Martin Butora co-founded Public Against Violence, the major democratic movement in Communist Slovakia, in November 1989, and served as Human Rights Advisor to Czechoslovak President Václav Havel (1990–1992). Between 1999 and 2003, he was Ambassador of the Slovak Republic to the US. He is the honorary president of the Institute for Public Affairs, a public policy think-tank in Bratislava. His most recent books are Druhý dych (Second Wind), 2010, and Skok a kuk (Jump and Look), 2011.

Everyone knew it would happen one day and many sensed it was going to be soon – and yet, speaking about it, every word weighs a ton. The fact that he stayed with us this long was a miracle. Right until the very last moment, with extreme effort, he made sure his voice was heard wherever human dignity was at stake, wherever hope needed to be instilled. He did so with his characteristic sense of duty and responsibility.

As someone born into a wealthy family, he was ashamed of his position and privileged upbringing and longed to be like other children: he felt “an invisible wall” between himself and the others. His family background heightened his sensitivity to inequality, his distaste for undeserved advantages.

Hope as an orientation of the heart:

Vaclav Havel understood hope as an anthropological quality that pertained not only to politics. Hope is a state of mind, not a state of the world, he used to say. Either we have hope within us or we don’t: “It is a dimension of the soul. It’s not essentially dependent on some particular observation of the world or estimate of the situation.” Hope is not prognostication, he emphasized, “it is an orientation of the heart. It transcends the world that is immediately experienced, and is anchored somewhere beyond its horizons.”

In this sense, hope for him was not synonymous with optimism. It is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of the outcome. This is an extraordinarily strong message in a world that found hope yet lost it time after time – a message that is universal as well as unique, personal and individual.

His life story as writer, playwright and later politician played out over a period of some six decades. As a thirteen-year-old, he tried to compile a “newspaper.” Later, he banded together with a group of poets in “Club of 36,” writing an essay for them on Hamlet’s Question. It was also his question, one to which he’d been seeking an answer as a technician in a chemistry lab, working as theater stagehand and lighting assistant, and later as playwright, president and statesman, as well as – in between – working in brewery and being a sheet-metal welder in jail.

Living in truth:

In August 1969, on the first anniversary of the Soviet invasion, in a letter to Alexander Dubcek, he outlined three options for a Prague Spring politician. He could exercise self-criticism, admit his mistakes and accept Brezhnev’s version of events. He could submit quietly and wait to see what happens next. But he could also “tell the truth, stick with it and reject everything that turns it upside down.”

The letter goes on to present a prescient scenario of the consequences arising from each of these positions. “Even a purely moral act that has no hope of any immediate and visible political effect can gradually and indirectly, over time, gain in political significance,” he wrote. It can help people realize that it is always possible to stick with one’s ideals and have integrity, that there are values worth fighting for; and that there are leaders worth believing in.

In this letter he had inadvertently defined the blueprint for his attitude to life. It has come to be known as “living in truth,” an integral part of it being the willingness to sacrifice oneself. Through his own way of life, for which he paid in prison terms, Havel seemed to “redeem” the silent majority of society for accommodating the regime for many years.

Forty years later, he commented on President Obama’s decision not to receive Dalai Lama due to an upcoming trip to China. “It is only a minor compromise,” he said, “a compromise which actually has some logic to it.” But exactly with these minor compromises start the big and dangerous ones, he added.

Caring for the soul as well as for the public space:

It was not only a “life in truth” that has brought him together with Czech philosopher Jan Patocka, one of the most influential Central European philosophers of the 20th century who died of a brain hemorrhage following a series of interrogations by the secret police for having signed the Charta 77 manifesto. It was also another key tenet of his life and thinking – “caring for the soul,” an attempt to anchor human actions in morality.

Havel admirably combined this nurturing of the soul with a caring for public affairs and the public space, which he understood in its widest sense and which he has influenced and helped shape in ways more distinctive and varied than hardly any other public actors in the history of the last third of the last century and first decade of this.

He did so as a man who supported and initiated small independent “islands of self-reflection and self-liberation.” He did so as the president of two states. He did so as an authority in the pan-European public space. He did so as a defender of and a critical commentator on the West. And last but not least, he did so as a unique voice in the global space of human civilization, through his ability to attract and bring together personalities capable of contributing to its future.

But caring for the public space wasn’t just a matter of abstract theoretical reasoning – it was closely linked to everything that is happening right now and right here, to the shape of our culture and our country. In his eyes, the battle for survival waged by the fringe theatres and galleries of Prague wasn’t just a battle for subsidies: it was a battle for the very meaning and character of the state.

