Politics is normally demonstrated as the existence of power. There are two points of view about political, the first view is the existence of human relations organized by power, while the second view is the distinct problematic of negotiating the powers and values of enduring collective (Brown, 2002). Apart from the sense of political power, every architectural work can be treated as a symbol of richness, idealism, power and even the misery of its builders and their contemporaries (Braunfels, 1998). Vale (2008) also indicates every building award a sense of legitimacy to the local authorities who build and use it as well as mirror to the worldview of its builders and users instead of just serving its purpose. The relationship between power and architecture can be reflected to the relationship between politics and space. When it comes to the confluence of space and politics, capital cities capture position of unique implication (Minkenberg, 2014). All these capital cities, especially those are clearly designed and built to be capitals, the buildings and public space or square launched by the nation convey an undeniable political relationship. The Capital cities are defined as a demand of defending and representing the position of the government and other national institutions. In addition, buildings, urban design and public space are fundamental instrument in the constant exploration for justifiability and self-assurance (Minkenberg, 2014). Capital cities not just design buildings and spaces to defend the institutions of sovereignty, they do more to display them. Nationalism declare itself through the built environment and the mechanism of display with the temptation of sub-nationalism and invented history. For example, one of the most significant evidence of the temptation of display is the North-South Axis in Berlin. The idea by Albert Speer is intended the new city of Germania to be a global allegation of dominance and a signal of being the greatest to the rest of the world (Helmer, 1985). Apart from this, other governments have used urban design to inscribe a politics of nationalist display even more unduly. One of the most well-known evidence in twentieth century was the greatly designed square of Moscow. When Moscow was reclaimed as the position of government for the U.S.S.R., the leader of Soviet Union has found a way to display their power of the government by using the public space, Red Square, with the walls of Kremlin rising implacably above and behind it (Berton, 1977). The displays took two forms which are the periodic celebratory parades of military and flags equipment that moved across the square, and the static tableau of assembled dignitaries posing for pictures against a backdrop of crenelated brick, challenging Western pundits to indicate who was the dominant side based on their position (Minkenberg, 2014). In addition, another famous example is the Tiananmen Square in Beijing. Following the People’s Revolution of 1949, the chairman of China, Mao Zedong reconstructed Tiananmen Square itself from a more humble T shaped palace channel into a broad masonry space which designed to allow assembling one million party faithful (Hung, 1991). Besides, Chairman Mao also changed the Forbidden City’s wall into a city-scaled gallery with an iconic portrait of himself which is even larger than the huge archway underneath (Minkinberg, 2014). With these typical examples, public space or square is being used to demonstrate the power of the government and this is how public space can be related to politics.