EUROPE: FIVE YEARS LATER : ‘People must learn again to be citizens.’ : Vaclav Havel, president of the Czech Republic

I n his Prague office, Czech President Vaclav Havel sat for a 30-minute interview with Times correspondent Dean E. Murphy despite the stress of the moment. He had just concluded a war of words with Prime Minister Vaclav Klaus over the direction of Czech society, he was preparing for a trip to the United States and he was in the midst of the latest government crisis: the removal of the Czech defense minister.

Dressed in a glen-plaid suit with matching tie and pocket handkerchief, Havel spoke softly, rarely looked up and smoked four Camel cigarettes. Finally, at the end of the session, he broke into a wide grin when asked to pose with Sophia, a towering white figurine with a gold headband created by Czech sculptor Olbram Zoubek:

*

Question. In a conversation about politics in the 1980s, you told writer Karel Hvizdala that “a genuinely fundamental and hopeful improvement in systems cannot happen without a significant shift in human consciousness, and that it cannot be accomplished through a simple organizational trick.” What is your assessment of the changes in Eastern Europe since 1989? Are they the shallow consequences of an organizational trick, or has there been a genuine shift in human consciousness?

Answer. I think it is valid generally that the systematic changes, the organizational ones, must evolve from some . . . new concept of human coexistence. And in this sense I think that consciousness precedes the so-called technicalities. That is naturally true also in our case, and maybe more so because the transformation of the totalitarian system into a democratic one is indeed not only a matter of several parties replacing one ruling party and the introduction of some democratic mechanisms. It is also a matter of a great transformation of thinking because people must learn again to be citizens, to rediscover the civic responsibility which the totalitarian regime did not demand from them because it required mere obedience.

They must find a new relationship to their own state and a new concept of their responsibility for themselves. These changes are naturally demanding and do not take place quickly. But I see it as the most important task, and from it all the other transformational changes evolve.

*

Q. Has there been enough progress in this regard over the past five years?

A. Possibly at the time of such revolutionary joy over the overthrow of communism many of us could have had the illusion that everything would go faster. I would not say that progress is not taking place, but it needs its time. It is not as simple as it might have appeared to people at first. The former Communist stereotypes of behavior are dormant in the subconsciousness of society and are still making themselves felt. There is much evidence that changes are taking place, but there is also much evidence that they are not taking place everywhere in the way they should. Many remnants of the past are still manifested one way or the other in the behavior of people.

*

Q. Would you give an example that illustrates how these changes are taking place?

A. One surprising and encouraging phenomenon is that after decades of the Communist centralized economy there has awakened in the people the spirit of enterprise. There are now in our country hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs and millions of shareholders, even though one almost thought people here didn’t know what a share was. It is a very encouraging development that there is such creative entrepreneurship. It shows that people have come to accept the idea that their fate depends primarily on themselves, that they are finding a real relationship to property and a responsibility for this property, which for years had only anonymous ownership. That is an example of the good changes.

*

Q. You have spoken and written extensively about the creation of a civic society in post-Communist countries, a sense of civic consciousness and responsibility that would exist between the levels of the individual and the state. Has this civic society formed in the Czech Republic?

A. The question addresses what is public and what concerns the individual citizen. That is something I personally regard as extremely important, a topic which is being much discussed in our country.

It seems to me that it is crucial that the public sphere in which citizens are engaged be strengthened, expanded and given more prominence to somehow do away with the situation in which everything is directed by the state and public property is looked after by the state. And here too you can see the potential which exists in society and is beginning to make itself felt. There has emerged for instance a number of foundations and civic communities and associations, and many people work in self-governing organizations.

Nevertheless it seems to me that it is necessary, especially at this time, to focus more on this (public) sphere. Apart from the fact that people are engaged in private enterprise--and everything now belongs to somebody and through producing individual profit our entire economy is being strengthened--there exists another dimension to man. He is a social being who wants to open himself to other people, associate with them, and do something for the common good, something which need not directly be tied to individual gain.

*

Q. Much of Eastern Europe is dispirited and disappointed about democracy and free markets. Are you able to explain how this came to be? Was it inevitable or is there something fundamentally flawed with the transformation process?

A. Psychologically, some kind of disillusionment or disappointment is absolutely understandable. Suddenly, very quickly, after such a long period of boredom and timelessness under communism, everything collapsed, the borders opened and journalists wrote freely. Society was naturally in a certain manner excited.

But sooner or later the time had to come for everyday work. It has become apparent that what we inherited from communism is extremely complicated and difficult to deal with. The changes are bound to take time--and that can’t be otherwise. That reality understandably has as an accompanying phenomenon, the appearance of disillusionment. I would compare it to someone smashing an old inlaid chest into pieces. That can take just a few seconds to do, but to put it back together, to restore the chest, may take many years--a long time. And we are restoring something which had existed here and we had enjoyed, but which was violently and brutally destroyed. It is simply a long task.

I used to be very impatient. Everything seemed to be moving slowly, but in the end, I have learned not to be so impatient. I have come to understand that everything needs its time.

*

Q. What are the biggest disappointments of the past five years?

A. Several things could be spoken about, which I thought would move forward faster. For instance, I believed that our integration into the democratic world would proceed faster, into its political, security and economic structures. Also I thought that after the experiences of communism, there would not be so many people in the various parts of the post-Communist world who would give in to nationalism and xenophobia. I also probably did not expect that with the arrival of freedom there also would be so much room for so many bad human traits which are making themselves felt almost explosively.

I repeat, I could imagine that many things could be better, but at the same time, I repeat that I have learned patience. I know that it is not possible to make the grass grow taller, to make it grow faster, by pulling at it. Everything needs its time.

*

Q. If I were to return in five years on the 10th anniversary of the revolutions in Eastern Europe, what will have changed? What are your expectations for the future?

A. I think that it would be good if in five years time our country had indeed become a regular and legitimate member of the democratic world, that it was forgotten that communism was ever here and that we no longer carried the curious title of a “post-Communist country,” which is a description that is somewhat denigrating.

I believe that the extensive privatization which is taking place in our country will have settled down and that it will be quite clear who owns what property. As for the economy as a whole, I expect it will be returning to the level of development it once had when we were a country that was economically comparable with Germany or France. And above all, I believe that there will be no reason for complaints about the low political or civic culture here, that this culture will have developed. All of this will be directly linked to the emergence of the younger generation, one not deformed by communism.