All of this, however, is not the main reason why the 'dissident movements' support the principle of legality. That reason lies deeper, in the innermost structure of the 'dissident' attitude. This attitude is and must be fundamentally hostile towards the notion of violent change -- simply because it places its faith in violence. (Generally, the 'dissident' attitude can only accept violence as a necessary evil in extreme situations, when direct violence can only be met with violence and where remaining passive would in effect mean supporting violence: let us recall, for example, that the blindness of European pacifism, was one of the factors that prepared the ground for the Second World War.) As I have already mentioned, 'dissidents' tend to be sceptical about political thought based on faith that profound social changes can only be achieved by bringing about (regardless of the method) changes in the system or in government or in the government, and the belief that such changes -- because they are considered 'fundamental' - justify the sacrifice of 'less fundamental' -- justify the sacrifice of 'less fundamental' things, in other words, human lives. Respect for a theoretical here outweighs respect for human life. Yet this is precisely what threatens to enslave humanity all over again.
'Dissident movements', as I have tried to indicate, share exactly the opposite view. They understand systemic change as something superficial, something secondary, something that in itself can guarantee nothing. Thus an attitude that turns away from abstract political visions of the future towards concrete human beings and ways of defending them effectively in the here and now is quite naturally accompanied by an intensified antipathy to all forms of violence carried out in the name of a 'better future', and by a profound belief that a future secure by violence might actually be worse that what exists now; in other words, the future would be fatally stigmatized by the very means used to secure it. At the same time, this attitude is not to be confused for political conservatism or political moderation. The 'dissident movements' do not shy away from the idea of violent political overthrow because the idea seems to radical, but because it does not seem radical enough. For them, the problem lies far to deep to be settled through mere systemic changes, either governmental or technological. Some people, faithful to the classical Marxist doctrines of the nineteenth century, understand our system as the hegemony of an exploiting class over an exploited class and, operating from the postulate that exploiters never surrender their power voluntarily, they see the only solution in a revolution to sweep away the exploiters. Naturally, they regard such things as the struggle for human rights as something hopefully legalistic, illusory, opportunistic and ultimately misleading because it makes the doubtful assumption that you can negotiate in good faith with your exploiters on the basis of a false legality. The problem is that they are unable to find anyone determined enough to carry out this revolution, with the result that they become bitter, skeptical, passive, and ultimately apathetic, in other words, they end up precisely where they system wants them to be. This is one example of how far one can be mislead by mechanically applying, in post-totalitarian circumstances, ideological models from another world and another time.
Havel wrote this in 1986. In 2003, Havel supported the US war on Iraq. He is now involved with the Committe on the Present Danger.
What happened?