The city, he had warned, was spreading like a cancer, “obliterating our countryside with its warehouses and mega-warehouses, parking lots and garbage tips, super- and hypermarkets and, above all, the vast wastelands created in between all these.”

“Litmus paper”

One of the roles Vaclav Havel played in Slovakia was that of an extremely sensitive “litmus test.” For it wasn’t only sociologists who would regularly discover that people who had trusted him had a greater desire for European integration, were more tolerant of various versions of otherness, more open towards members of minorities, had a more critical view of both fascism and communism.

Havel had tried to preserve the common state of Czechs and Slovaks, because he was convinced it was meaningful. Yet, after the 1992 election, when the Slovak and Czech political representatives under the leadership of Vladimir Meciar and Vaclav Klaus concluded that the state had to be divided, he did not resist them.

President Havel was different from President Tomas Garrigue Masaryk, who had maintained regular contact with Slovakia before the creation of the first Czechoslovak state in 1918, traveled there frequently, and over many years had nurtured relations with the local political elite as well as with Slovakia’s budding intelligentsia.

Initially, the only people Václav Havel knew tended to be his writer friends and, later, dissidents. However, he had gone a long way toward getting to know his partners, and the fact that he treated them as partners was key. He neither patronized nor demonized Slovakia. After the country split, he helped make sure the Slovak Republic ended up in the same political, economic and security space as the Czech Republic. And he often and respectfully commented on what Slovakia had managed to achieve in two decades of reforms.

His views have had long-lasting resonance. In the summer of 2008, he attended Pohoda, Slovakia’s largest music festival embracing also theater, film, literature, and NGO fora. The discussion with him was held in a big crowded tent and those unable to get in could watch it on a huge screen. It was a beautiful sunny Sunday and some ten thousand people, who had still been in nursery school in 1989, had gathered round, standing or sitting in the grass. An eerie silence reigned and the vast space resounded with the voice of the shy, yet convincing and charismatic man, who shared with the audience his experience of building a new world and encouraging those present to be part of it.

Present more than ever:

When he was in opposition, he was as much part of the “protest dissent” as of the “reflective dissent.” While the former type, the frontline, was intent on showing lies and hypocrisy of the regime, representatives of the other type of dissent – writers, philosophers, historians, theologians, psychologists – analyzed the state of society and the prospects for change. It was this original “dual role” that had cemented Havel’s leading position before November 1989, as well as during the revolutionary days. And he did his best to adhere to this dual role even after 1989, when he found himself confronting countless dilemmas and arguments. He longed to keep a critical distance and a clear-eyed view of the various aspects of the new regime, to meld the “ethics of conviction” with the “ethics of responsibility.”

A week before his passing, on December 10, 2011, he attended a ceremony in Prague to receive the award of the Bratislava-based Jan Langos Foundation for his contribution to the defense of human rights. It was to be his last appearance in public. He thanked the Foundation for the award and me for the laudatio and shook my hand as vigorously as his strength permitted. Later on, when he sat in the corner of a big hall, he quietly told me and my wife Zora how happy he was to see small groups emerging and active citizens speaking up.

His departure marks the end of an era. He has been a moral anchor and an intellectual mirror both in bad times as well as in happy moments. His words and deeds have mattered more than other powers of the world. It is impossible to express how much we will miss him, particularly today, as the Western world is once again in crisis. However, it is beyond doubt that his legacy remains with us, perhaps more than ever. What a paradox, Mr. Havel. Vaclav. Dear friend, somewhere up there in heaven.

A version of this tribute was published in the Slovak daily SME, Bratislava, on 12/19/2011.

He never was a politician. He never wanted to be one. In this, he embodied the post-communist dream of an anti-political politics. Many, very many Czechs could not forgive him just that. When they put him at the Prague Castle, when they saw him in the legendary president T.G. Masaryk’s seat – they wanted him to play a statesman. And play he did, throughout his life he was a man of the theater. But he was a playwright, not an actor. As time went by, voices were heard that he is not fit for the position he holds. When people now say “he was an intellectual, a playwright, and a politician – in that order” it sounds more like a judgment than a description. Yet, little of that domestic criticism seemed to trickle through the borders of the Republic, and so the discrepancy between the international appreciation and the domestic disenchantment grew. Disenchantment is a good word. It was not Havel that changed. It was the Czechs who changed their expectations. He enchanted them with his charisma, his life-story and charm. And they (many of them) later did everything, to escape and deny that enchantment, as if they were ashamed of it. Inarguably, they owe him a lot. And so do the other nations in the region, because to our luck it was him and not any other former oppositionist that became the face of Central Europe in the early 1990s.

