Parallel Polis

Parallel Polis

Václav Benda


First and foremost, I believe that the question of “how and what next”—including the hesitations, depressions, and conflicts it provokes—was already fully raised in the initial declaration of Charter 77. By this, I mean, among other things, that all the vicissitudes of the past 16 months, whether concerning external relations or the behavior of individuals, groups, and currents “within” the Charter, have contributed only marginally to our current uncertainty (except for its timing). I will now attempt to explain what I see as the fundamental cause of this uncertainty.

Charter 77 has achieved at least two remarkable successes: it has encompassed an incredibly wide range of political opinions and civic mentalities, and it has essentially managed to remain within the bounds of legality. These achievements came at the cost of placing the Charter, from the outset, in a somewhat schizophrenic situation. On one hand, we all—despite deep differences in the intensity of our criticism and even deeper differences in our visions of possible remedies—agree on a very grim assessment of the system and the functioning of the current political power. On the other hand, we act as if we do not recognize that the political power’s claims of good intentions and the legal provisions that seemingly limit its totalitarian nature are mere propaganda. This “taking at face value” is, in itself, a very clever maneuver. However, with all due respect to its ingenuity, this approach cannot achieve a mobilizing effect or defend against falsehood unless it bridges the gap between these two positions.

Charter 77 managed to temporarily—but very effectively—overcome this duality by strongly emphasizing ethical aspects and prioritizing a moral stance over a political one. This initial solution has failed, and today the original dilemma confronts us even more painfully. The reasons for this failure are roughly as follows:
  1. The death of Professor Patočka, who was undoubtedly the spiritus movens (moving spirit) of this solution.

  2. The political power’s realization that its frenzied campaign had transformed a political problem into a moral one, inadvertently adopting our weapons. From that moment, a silence has surrounded the Charter, and the authorities have limited themselves to strangling it in the shadows (the official term is “trimming the edges”).

  3. The moral stance was postulated abstractly, without defining any positive content or direction for action. An abstract moral stance is merely a gesture, which, while potentially highly effective, is limited to a few weeks or months. As evidence, I can point to a phenomenon you have likely encountered, common among Charter signatories: the transition from an almost ecstatic sense of liberation caused by signing the Charter to gradual disillusionment and deep skepticism.
I do not underestimate the specific contributions of the first two reasons, but I consider the third reason to be decisive and sufficient in itself. Based on this diagnosis, I propose a strategy to gradually lead us out of the current dead end. I have summarized this strategy in two slogans, which I will elaborate and comment on shortly:
  • Continue to draw on the moral commitment and mission as the unifying factor and source of dynamism.
  • Give this dynamism a field of action and a certain positive perspective by creating a parallel polis.
I. Moral Commitment as the Foundation

The moral legitimacy and obligation of citizens to participate in addressing public affairs (i.e., political matters in the broadest sense) are beyond doubt. From the very beginning, the Charter derived its public mandate from this source, which enabled it to overcome the aforementioned duality and guaranteed unity, tolerant cooperation, and, to some extent, perseverance. I see no other formula that could successfully fulfill all these functions. Moreover, this moral stance is so closely associated with the Charter in the eyes of the public and most of its signatories that any alternative formula could hardly claim continuity. The question is not whether to base our actions on the moral aspect, but how to make it inspiring and mobilizing again and ensure its lasting impact—that is, what specific efforts or “positive program” can draw energy from it in the future.If I have correctly understood what is meant by the labels “radical” and “retardant” concepts, I cannot consider either of them a promising answer to these questions. A citizen may certainly find moral obligation in entering into conflict with a flawed political power and seeking its destruction. However, under the given circumstances, such an obligation is so self-destructive that it cannot claim public recognition in any reasonable ethical system. Similarly, a citizen may feel morally compelled to realistically assess the situation and seek partial remedies through compromises and reforms. However, given the ethical parameters of the current political power, such actions cannot rely on their moral motives being widely recognized or serving as a moral appeal.

