A mobile, adaptable architecture is a democratic architecture. Democracy is a weird creature. An illusion of choice. An illusion that those in power are truly answerable to the masses. Many of the spaces that elected representatives occupy are heavily controlled, fortified and spatially manipulated to the benefit of the representative rather than those represented. The disenfranchised, those left out, those left behind, those completely disempowered have only one way to make themselves heard; forced to embrace mobility and guerrilla style hit-and-run tactics. The letter to the editor can be ignored. The push, or the shove, cannot.
In frustration many choose to express their dissatisfaction and disillusion physically rather than through rational argument. Many aren't even afforded the right to be heard. The security and safety of elected representatives is undeniably important, as it is with all constituents. So how do we allow the will of the people to manipulate parliamentary space to express dissatisfaction with, or celebration of, their representatives? How do we allow them to be seen and to contribute to physical/spatial change, even if only symbolically?
If mobility and hit-and-run guerrilla tactics empower the disempowered and marginalised, if only momentarily, then perhaps a truly democratic parliament is one that responds spatially to the will of the people. Perhaps a parliament can be both fortified and open to attack. What if parliament could be manipulated by the masses? What if parliament's spatial condition is changeable by those that are dissatisfied and marginalised as well as those that are pleased with the contributions of elected representatives? The abrupt, confrontational nature of direct physical interaction is what drives the Mobile Parliament. Though safe within, the politician’s access to view and light can be democratically controlled by the public.