At peace with ourselves

Photo: Dipsey (CC) commons.wikimedia.org

ŁUKASZ GRZESICZAK: Have you heard this joke? Back in the 1970s a Polish and a Czech dog meet at the green border… 

MARTIN PALOUŠ: I don’t think I have. Carry on please.

The Polish dog is on the way to Czechoslovakia while a Czech one is going to Poland. “Why are you going to Czechia?” asks the Czech dog. “To eat to the fullest at last. What about you?” the Polish dog asks. The Czech dog replies: “So that I can bark as loud as I want to.”

This joke seems very real to me as it describes not only the reality of the 1970s but the whole period of the totalitarian communist regime. Poland enjoyed more freedom than Czechoslovakia, but our economic situation was better than in Poland.

One should be aware of that when comparing the Polish and Czech opposition.

Definitely so. After the invasion of the Warsaw Pact military forces on Czechoslovakia in 1968 the time came for “normalisation”. The regime tried to suppress all critical voices and punish the Czechoslovak communists for participating in “the revolutionary rebellion”, as the Prague Spring was later named. The Soviet troops stayed in Czechoslovakia and the atmosphere worsened as people lost hope for change. The communist regime used various methods to manipulate the public and force people into suppression. There were three basic reactions to that situation.

The first one was migration. At that time more than 100,000 people left Czechoslovakia, among them was Milan Kundera (a Czech-born writer who immigrated to France. He is known for such works as The Unbearable Lightness of Being as well as the essay “The Tragedy of Central Europe” – editor’s note). Another way was to adapt to the new situation and here the regime was happy to make concessions. Charter 77 was the third alternative. It was attractive for those who decided to stay in Czechoslovakia but wanted some freedom. This situation was perfectly described by Václav Havel in A Letter to Gustav Husák from 1975. He argued there that people cannot be manipulated for long and eventually lies will come to light.

Why was the Charter established only in 1977?

The upheaval began in 1975 and since that time the atmosphere of resistance gained speed. It was triggered by the trial of a rock band called the Plastic People of the Universe which took place a year later and was supported by a large number of people, including those who were no great fans of this type of artistic expression. It was believed the musicians would go to prison for many years but, thanks to many dedicated individuals, it never happened. The trial of the Plastics was an attack on free culture; that’s why people supported them. A number of protest organisers, including Havel, said this was an impulse that simply had to be put to use.

Why did you get involved in Charter 77? You were one of its first signatories.

I found myself there thanks to my friendship with independent Christian philosophers. I reached out to Professor Jan Patočki who was one of the first spokespeople of the Charter. I did not hesitate at all. I was 27 then and had a feeling I had nothing to lose. Anyway, I did not want to suppress myself to “normalisation”. I was not a member of any communist youth organisation and was clear about the possibility of having a successful career. I simply signed the Charter and waited to see what would happen next.

Once you signed the declaration of Charter 77 you got involved in the Czech opposition movement. Is this true?

I would not use this phrasing. I studied biology, philosophy and then sociology. In the 1970s I was close to a circle of independent Christian philosophers. My signature under the Charter put me into conflict with the system. I ended up in the same place as all of us: sometimes in prison, sometimes unemployed, sometimes working in a boiler room. We had no choice but to accept the situation as it was.

How is it possible that the Charter was signed by so many people from so many groups? On face value those people and environments had very little in common.

This experience might be inspiring today. If people of different views many years ago had not been talking to each other, as often happens nowadays, the Charter would have never come to be. The most successful collector of signatures was Zdeněk Mlynář, a communist party activist and later one of the leaders of the Prague Spring. I believe he might have collected 110 of 242 signatures. It does not obviously mean that reformed communists were behind the Charter. A group of Christians was strong too, as Catholics and Protestants had their own religious reasons to participate. Apart from that, there were also liberal intellectuals and people of various professions. For the whole time that the Charter society was functioning, diversity was always kept. Every year new spokesmen were appointed who, as a rule, presented different views. We can obviously analyse why the document was signed by this individual or another. Every one of us had a different story and our own reasons, but we were united by one thing.

