Political nature of Architecture
Of recent years, I am increasingly of the view that architecture students, besides being taught how to draw - the basic tool of design, should also be taught political science. Many might not realise, but politics form the basic structure of any design act, in particular architecture.

Architecture more than Design
General design of consumer products is generally a democratic act as consumers have the right to not use a certain product because users usually have a wide variety to choose from, and no one can force them to purchase something they are not interested in.

Architecture is different. In the design of buildings, the architect has to take a position within the autocratic and democratic spectrum. Depending on his position, the conceived spaces could be vary from imposing to flexible and adaptable. This is probably the reason why Architecture is such a politicised domain. For the design of public buildings notably, the architect, decides for all the users. Examples of democratic architecture would likely include adaptable designs found in Japanese architecture, Rietveld's Schroeder House, etc. No clear examples of autocratic architecture comes to my mind yet, but I am sure many others would come to me with many suggestions.

One need not be entirely proud of being classified as democratic architects either. Take for example, the Schroeder House, despite Rietveld's effort, it could be commented that although the design was a breakthrough in Europe of the early 20th century, it was not successful in the strictest sense as the users did not adapt the house very much. For architectural democracy to work, the cultural context has to be present.

Political Science in the Curriculum of Architecture
In the following weeks and months, I would be reflecting more on this issue, but views are certainly welcome.