# Parallel Polis Above all, I think that the problem of how and what to do next — including the embarrassments, depressions, and conflicts it provokes — was raised in its full scope already by the founding declaration. I mean by this, among other things, that all the vicissitudes of the past 16 months, whether they concern external relations or the behavior of individuals, groups, and currents "inside" Charter 77, have contributed to our present uncertainty (except as to its timing, only quite marginally: I shall immediately attempt to explain what I see as the fundamental cause of this uncertainty). Charter 77 has recorded at least two remarkable achievements: it has encompassed an incredibly wide spectrum of political opinions and civic mentalities, and it has managed essentially to remain on the ground of legality. It has paid for these results by finding itself, from the outset, to a considerable extent in a schizophrenic situation. On one hand, apparently all of us — despite deep differences in the radicalness of criticism and despite other deep differences in conceptions of possible remedy — agree on a very gloomy assessment of the system and of the functioning of present political power. On the other hand, we behave as if we failed to notice that the claims of political power about its good intentions and the legal provisions by which it ostensibly limits its totality are merely a propagandistic camouflage. Such "taking at their word" is in itself a very clever maneuver. However — with all due respect to cleverness — such an approach cannot achieve a mobilizing effect and defend itself against lies, if it cannot bridge the abyss between the two above-mentioned positions. Charter 77 managed temporarily — and very effectively — to eliminate this split by extreme emphasis on ethical aspects and by preference for moral stance over political. This initial solution has failed, and today the original dilemma opens before us all the more oppressively. The reasons for the failure are roughly the following: 1. The death of Professor Patočka, who was unquestionably the *spiritus movens* of this solution. 2. The political power's wisening to the reality that, through its furious campaign, it had managed to transform a political problem into a moral one and had thereby unwittingly accepted our weapons. From this moment onward, a *silentium* reigns around Charter 77, and power limits itself to strangulation in the dark (the official term is "trimming the edges"). 3. The moral stance was postulated abstractly, without the designation of any positive content and direction of action. An abstract moral stance, however, is merely a gesture, which although it may be maximally effective, its effect is nevertheless limited to several weeks or months. In proof of my claim, I can cite a phenomenon with which you have probably encountered and which is quite common among Charter signatories — the transition from the almost ecstatic sensation of liberation caused by signing to gradual disillusionment and deep skepticism. I do not underestimate the concrete contribution of the first two reasons; however, I consider the third reason decisive and sufficient in itself. And on this diagnosis I base my proposal for a strategy, which should gradually lead us out of today's blind alley. I have attempted to summarize this strategy in two slogans, which I shall immediately develop and comment upon: First, to continue proceeding from moral commitment and mission as the unifying element and source of dynamism. Second, to give this dynamism a field of action and a certain positive perspective in the creation of a parallel polis. **I.** The moral justification and obligation of a citizen to participate in the remedy of public affairs (that is, political in the broadest sense of the word) is beyond all doubt. From this source, Charter 77 derived its public mandate from the very beginning, and as a common starting point this meant overcoming the above-mentioned ambiguity and was a guarantee of unity, tolerant¹ cooperation, and to a certain extent also persistence. I see no other formula that could successfully fulfill all these functions; moreover, this moral position is so closely linked with Charter 77 in the eyes of the public and in the eyes of the majority of signatories that any other formula could only with difficulty legitimately claim continuity. I am not asking, therefore, whether to proceed from the moral aspect, but rather how to make it once again rousing and mobilizing and to ensure its enduring operation — that is, what concrete effort or "positive program" can derive its energy from it in the future. If I have correctly understood what is hidden under the labels of "radical" and "retardist" conceptions, I cannot consider either of them a promising answer to the stated questions. A citizen can certainly find moral commitment in entering into conflict with evil political power and striving for its destruction. However, under the given circumstances, such commitment is so suicidal that in no reasonable ethical system can it claim public recognition. Similarly, a citizen may feel morally obligated to realistically assess the situation and attempt, through the path of compromises and reforms, to achieve at least partial remedy. However, given the ethical parameters of present political power, such conduct cannot rely on its moral motives being generally perceived and that it might act as a moral appeal. **II.