In recent years, the rise of right-wing ideologies has been a growing concern for me. Across the world, a worrying and alarming increase in support for far-right political parties and movements is taking place. Several signals of a broader shift towards nationalist and populist politics are currently emerging. The recent national elections held between 2021 and 2022 confirmed the rise of right-wing parties such as Alternative for Germany (AfD), the National Front (FN) in France, and Brothers of Italy (Fdl). These political changes have been accompanied by an increase in hate crimes, xenophobia, and anti-immigrant sentiment1.

In addition to that, the current political developments have been followed by a resurgence of neo-fascist and neo-Nazi groups. These radical and extremist parties, supported by the mainstreaming of far-right politics, usually draw on the symbolism and rhetoric of past totalitarian regimes. Also, they often use architecture and public space as a means of advancing their ideology.

This is the case of CasaPound2, an Italian far-right political movement that takes inspiration from Mussolini’s fascist regime. To create a sense of belonging among its members, this party has established a network of community centres and social housing projects across Italy. Their buildings are often decorated with fascist slogans and illustrations: there, everything is designed to evoke a sense of nationalist pride, in the footsteps of the fascist credo. This is clear in CasaPound’s headquarters in the Esquilino neighbourhood of Rome, which were illegally occupied and whose walls were adorned with images and names belonging to fascist history, as shown in Figure 1.

Why are totalitarian regimes still a reference for a certain portion of the spectrum of political parties? What kind of message, dogma and doctrine did they convey so effectively? And how did these regimes, with their diverse ideologies, demonstrate their power to the public? I believe that to influence the culture and the way of thinking of the population, totalitarian authorities controlled the education, knowledge, and arts of the countries they were governing. These leaders took advantage of architecture as a means of pursuing their goals and demonstrating their control over society. From the Nazis, who presumably3 planned the Reichstag fire in 1933 to incriminate the Communists, to Mussolini, who organised the March on Rome in 1922 to ascend to power. The role of the built environment in political and social events of the first half of the 20th century is clear.

As architects, we must problematise architecture’s potential for political extremists, and we must be careful about the messages our projects convey and promote. The ethical responsibility of this profession is at the heart of the dramatic events that have been happening during the last few years. How do we, as architects, advance political agendas and influence the social developments of our countries through our design choices?

By examining the relationships between artistic manifestations in the first half of the 20th century and the legacy of totalitarian regimes, we can better understand the potential dangers of modern political developments. Were architects and architecture victims of political and social upheavals, or were they actively part of the causes that led to the construction of totalitarian regimes?