Reading Václav Havel’s "The Power of the Powerless"
Part One: Havel on the hidden roots of our modern identity crisis.
“The Power of the Powerless,” an influential essay by Václav Havel — a playwright, dissident, and later the first president of the Czech Republic — was published in 1978 in the midst of the Cold War.
At this point in history, Eastern Europe was deeply entrenched in a particular shape of political reality: gripped by the “post-totalitarian” order (a key idea in Havel’s essay).
Written as a response to the oppressive political conditions under Communist rule, especially in then-Czechoslovakia, Havel’s essay directly addressed ordinary citizens across Eastern Europe. It revealed the existential struggles faced by people on a daily basis, as well as the pervasive state-imposed ideology, bureaucratic control, and manufactured lies that permeated the entire society. Beyond its immediate historical circumstances, the essay offers timeless insights into issues of meaning, identity, and moral integrity.
In this sense, regardless of our political and social environment, Havel’s exploration prompts profound reflection on our own social conditions and the state of being.
Living in what some now call the “post-truth” era, characterized by disinformation and different versions of demoralization, we see alarming parallels between the consumer-oriented, industrialized society (with a post-totalitarian coat) described by Havel and our modern context.
The post-totalitarian system, as dissected by Havel, emerges not merely as a historical phenomenon confined to the circumstances of Eastern Europe but as a compelling metaphor for the subtle, pervasive forms of alienation, conformity, and existential crises still haunting contemporary societies.
To begin with, Havel pierces right into the heart of the issue at hand: the nature of the “post-totalitarian” system. The term “post-totalitarian” refers to the reality that there was a continuity from the same communist totalitarian regime, but it developed new characteristics over time in response to changing social circumstances.
Through his analysis, Havel continually reminds us how the post-totalitarian regime operated in a manner that distinguished itself from our understanding of traditional autocracy. This difference lies at the heart of grasping how power in this new system perpetuates itself while giving rise to an existential crisis at all levels of society.
From guns to a new form of control
In the opening pages, Havel points out a few key differences between a classical dictatorship and the post-totalitarian system.
The first one captures the particular historical circumstances faced by his own country and Eastern Europe. The political system in Czechoslovakia was an extension of the gigantic power bloc of the Soviet Union. In terms of operation, Moscow established a network of control and manipulation that allowed it to penetrate its satellite states. The power and system of control of the superpower center, in most normal conditions, could ensure that no single smaller state could challenge its grip.
In contrast, the traditional notion of dictatorship is that it is usually a temporary phenomenon. A small group can seize power by force and violence, rule with the back of raw power and intimidation, and subjugate an entire society. This temporariness of a classical dictatorship indicates that it can be theoretically and practically overthrown as long as a more powerful and capable group rises to replace it.
The inherently brittle nature of classical dictatorship, stemming from the logic of violence, is closely tied to its lack of historical foundations. In other words, its rise to power can be considered a fortuitous event in a certain historical period, as a result of various social factors in play. Yet, the makeup of the post-totalitarian system was grounded in history, in the proletarian and socialist movements of the 19th century.
This general sense of historicity, which allowed the builders of the system to extract a sort of historical certainty to legitimize their rule, makes the post-totalitarian system different from a traditional autocracy. And more importantly, because of this connection with history, the new system can base itself on a comprehensive ideology to rationalize, justify, and defend its power foundation and ultimately its existence.
Another aspect of the post-totalitarian system lies in its unprecedented capabilities to establish and shape the entire power structure, mechanisms of control, and complex networks for social monitoring.
A defining feature of this system, designed and imposed by the Soviet Union, is the state’s monopoly on the means of production, which enables the system to continuously invest and upgrade its capacity to exert power and surveillance over society.
In a traditional autocracy, the exercise of power necessarily involves some degree of improvisation, as it can be expected that crises or accidents may disrupt the normal functioning of the system, prompting arbitrary and unconstrained political actions from the ruling group.
Consequently, some opposition forces (Havel’s explanation of opposition in the post-totalitarian system is different from that in the classical dictatorship) could seize upon the political opportunity to challenge the existing political establishment. Yet, such a kind of power play as confrontation between the government and the opposition is only possible in an autocratic regime in the traditional sense.
Lastly, Havel points out a crucial point: even in the context of the Cold War, the Soviet bloc remained part of the global order.1 This means that the post-totalitarian societies in Eastern Europe, through the process of coexistence, have absorbed many of the prevailing values and trends in the West.
In essence, on an existential level, the system in Czechoslovakia and other countries within the Soviet bloc is another form of the consumer and industrial society. This point has consequential implications for his analysis in the latter part of the essay, as well as lessons for us living in the modern age.
Ideology as the gloves of power
What is the foundation of this post-totalitarian system, if it differs from traditional autocracy that heavily relies on sheer force?
