Run to the gun
Recently, the proposal to use the military for police duties was again brought to the table. It stands clear that many cities in Sweden have problems with crime and the occasional extreme gang violence. But you don't cure the headache by shooting yourself in the head, to use a somewhat unsavoury analogy in this context. There are many reasons why we should let the police do their job, while investing massively in children and education in affected areas, and let the military stay in their barracks. One of them has to do with urban life.
For almost a hundred years, Sweden has had a very clear division of the monopoly of violence into two branches, the Police and the Military. In simple terms, the police must maintain order within the country (read the cities) and the military abroad (read Russia). There are three very good arguments for this strict division: historical experience (google Ådalen 1931), practical reasons (training and equipment) and ideology (do we really want a militarised society).
In addition to this, a slightly overlooked argument is that the presence of the military would have a very negative impact on the city in general as a creative and life-affirming phenomenon. Not in the sense that it would physically damage the city, we are - despite the headlines - not at war. But military presence would definitely damage the image of the city and how we live and experience it. Vibrant, inviting and creative cities are fundamentally built on trust, non-violence and respect. This is so that you can live freely and happily close to people you do not know.
The mere presence of soldiers in the city means that trust is broken and you should feel afraid. When was the last time you saw a soldier in a city and had the feeling that you were in a peaceful and safe community? The soldiers per se also possess a much greater capacity for violence than policemen, as helmets and machine guns indicate. Proximity to violence generally increases in a city with a military presence. Anyone who has been in contact with an adrenaline-fuelled policeman at a football match, in a messy queue at a club or in a demonstration knows how it feels when societal respect is broken and the limits of freedom become very clear. The military, due to the lack of education and experience of both soldiers and officers in this area, has an even greater probability of not showing respect in critical situations. This also means that trust in the military in general will diminish over time, especially among certain groups that already have a negative view of society's institutions.
Trust and well-functioning institutions take a long time to build but can be demolished in an instant. As architects, we try to make the physical space of our cities vibrant, safe and beautiful, but that work is both almost impossible and irrelevant in a city full of scared, nervous and suspicious people.
The Swedish military, at its best, is a popularly rooted and very important and competent force that deters hostile nations and organisations from attacking. We should not risk this with ill-conceived moves that put urban life in our cities at risk.
