Contents:
He recognizes that Havel will be judged by posterity as among the most distinguished political figures of the century. But, as he explains in his compelling new biography, Vaclav Havel: A Political Tragedy in Six Acts, his subject is a tragic figure whose misfortune was to be born in the 20th century and whose fate was politics. Keane, best known in the United States for his well-received biography of Tom Paine, sees Havel as an actor in a prose drama riddled with calamities, injustices, and unhappy endings. Keane shows how Havel's early life he was born in was affected by the ambitions and the military and diplomatic machinations of Hitler and others.
Young Vaclav's parents were wealthy by European standards and part of a cultural elite. But under the Nazi rule of the Second World War, their country became a killing field where moral and ethical restrictions were not relevant to the rulers.
John Keane is Professor of Politics at the University of Westminster and Director of the Centre for the Study of Democracy. He has written eleven books. Vaclav Havel: A Political Tragedy in Six Acts velvet revolution and democratic government, Vaclav Havel is a timely and deserving subject for biography.
Havel's family suffered in a variety of ways. The end of war did not bring relief; just before Vaclav's 11th birthday, the Communists assumed the power that they held for over 40 years. During Havel's youth, his mother took responsibility for her son's education.
Keane's writing is energetic and personal, but extremely focused, setting a tone for some of the best writing on Communism in history that I have ever read. The reform policies and their underlying principles remained intact, and no police state had been installed. Indeed, Havel's relationship with Vaclav Klaus was strained, as Keane shows, but it was hardly as destructive or litigious as that between presidents and premiers elsewhere in Central Europe. Kundera could accuse him of 'moral exhibitionism'. For example, he cites the record of a planning session held on 22 December to support his important point that Havel had clearly promised to step down from the presidency after the first free elections and allow Alexander Dubcek to seek the office.
There were also family friends whose conversations with Vaclav kept him in touch with a wider world. He became particularly attracted to literature and philosophy. Of special interest is a remarkable circle of literary friends and acquaintances drawn together in by Havel and his mother.
Called the Thirty-Sixers they were all born in the same year , the group met to discuss a wide range of literary and other subjects. Keane illuminates the relationship between Havel's art as a playwright and his role as a dissident. His plays often deal with themes of depersonalization and the failure of language.
Two of the most enlightening sections of this biography concern subjects closely identified with Havel. He was the first and the firmest champion of honest and fair-minded reconciliation with Germany over the Sudeten Question. His longstanding wish that Czechoslovakia enter the European Union was granted. As president, he stood for open-mindedness, for toleration and for civility, especially for humiliated people like the Romany. He tried to turn politics into fun, even adding a postmodern touch to politics as president.
Within a few months of becoming president, the Prague castle was adorned with red white and blue BMWs, a festival of democracy was staged, blue jeans and t-shirts became cool and personal invitations were extended to Lou Reed and the Rolling Stones. He played himself on a political stage before a domestic and global audience. He loved all of that, though it came at a high price. He learned a hard lesson: There was a moment of great honesty when he confessed that being in high politics resembled a prison sentence.
He found himself caught up in the rough and tumble of a democratic transition. When Havel finally left office he was unpopular among sections of the Czech and Slovak publics. Future historians will tell us that as a politician his achievements were mixed. He made more than a few errors of political judgement, most of which remain unknown outside his country.
In the early days of his first presidency, for instance, he tried to change the constitution by a show of hands in parliament. That was roundly rejected, for good reasons. He later identified with the Greens, but initially had no affection for political parties. For a time, he even thought that in the transition to parliamentary democracy Czechoslovakia could do without a multiparty system.
To an embarrassed Chancellor Helmut Kohl , during their first meeting, he proposed the abolition of parties, and the formation of one big party — Europe. But in the context it was pie in the sky. Along with his fellow Czechs, he lived through no fewer than eight regime changes during the course of the 20th century. In the face of military occupation, bossing and bullying, he displayed great personal courage, radical honesty and unflagging dedication to the values of a civil society.
It was a powerful philosophical idea and inspiring political slogan which helped to prepare the grounds for not only Charter 77 , in its resistance to Soviet domination when everything seemed hopeless. It was the poetry for the dramatic Velvet Revolution of the autumn of Much can be learned from the great works it produced. For me, two stand out. One is a play called The Memorandum The gist of the play is that the ruling authorities decide that they want more transparent and efficient communication with their subjects, in order better to control them.
Nobody can understand it; even the official instructors are baffled by its syntax, despite some simple rules, which specify for instance that the more frequently a word is used, the shorter it is.
When I first saw it performed in Prague after the Revolution, I was struck by the spirited audience reaction. They found the play riotously funny. I edited its first English edition; a Chinese translation of my book-length account of its significance will be published next year.
The essay is widely considered to be the greatest political essay written in Central and Eastern Europe prior to the events of Beautifully written and theoretically sophisticated, it contains a single but radical insight: So the power of the powerless in any context is their ability to reject current power arrangements, to behave differently, for instance by refusing corruption, lying, bullshit, bribes and the other trimmings and trapping of power.
For that thought Havel was awarded a three-and-a-half year prison sentence.
When I first met him, in Prague, he had just been released. He was mentally and physically exhausted, constantly on edge, anxious that he would be re-arrested. Yet he took risks, and did so with fearless dignity. He practised what he had written. That earned his essay regional and global fame.
It was a trumpet blast in support of the idea that nonviolent resistance of citizens could triumph against any and all forms of top-down power. Yes, they need to preserve memories of stellar figures like Havel, particularly in our darkening times, when more than a few democracies are in trouble. But democrats should try to live without political heroes and myths of great leaders.