Abstract

The spatial design of legislative chambers is not merely a physical or aesthetic matter; it functions as a structural factor shaping the quality of political interactions, patterns of dialogue, and modes of decision-making. In the Islamic Consultative Assembly of Iran, the fragmented semi-circular layout, combined with wide spacing between seats and strong visual hierarchies, has fostered a setting in which “performative speeches” prevail over “deliberative dialogue.” This, in turn, has reduced legislative efficiency, intensified partisan divides, and weakened inter-factional cooperation. Drawing on proxemics, environmental psychology, Space Syntax, and comparative studies of successful parliaments, this research addresses how the physical features of the parliamentary chamber affect representatives’ behavior and what alternative design might improve current conditions. Findings indicate that increased physical distance and limited mutual visibility reinforce performative and polarized behaviors, whereas more compact layouts with broader fields of vision promote trust and interaction. Comparative analysis of global models suggests that the horseshoe layout best suits the Iranian context, as it balances consensus and confrontation while enhancing eye contact, cross-factional dialogue, and critical questioning. The novelty of this study lies in its simultaneous analysis of Iran’s parliament alongside global models and in proposing a reformative framework based on the horseshoe design.