From Havel’s perspective, this new political system does not necessarily negate the function of violence, but it essentially relies on something more subtle, penetrative, pervasive, and effective. That something is ideology.
Different from a general and superficial understanding of ideology as a way to interpret the world, to rationalize a particular course of action, Havel defines ideology as a surgical tool of the post-totalitarian order.
In this new system, ideology serves as a crucial instrument of communication, a transmission belt, and an invisible bridge between the people and the regime.2 In other words, ideology provides a convenient channel for the people and the regime to communicate with each other.
For the people living in this society, who have lost a sense of meaning and purpose while experiencing an existential crisis, ideology offers a ready answer and a consolation for a wandering soul. All one needs to do is delegate conscience, reason, and responsibility to such a higher authority embodied by the state and the all-powerful political party.
In essence, ideology provides a practical excuse for a person to relate to the outside world while allowing the same person to conceal their actual actions with a legitimate and lofty explanation.
This is fundamentally how this post-totalitarian order differs from traditional autocracy: it absorbs and shapes the hearts and modes of action of ordinary people as a secularized religion. It makes people believe that the aim of the regime is aligned with their lives.
Since the regime employs ideology to construct a theoretical framework for how one should relate to and interact with the world, it inevitably recreates reality in accordance with its interests, agenda, and objectives.
To put it more plainly, when the official ideology primarily serves the ultimate goals of the regime, it invariably runs counter to the genuine interests and aims of the people under its manipulation and control.
To facilitate such a process — making people subject themselves to the world of appearances, hypnotizing them into believing that a pseudo-reality is reality itself — the system must do everything possible to ensure that political lies and hypocrisy appear airtight and truthful. So Havel described,
…government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his ultimate liberation…the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become the highest form of democracy…Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing.3
The greengrocer’s window slogan
The question is, do people living in this society really believe the substance of the official ideology?
Not necessarily. They don’t need to, but they will have to tolerate its pervasive influence.
On an existential level, they are forced to live with the lie disseminated by ideological propaganda. And for this reason, people unconsciously “confirm the system, fulfill the system, make the system, are the system.”4
Havel used a greengrocer’s example to illustrate how the post-totalitarian system enrolls everyone. The greengrocer places a slogan on his window: “Workers of the world, unite!” Does the greengrocer truly believe this statement? If not, why would he do it?
This is where the genius of the system lies: the greengrocer, as well as everyone else, is both a victim and an instrument of the post-totalitarian control.5 In essence, the individual no longer has the agency and freedom to shape his or her own existence, as the state and its tentacles are everywhere.
It forces everyone to accept the world of appearances, to be part of the ritual performances of the system, to voluntarily submit themselves to the grand narratives manufactured by the state, to contribute to the automatism of the system’s function, and to display loyalty toward the system publicly.
For everyone has something to lose if they break the rules of the game. Whether a factory worker, an office employee, a teacher, a doctor, or a technician, they contribute to the panorama of everyday life in this post-totalitarian society through their own versions of conformity and tacit obedience, being compelled by the system while simultaneously re-creating it.
Here lies the crux of understanding the difference between the post-totalitarian system and the classical dictatorship: the line between the ruled and the ruling class has been blurred. For the two groups have been coerced to forge a symbiotic relationship in the form of both a supporter and a victim of the system of control.
As a result, an existential crisis arises, manifested in alienated humanity, widespread demoralization in society, and a warped conception of identity, as somehow a lasting sting of poison has paralyzed us: we feel powerless and hopeless.
In this sense, Havel’s words become a reminder, “Is not the grayness and the emptiness of life in the post-totalitarian system only an inflated caricature of modern life in general? And do we not in fact stand as a kind of warning to the West, revealing to its own latent tendencies?”6
The greengrocer’s simple act, posting an empty slogan, embodies the paradox of being both a victim and a supporter within the post-totalitarian system. At the same time, it is also exactly the point of breakthrough that challenges the system.
In Part Two, we’ll delve deeper into Havel’s proposed solution: “living in truth.” We will explore why the real confrontation between the post-totalitarian order and the individual takes place on an existential and spiritual level, affecting the deepest aspects of human consciousness and conscience.
Next in this series:
Václav Havel, Open Letters: Selected Writings 1965–1990, edited by Paul Wilson (New York: Vintage Books, 1992), 127-131.
Ibid., 132-136.
Ibid., 135-136.
Ibid., 136.
Ibid., 143.
Ibid., 145.
That's why it becomes even so much more important for us individuals to pause, slow down, self reflect on our values. To ask ourselves what it is that we truly want, and what it means to stay true to ourselves. Essentially becoming even more intentional in carving out time and space for self discovery - just as your writings have always reminded us.