** I attempt to propose a third way to the remedy of conditions in the community. Most structures connected in one way or another to the life of the community (that is, to political life) function either entirely inadequately or even harmfully. I propose, therefore, that we unite in the effort to gradually create parallel structures capable, at least to a limited degree, of supplementing missing generally beneficial and necessary functions; where possible, it is necessary to utilize existing structures as well and to "humanize" them. This plan to a certain extent satisfies the demands of both "reformists" and "radicals." It does not necessarily lead to direct conflict with political power, yet it is not burdened with illusions about escaping the given state through "cosmetic adjustments." It leaves open the key question of the system's viability: what is certain is that its even partial success would expose the official structures to pressure under which they would necessarily either disintegrate or usefully be restored (depending on whether we accept the diagnosis of the radicals or that of the reformists). This plan is apparently unacceptable to both wings as "educationalist" and politically naive. However, we are all together in the Charter, which is undeniably a politically naive undertaking — like every attempt to derive politics from a moral foundation. Moreover, my proposal proceeds immediately from the present form of Charter 77, which owes its origin to the defense of a parallel structure (second culture) and which to a considerable extent devotes itself to a "humanizing" reinterpretation of existing official structures (the system of legislation). And to the official politicians I would like to remark that, after all, they led the community into its present position: it would therefore be decent if they were to revise either their political convictions, or their view of what is and what is not politically naive — *tertium non datur*. This plan is perhaps beyond our strength; however, it is realistic in the sense that it relies on realities verified by practice. I shall cite two most striking and yet completely contrary examples. The parallel cultural structure is today an undeniable and markedly positive factor and in some spheres (in literature, but also to a certain extent in popular music and visual arts) completely dominates over lifeless official structures. An equally undeniable (and negative, albeit functionally more efficient and more humane) factor is the parallel economy, founded on a system of theft, corruption, and nepotism, which under the glossy surface of the official economy in fact manages the majority of not only consumer but also industrial and commercial relations. And now therefore in (randomly ordered) slogans the concreta of my plan: **a)** This point is in fact a preamble to all the others. Our legal system is in fact one of the worst in the world, because it is conceived exclusively for propagandistic purposes and therefore extraordinarily vaguely and without any guarantees. Our legal system simultaneously admits a very liberal interpretation, because it is conceived exclusively for propagandistic purposes and therefore extraordinarily vaguely. This discrepancy must be systematically utilized (and it is necessary to prepare for the fact that it can be used against us at any time). The transition from the totalitarian to the liberal system — that is, in this sphere, the transition from the principle "everything is forbidden that is not explicitly permitted" to the principle "everything is permitted that is not explicitly forbidden" — can be compelled only by the method of constant testing of the limits of what is permitted with energetic occupation of positions once gained. **b)** Second culture is at present the most developed and most dynamic parallel structure. It should be used as a model for other spheres, and at the same time it is necessary by all means to support its development, particularly in hitherto neglected areas (literary criticism and cultural journalism generally, theater, film). **c)** The parallel structure of education and scholarly life already has a certain tradition, however in the last two years it has rather stagnated. I consider the organization of parallel education a task of eminent importance, both for personal reasons (if officers of the StB know by name my 1-9 year old children, I cannot harbor too many illusions about their official educational possibilities) and for general reasons (the underground, which is by far the most numerous component in Charter 77, has managed to become politicized and overcome its sectarianism, nevertheless the permanence of such a result is apparently conditioned by our possibilities of "educationalist" activity in these circles). I think that precisely in this sphere a certain generosity and a "maximalist" program are appropriate. **d)** In its initial period, Charter 77 managed to create a parallel information system that was functional and prompt and encompassed at least several tens of thousands of persons. I consider the gradual degeneration of this system (unfortunately proceeding with greater speed than is justifiable by the waning of the original sensation) to be one of the greatest failures and most critical symptoms of Charter 77's activity to date. It can be estimated