The role of the state in the decline of public space – a historical perspective

Abstract

According to Mike Davis, the militarisation of urban space is a process that builds a city around securitisation, leading to an urban space made exclusive through surveillance and disciplining strategies. The end or decline of public space is described as the result of such militarisation processes by critical theorists who linked it to capitalist, neoliberal city governance. Thus understood, urban space is formed by capital to achieve an economically more competitive city, leading to the displacement of the poor and homeless. As a result, public space ceases to exist as the epitome of democracy, as a place where different social groups can mingle and voice their discontent. While such processes of militarisation increasingly characterise the urban spaces of Budapest, too, it is not necessarily the case that the discourse on the “decline” or “end of public space” also applies to Budapest when it is analysed from a local and historical perspective. In addition, the question arises as to whether there has ever actually been a more democratic public space in Budapest. This article focuses on the changing role of the state through its interpretation of the meaning and use of public space, starting from Lefebvre's argument that power is mediated through space. In addition to Lefebvre's theories on the production of space, this study is informed by Susan Gal's paper on the semiotics of public/private distinction, as it is helpful for a deeper understanding of the relationship between the state and public space. Based on feminist theory, Gal argues that the difference between public and private is ideologically defined. Therefore, the relation between public and private cannot alone describe society, it rather acts as a tool for argument or discussion of value systems. The aim is to understand from a historical perspective the decline of public space and the militarisation of urban space as discussed by critical theorists in the case of Budapest. For such urban tendencies should be seen not only with regard to capital(ism) but also in the context of (central and local) governments. The basis is provided by analyses of both the minutes of the Budapest Metropolitan Council of 1978 and archive footage (news and advertisements) from the 1960s to the 1970s. The article concludes that although the militarisation of urban space described by Davis also characterises Budapest, especially since the 2000s, the author’s historical research suggests that in the case of Budapest the lack of democratic public space has a longer history than neoliberal urban planning, rooted in the period of state socialism when other policies of exclusion privileged certain social groups.