Havel appeared in Czechoslovakia’s public life in the 1960s as a writer – a young, avant-garde playwright. He was a declassed bourgeois, a descendant of a great Prague family. His grandfather – Vácslav Havel – was an architect, a leading representative of Czech modernism. His uncle Miloš established the famous film studios on the Barrandov hills. The father, Václav M. Havel, a friend of Masaryk’s, apart from building houses was also building institutions – the Czech Rotary and YMCA. If for the Czechoslovak Communist Party there ever was an archetype of a class enemy, it was him – the young blonde playwright, a frequent to the arty “Slavia” café. They wouldn’t allow him to study at the university; they expelled him from the economic school. However, already in 1963 the Theater on the Balustrade (Divadlo Na zábradlí), which would become one of his homes, staged his first play. And so, when he spoke out against censorship at the famous 4^th Meeting of the Czechoslovak Writers’ Union, which pushed the country towards the Prague Spring, he was already recognizable. When in 1968, he clashed with Milan Kundera on the issue of the “Czech fate” (the two writers would differ on many things since), he became an important figure of the country’s intellectual life. And he did not cease to be one even despite the repressions of the so called “normalization.” His open letter of 1975 to the party’s general secretary – “Dear Dr. Husák” – was an early symptom of the nascent Czechoslovak dissent – the morally anchored political opposition dedicated to the defense of human rights.

Although his works were not staged and disappeared from bookstores, the communist regime itself helped to preserve his popularity and public awareness. After the Charter 77 was published, Husák’s bureaucracy unleashed a campaign of hatred and slander known as the “Anti-Charter.” Soon afterwards, the public radio broadcast a piece entitled “Who is Václav Havel?” It is difficult to come up with an example of a worse shot-in-the-foot in the history of Eastern European communism. Those who had not yet heard of the Charter now were aware of it. Those who never heard of Havel, now knew, that he is an enemy of the system. For many that was the highest compliment and a certificate of credibility.

And so when along with other members of the Committee for the Defense of Unjustly Persecuted (VONS) he was sentenced to four and a half years, the defiant Czech bard Jaroslav Hutka dedicated him a ballad: “Havlíčku, Havle.” Playing on the proximity of the names, in the song Hutka replaced Havel with the 19^th century romantic Czech intellectual Karel Havlíček Borovský, who was banished and imprisoned by the Austrians, because his ideas about truth and law were too dangerous. The similarity of both figures was striking. Thus the domestic, Czechoslovak legend of Václav Havel was born.

Soon, however, it was outgrown by the international legend. In search for trans-border allies, the Workers Defense Committee (KOR) of Poland would seek to establish contacts with the Charter. Havel was symbolically put on the editorial board of the samizdat opinion periodical “Krytyka,” although back then he was still nearly anonymous for the Poles (his name – sometimes misspelled). The famous meeting of KOR and Charter representatives on a mountain trail at the Czechoslovak-Polish border in 1978 was a symbolic breakthrough. Rumor has it that Adam Michnik talked Havel into writing an essay, one that would later become internationally acclaimed as “The Power of the Powerless.” It is difficult to judge if that is true. If it is then (in no attempt to reduce the importance of his own writing), this would be Michnik’s greatest contribution to universal anti-totalitarian thought. For Havel, unlike Michnik or Jacek Kuroń, was always able to pinpoint a universal truth in an individual experience. Though he wrote about Czechoslovakia, he never wrote solely for Czechoslovakia. Perhaps it was his fantastic sense of drama that enabled him to see every issue, every conflict, and every choice from many angles. And most importantly – to find a way to very different audiences. “The Dissident” in Havel’s writing becomes a dramatis persona, which the reader observes and gets to understand. In the “Power of the Powerless” he was able to grasp the tragic condition of post totalitarian life, seemingly untranslatable for the Westerners, in the quasi-comic character of the greengrocer. In the same manner, he managed to build an intellectual bridge between Eastern European opposition and the Western peace movement in the extremely important, but somewhat forgotten essay “Anatomy of a Reticence.”

While his essays benefited from an uncommon profoundness because of their dramatization, Havel’s plays became more political, and thus unfortunately flatter. Timothy Garton Ash, the most important constructor of the Czechoslovak dissident-playwright international legend, made a note of that already in the mid-80s. It was the essays, as well as the incredible, thrilling and multidimensional collection of prison letters to his first wife, Olga, that secured a place for Havel in the global intellectual pantheon.

