in Rome, while other rulers like Emperor Domitian among others preferred to have large palaces built for them. The act of residing in the villas was perceived as an assertion of authority over the subjects as rulers had all the chance to dwell where they want with their residences designed according to their desires. The emperors most of the times decreed to have addition to their places of resident aspects like large reception halls, fountains, parks, and public dining rooms. Such features entailed complex architectural consideration as well as attempts made on satisfying the rulers’ tastes and preferences.

Projection of Power through Roman Architecture

Rome was once a global superpower with numerous colonies around the world. The Roman leaders led conquests and made subjects in many places. The reminder of the ancient Rome power is still manifested in many of the European cities. Notable cities like London and Paris were founded by the Romans. Architecture played a vital role in the success of the Roman Empire, especially for creating unifying elements with structures like Temples, bridges, and roads helping to advance the ambitions of the growing country. The cities were designed and built not only for administrative purposes but also to serve as critical and visible symbols of power. The buildings were used to, directly and indirectly, serve the Roman authority. The basilicas that served as vital administrative buildings can be noted as useful in the demonstration of power with all the citizens in the empire regarding the importance played by such elements. The association of the basilicas with authority can be seen as responsible for the distinct construction standard for Christian churches during the time of Emperor Constantine.

Other structures of significance observed in some places in Europe as an indication of the Roman activities are observed in the amphitheatres that were once used as arenas for staged spectacles for entertaining the masses. An example of such amphitheatre is the Colosseum that was built, Emperor Vespasian. The Colosseum is considered as a clear political statement especially due to the fa...