Foreword

Literary work serves as the primary tool for dissemination. It is the main medium of proliferating information, after word of mouth, and throughout much of history, knowledge and advice was written down in the forms of epics, tales, and scientific work, in order that it could be communicated to others. From the satirical works of Shakespeare, to the elaborate annals recorded in the Quran, to the proud American Declaration of Independence, the writings of few raised the awareness of many, provoking revolutions in nearly every aspect of human nature: art, philosophy, and science.

Few works have touched upon the innate aspects of individual beings themselves, and how they perceive themselves in the wider context of society. The scarcity of this work is due its nature of mobilising human beings, provoking them into bringing about what should be fundamental aspects of their lives. The book I will discuss now is one such literary work.

The context

This book, or essay more correctly, was conceived by Vaclav Havel in 1978 as a political and civil dissection of the countries in the Eastern bloc, all of which at the time had similar institutions of leadership and state. He writes from his experience as a playwright and human-rights activist in his country, Czechoslovakia, about the apathetic institutions of the communist states, and how they stifle and attack the “aims of life” of an individual. The history of these Soviet-influenced states is presented as a natural development of extreme centralisation, and he coins a new term to label the institutions that developed out of it: the “post-totalitarian” system.

The State and the Aims of Life

The term “post-totalitarian” is a choice out of necessity to differentiate, and not to accurately describe the system in two simple words. Havel first contrasts the communist bloc of states from a what is generally perceived as a authoritarian regime, or dictatorship. In doing so he describes institutions that are fundamentally based on a “world of appearances”, and legitimises itself through a cycle of lies that serve ideology, and which that ideology guarantees the continuity of. He frequently uses an example of a faceless greengrocer putting up a slogan outside his shop, reading “Workers of the world, unite!”, as a simile to how the society functioned, as a sort of positive feedback loop to its own lies and meaningless phrases.

The example also highlights how it affects the people. If individuals are to astray from this inter-dependent gears of the system, the falsity and lies are evidently visible. Hence such

The nature and role of dissent

This topic makes up the majority of the essay, as the title, and direct address, of the essay was the significance of individuals in a system that.

The “post-democratic” model

A reflection

”A society should never become like a pond with stagnant water, without movement. That’s the most important thing.” - Mikhail Gorbachev, Final leader of the Soviet Union

The aftermath of publishing this essay was arguably quite profound. The following year, Havel was convicted under dubious circumstances, and would be imprisoned for the next 4 years. His work would continue spreading as samizdat throughout Czechoslovakia, reinforcing the ideas of dissent and counter-revolution, culminating in the fall of the Berlin Wall and uprooting of communism in the Eastern bloc. Havel would become the first properly elected president of his nation, and continue to after it would separate into Czechia and Slovakia.

The story repeated itself similarly across the other communist countries, with varying degrees of violence and lasting impacts. Corruption is quite a common impact in many of these nations, usually attributed to a phantom of the inequality that presided the Cold War era.

Havel’s vision for “post-democracy”, however, were never realised. The expansion of the European Union eastwards has bought upon a full circle in political organisation, where power and political bureau are still centralised, in Brussels instead of Moscow, with every member state given an equal vote into the policies. While this new system has respect for the notion of individual rights, as well as the values of “trust, openness, responsibility, solidarity, and love”, it does so through a central execution of power.

Havel’s view towards an ideal government was one of extreme democracy, where institutions were held together by close trust amongst individuals, with political structures merely acting as a suggestion as opposed to openly wielding these institutions. Not many people agree with this vision for society, even he himself pointed out it would be “foolish undertaking” to develop it further. But the vision he strongly argues is what represented the dissidents, whose struggle eventually bought down the barriers of post-totalitarian regimes, figuratively and quite literally. Why is this then not the vision adopted by Eastern Europeans, who in majority respect Havel and his work. As the subject of pan-Europeanism is pushed further, it will undoubtedly bury the “post-democratic” idea, in favour of a framework that facilitates trade and peace. The question is, should it?

References

Needless to say, this writing was about the original essay by Havel, which you can read in English from ICNC. In addition to that, I recommend videos from Kraut on the political analysis of Eastern Europe and the topics of pan-Europeanism, especially this one.

Thank you for reading. You may reach out to me on my socials in the page header, to discuss the topic, offer any criticism, point out mistakes, or anything else.