Which was?

It was the Socratic belief that one has to live in harmony with oneself. The belief that one should not care for fame, power or money, but something else. Some, including myself, called it a soul; others described it as honesty, community spirit or conscience. Soon there were obviously questions like: what’s next out for the Charter? What will it be now? At that time the notion of “parallel polis” emerged and it was formulated by Václav Benda, an important Czech and Catholic intellectual. Parallel polis was supposed to be the social activity parallel to government activity. The activity of the Charter was widening. There was samizdat, and information flow was functioning. We sympathised with those in need of help, especially those who needed legal and financial aid when clashing with the machinery of the totalitarian regime. At that time in Poland, the Workers’ Defence Committee was already in place and we looked for inspiration there. I remember that in 1978, in the Karkonosze Mountains, we met with our Polish friends.

Who participated in organising this meeting from Czechoslovakia?

Jaroslav Šabata and Petr Uhl were among those who were involved in this meeting. I cannot recall the role of Havel. Talking to the Poles was very important for us as we spoke not only about organisational matters but discussed some general issues as well. We knew that citizens across the whole of Central and Eastern Europe were in the same boat. Obviously, we were also aware that, a bit like in the dog joke you said at the beginning of the interview, the Poles were in a slightly different situation. In Czechoslovakia we knew Polish culture and philosophy but there is nothing more significant than direct experience, having an actual meeting. It is hard to say to what degree the common experiences of Polish and Czech opposition activists had on disarming the communist system. Yet, for us it was probably the most significant friendship.

What role did Havel play in the Charter community? 

In 1975 Václav Havel, as the author of A Letter to Gustáv Husák, was already an important voice of our community. Later he became the spokesman of Charter 77. Being a well-known playwright and having strong writing skills he was able to explain much better than others what it was that we wanted and what our goals were. However, at that moment nobody could have guessed that he would be the leader of the Velvet Revolution, and Havel himself never regarded himself as the boss. He used to say that he was only writing on his own behalf and never forced anyone to put their signature underneath his words.   

Do you think the Charter is today something more than merely a “museum exhibit”?

The work of Charter 77 obviously came to an end and it cannot be revived. It would not make any sense. However, its 40th anniversary is a good time to revisit this legacy: People should still defend the rights of others and they should ask questions related to human rights. They should keep reminding others that it is possible to reach an agreement across different environments that represent different beliefs.

Currently in Poland politicians often play the Lech Wałęsa card seeking to rewrite the history of the Solidarity movement. Is the situation similar to the Czech Republic?

I understand that. I also understand that our memory is playing tricks on us and with time everyone remembers things differently and that is why some events might be interpreted as positive by some people but negative by others. Sometimes, however, it is complete nonsense and that should be stopped. We opened the archives. In the Czech Republic the discussion on Charter 77 is already over, and if I remember correctly, there were no dramatic fabrications. In the case of Charter 77 critical voices are rarely heard. There are obviously constant accusations that the communists were behind it, but that is simply a lie.

A dispute can always bring about some explanations and clear the air. Speaking about the past makes sense as it can help us understand both the present and the future. A man like me does not want to be treated only as a veteran that meets his peers to catch up on their youth and heroic years. The Charter 77 is one of the very few things that we are positively inclined to. It makes us proud.

Translated by Justyna Chada

The author would like to thank the Villa Decius Association for inviting Martin Palouš to Kraków which helped make this interview possible.

Martin Palouš is a Czech philosopher, a diplomat and a lecturer. Currently he is the president of the Václav Havel Library Foundation in New York. He was one of the first signatories of Charter 77 and in 1986 he was its spokesman.

Łukasz Grzesiczak is a Polish cultural journalist who covers Czech and Slovak issues. He is the editor in chief of the online portal Novinka.pl.

communist dissidents, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Polish-Czech relations