II. The Parallel Polis

I propose a third path to address the state of public affairs. Most structures related to public life (i.e., political life) function either entirely inadequately or even harmfully. Therefore, I suggest we unite in the effort to gradually create parallel structures capable of at least partially fulfilling the missing, publicly beneficial, and necessary functions. Where possible, existing structures should be utilized and “humanized.” This plan to some extent meets the demands of both “reformists” and “radicals.” It does not necessarily lead to direct conflict with the political power, yet it is not burdened by illusions of resolving the situation through “cosmetic adjustments.” The question of the system’s viability remains open: it is certain that even partial success would subject official structures to pressure, under which they would either collapse or be usefully reformed (depending on whether we accept the radicals’ or reformists’ diagnosis).This plan is likely unacceptable to both wings as “enlightenment-driven” and politically naive. But we are all together in the Charter, which is undeniably a politically naive endeavor—as is any attempt to derive politics from a moral foundation. In fact, my proposal directly stems from the Charter’s current form, which owes its existence to the defense of a parallel structure (the second culture) and which largely engages in a “humanizing” reinterpretation of the existing official structure (the legal system). To official politicians, I would like to point out that, after all, they have brought the community to its current state: it would therefore be fitting for them to revise either their political convictions or their views on what is and is not politically naive—tertium non datur.This plan may be beyond our strength, but it is realistic in the sense that it builds on proven realities. I will provide two striking and entirely opposing examples. The parallel cultural structure is today an undeniable and significantly positive factor, dominating in some areas (literature, and to some extent popular music and visual arts) over the lifeless official structures. Equally undeniable (and negative, though more functional and humane) is the parallel economy, based on a system of theft, corruption, and favoritism, which, beneath the glossy surface of the official economy, effectively manages most consumer and industrial-commercial relations.

Here, in (randomly ordered) points, are the specifics of my plan:

1) This point is essentially a preamble to all others. Our legal system is effectively one of the worst in the world, designed solely for propaganda purposes and thus extraordinarily vague, with no guarantees. At the same time, it allows for a very liberal interpretation for the same reason. This discrepancy must be systematically exploited (while preparing for the fact that it can be used against us at any time). The transition from a totalitarian to a liberal system—i.e., in this sphere, from the principle of “everything is forbidden unless expressly permitted” to “everything is permitted unless expressly forbidden”—can only be enforced by constantly testing the boundaries of what is allowed and energetically occupying any gained positions.

2) The second culture is currently the most developed and dynamic parallel structure. It should serve as a model for other spheres and must be supported in its development, especially in neglected areas (literary criticism, cultural journalism, theater, film).

3) The parallel structure of education and academic life already has some tradition but has been stagnating in recent years. I consider the organization of parallel education to be a task of utmost importance, both for personal reasons (if the secret police know my 1- to 9-year-old children by name, I cannot harbor illusions about their official educational opportunities) and for general reasons (the underground, the largest component of the Charter, has managed to politicize itself and overcome its sectarianism, but the sustainability of this achievement likely depends on our “enlightenment” efforts in these circles). In this sphere, a certain generosity and a “maximalist” program are appropriate.

4) In its early days, the Charter created a parallel information system that was functional, responsive, and reached at least tens of thousands of people. The gradual degeneration of this system (unfortunately occurring faster than can be justified by the fading of initial excitement) is one of the Charter’s greatest failures and most critical symptoms. It can be estimated that in the early period, significant Charter materials reached tens to hundreds of thousands of people through direct internal distribution (excluding foreign radio broadcasts). Recently, this number has dropped to hundreds, or at best thousands, of citizens. The content and form of the information will, of course, be crucial, which I will address in other points. Here, I offer a few technical principles that, in my opinion, could help remedy the situation:
  • Greater attention must be paid to information dissemination, and this task should be as respected as the preparation of materials.
  • Anyone complaining about insufficient information should feel automatically obligated to effectively share the information they receive.
  • The information network must be used evenly. Long silences are even more dangerous than overloading, as they lead to loss of interest and the breakdown of established connections.
  • Especially near the source, the principle that effectiveness outweighs social courtesy must be upheld, prioritizing information distribution to places where further dissemination is guaranteed. It’s better for a “prominent” person to receive information second-hand than for it to get stuck in a narrow circle.
  • It is urgently necessary to improve the flow of information to non-Prague groups. Even more urgent is for these groups to establish mutual connections and create autonomous information systems.
  • The ability to type is the most critical criterion for evaluating information recipients.
  • In the long term, we cannot avoid using more efficient reproduction methods than typewriters. A thorough legal analysis of this issue must be prepared immediately, alongside exploring material support for undoubtedly legal but costly techniques (Xerox, photocopies).
5) I cannot fully anticipate the scope of tasks we may face in the realm of a parallel economy; current possibilities are limited, but their use is urgently needed. The political power considers this area a decisive tool for arbitrarily controlling citizens and regulates it most strictly. We must rely on accounting of utmost trust (anything else exceeds the bounds of legality) and broadly develop charitable and supportive activities. The community itself should be based on a system of mutual responsibility, not only moral but also material. The political power clearly aims to break the Charter’s initiative by subjecting its participants to unbearable economic pressure (while simultaneously conducting a propaganda campaign about their lavish and idle lives). Demonstrating the morality and selflessness of our intentions by ostentatiously ignoring material factors is, under these circumstances, as naive and dangerous as extensively informing the secret police about one’s life because it is deemed honest and legal (in both cases, one not only surrenders to the opponent but also accepts their false and usurped moral claim). Instead, we must counter this pressure by consistently utilizing and even demanding international solidarity: from individual and organizational support to the far more promising form of cultural and academic cooperation, ensuring relative independence from official economic structures (fees for artistic works and academic publications, scholarships, etc.).