When in November of 1989 the citizens of Prague took to the streets to chant down the dictatorship, to jingle it down with thousands of key-rings, Havel naturally appeared at the head of the movement (the Civic Forum). And when the time came to chant for a new leader to the Prague Castle, the hundred-thousand-strong crowd in unison chose the playwright, whose plays were not seen in Czechoslovakia for twenty years, whose name was supposed to be erased from popular consciousness. “Havel to the Castle – Havel na Hrad!”

This is where a new chapter of the fairy tale begins, about the everyman Vašek, who became king (partly) against his will. Although already in the 1980s he was a western media darling, after he took office a true “Havelmania” erupted. Havel enchanted the world, led Czechoslovakia (later only the Czech Republic) and the whole region “back to Europe,” and singlehandedly built the image of stability and political culture of Central Europe (a concept that was close to his heart). Let us be frank. The fact that three Central European states joined NATO in 1999 and that the European Union let eight formerly communist countries join in 2004 was partly his accomplishment. This first political move, however, became something that many fellow-dissidents could not forgive him. When he assumed office, he wanted to play according to dissident rules, conduct diplomacy based on human rights, morality and truth. The turning point was probably the Bosnian War and the growing domestic tension in his homeland, inevitably sliding towards a divorce (back then it was not yet certain how “velvet” it would be). Havel bet on security, he bet on America. He believed that for certain higher values, such as freedom and human rights, it is worth to fight for – even armed. That is why he supported the bombing of Serbia, the war in Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. It would not be wise, however, to hold this against him. A majority of the former Eastern European oppositionists trotted down that path. But outside the mainstream, the anger and disappointment grew.

As a president, he never ceased being a dissident and an intellectual. He didn’t feel well in a world, where the motto “truth shall prevail” was at times only a sticker on a jar of filth. He quickly made enemies at home, in the Czech Republic. The greatest was probably the current president Klaus, whose entire political career is basically cast around the struggle with Havel and his ghost. Watching the thousands of mourners on Venceslas Square, the thousands of mourners accompanying Havel’s coffin back to the Castle, I guess now his ghost will be more powerful than ever. Even despite the fact that since he left office his political power declined further and further (in 2010 he gave a moral blessing of publicity to the Green Party, which didn’t even make it past the electoral threshold to parliament).

His 75^th birthday in October this year was a kind of festival of nastiness big and small. Many of them even below the region’s press culture average. The most pathetic of titles to my taste was “75 women for the 75^th anniversary”. Havel the womanizer. A very often heard allegation, all the more bizarre that we are talking of a not very prude country. The other allegation was that he drank too much – and that he didn’t treat himself seriously enough. Instead of a king, an artist on the throne – Rex Bohemiae in both meanings. Not a philosopher, not yet a jester – a writer.

Where did this popular antipathy come from? It is easiest to blame the “dissident complex.” Only a few hundred people signed the Charter 77. A few more took part actively in various forms of opposition, which in Czechoslovakia was much riskier than in the neighboring Poland. The dissidents’ legend, with their undeniable civil (and human) courage and a demanding, grandiose, almost highfalutin rhetoric of “living in truth” (Havel and Václav Benda built it on the foundation of the philosophy of Patočka, the Charter’s intellectual godfather) – all this was tiresome and even irritating for the “silent majority.” The antipathy was enhanced by the almost limitless international praise for the president, speaking in his serious, low voice with a characteristic “ahr.” And so the attacks were sometimes cruel and pathetic. “He plays such a smartass, and he cheated on his wife” or “just buried the first one, and now he gets another, younger one.”

All this is history now. Havel described a pessimistic vision of his own descent into oblivion in his last play – “Leaving.” Reality will be, however, different from the theater, because Havel was a man of a totally different format than the self-ironically diminished Chancellor Rieger. With the passing of Václav Havel closes an extraordinarily important chapter (or better – act) in the history or Central Europe. A “Dissident” with a capital “D” – a man for whose sake that word itself changed its meaning – is leaving the stage. His essays, although written under the post-totalitarian condition, show the way for individual’s actions in the face of the state and any other dehumanized system, in relation to certain immovable moral truths. A standing ovation, though with a heavy heart. The curtain falls.

The text first appeared in the Polish internet weekly  Kultura Liberalna on Monday, December 19^th.