6) We must create the groundwork for the emergence of parallel political (in the narrower sense) structures and support their development. This includes a wide range of tasks, from fostering civic awareness and responsibility to creating conditions for political discussion and the formulation of theoretical opinions, to supporting specific political currents and groups. In the area of parallel foreign policy, my proposal is based on the premise that internationalizing any issue may not always help but certainly does no harm. Some proposed parallel structures (e.g. education, economy) cannot function, at least initially, without effective foreign support. International publicity is a critical safeguard against the political power’s arbitrariness and, for most citizens, the main source of information (foreign radio and television). However, mutual cooperation with related movements within the Eastern Bloc is crucial—over past decades, every Eastern Bloc nation has paid a heavy price for the lack of such coordination. Currently, our publicity is negligible, and our cooperation with parallel movements within the bloc has always been woefully inadequate. A team must be immediately formed to investigate the causes of this situation and propose concrete measures for improvement.I have undoubtedly overlooked many parallel structures that are equally urgent. These structures will be connected to Charter 77 to varying degrees (I try to reflect my view on this through the length of individual points). Some will be integral to the Charter, others it will midwife and nurture, and still others it will primarily provide with a guarantee of legality. The parallel structures created in this way will surely transcend the Charter’s framework in various areas and, sooner or later, must gain autonomous existence—not only because they do not “fit” within the Charter’s current form and mission but mainly because otherwise, we would not be building a parallel polis but a ghetto. Nevertheless, the Charter should not fundamentally separate or distance itself from these initiatives: such a step would shift it from a civic initiative to a mere observer, stripping it of much of its moral charge. In the future, we must expect to agree more on the common foundation of our efforts than on their external boundaries. After all, as a civic initiative, the Charter naturally flows into other initiatives, and given its nature as a free association, it lacks the means to rigidly define its boundaries. In this regard, the Charter was, is, and will be based solely on—ever-renewed—trust that individual groups of signatories, in mutual responsibility and understanding, will avoid actions that would be fundamentally unacceptable to others or otherwise disrupt the original unity and solidarity.However, Charter 77 must, of course, continue to fulfill its core mission (beyond the “legislative” issues mentioned in point a): monitoring serious human rights violations, drawing attention to them, and proposing remedies. This primarily means continuing to produce fundamental documents. Substantive documents should appear at most every two months to maintain continuity. The circle of signatories and non-signatories actively involved in preparing and creating documents must be significantly expanded—in this regard, I warmly welcome the proposal for publicly announcing the topics being worked on and the teams responsible for their drafting. On the other hand, the approach to addressing issues (and this aspect will become more pronounced the more specific the area) and the proposed solutions will inevitably reflect the personal opinions and attitudes of the authors, which will naturally differ from others. It is in our collective interest to accept this fact rather than produce documents that, in a misguided pursuit of objectivity and tolerance (see my earlier polemic), resemble empty diplomatic protocols due to their duality and vacuity.

I now move to requirements that partly relate to my plan. I believe documents should not only be addressed to authorities but also, and even primarily, to all our fellow citizens. This places certain demands on them: they should address truly pressing general issues, should not be excessively long (otherwise, they won’t reach most recipients—though appropriateness depends on the issue’s gravity), and should be sufficiently clear to the lay public (i.e., avoid legal or other specialist jargon). If we aim to counter the general sense of futility and hopelessness rather than contribute to it, we must not overlook the questionable results of attempts at dialogue with the political power and learn from them. This means going further; nothing prevents us from including in our documents, alongside or even instead of institutional reform proposals, suggestions for “parallel” civic activities to improve the situation. If document preparation ceases to be an end in itself and is seen as part of a broader effort to investigate the causes of the dire state and advocate for its improvement, Charter 77 will not risk becoming a mere producer of “rustling papers.” Such an approach, where documentation merges with uncovering various possibilities for improvement and encouraging their use, would represent the most natural transition to the plan proposed here for building a parallel polis.

May 17, 1978
Editor’s note: This text circulated in samizdat, later included in the collection On Freedom and Power, also under the title “For the Spokespersons and Signatories of Charter 77.” We reproduce the text in full, except for a note on an issue now considered marginal.
Back to blog