that with the more serious materials of Charter 77, through direct internal dissemination (that is, if we do not count monitoring from foreign radio), in the initial period several tens to hundreds (in the case of the founding declaration) of thousands of persons were acquainted. In recent times, this number has declined to hundreds, at best to thousands of citizens. The content and form of the transmitted information will of course have key significance; I will discuss this, as well as questions of foreign publicity, in other points. Here only several technical principles, observance of which in my opinion could contribute to remedy: The dissemination of information must be given greater attention, and work on this task should be equally respected as the proper preparation of materials. Everyone who today complains about insufficient information should automatically feel obligated to effectively disseminate acquired information. The information network must be utilized evenly. Excessively long silences are even more dangerous than overburdening, because they lead to loss of interest and to the disintegration of established connections. Especially near the source, it is necessary to observe the principle that effectiveness is more important than social courtesy, and to allocate information preferentially to places from which its further dissemination is guaranteed. Rather let a "prominent" person be informed only at second hand than that the dissemination of information become stuck and remain limited to a narrow circle of people. It is urgently necessary to improve the flow of information to groups outside Prague. Even more urgent, however, is that these groups secure mutual interconnection and create autonomous information systems. Here too it applies that for the evaluation of the recipient of information, the most important question is whether he knows how to type. In the longer term, we will not escape the use of more efficient reproduction means than the typewriter. It is necessary both to immediately prepare a solid legal analysis of this problem and to investigate possibilities of material provision for undoubtedly legal but expensive techniques (xerox, photocopying). **e)** I cannot conceive the breadth of tasks that we may be faced with in the future in the field of parallel economy; the momentary possibilities are not great, yet their utilization is extremely urgent. Political power considers this area a decisive means for the arbitrary control of citizens and simultaneously regulates it as strictly as possible. It is therefore necessary to rely on the accounting of extreme trust (every other exceeds the field of legality) and to broadly develop charitable and supportive activity; the proper community should be founded on a system of mutual guarantee not only moral but also material. Political power evidently wants to break the initiative of Charter 77 primarily by exposing its participants to unbearable economic pressure (while simultaneously conducting a propaganda campaign about their dissolute and idle life). Proving the morality and selflessness of one's intentions by ostentatious disregard of the material factor is under these circumstances equally naive and dangerous as when someone considers it necessary to inform the State Security in detail about his life, because he considers it honorable and legal (in both cases one not only places oneself at the mercy of the opponent, but simultaneously accepts his false and usurped moral claim). On the contrary, it is necessary to face this pressure by consistent utilization and even demanding of international solidarity: beginning with support from individuals and organizations and ending with the much more promising form of cultural and scholarly cooperation, securing relative independence from official economic structures (honoraria for artistic works and scholarly publications, scholarships, etc.). **f)** It is necessary to create the ground for the emergence of parallel political (in the narrower sense of the word) structures and to assist their development. This point encompasses a broad spectrum of tasks, from education toward civic consciousness and responsibility, through the creation of conditions for political discussion and the formulation of theoretical opinions, to the support of concrete political currents and groupings. In the area of parallel foreign policy, my proposal proceeds from the premise that the internationalization of any problem may perhaps not help, but certainly will not harm. Some of the parallel structures proposed here (for example, education, economy) cannot at least in the beginning function without effective foreign support. Foreign publicity of our effort is its decisive guarantee against the arbitrariness of political power and for the majority of citizens is also the main source of information (foreign radio and television). Nevertheless, important is the mutual cooperation of kindred currents in the states of the Eastern bloc — in past decades, perhaps every nation of the Eastern bloc paid heavily for the lack of such coordination. The publicity of our conduct is at present insignificant, and our cooperation with parallel movements inside the bloc has always been woefully inadequate. It is necessary immediately to create a team that would examine the causes of this state and propose concrete means for remedy. Certainly I have here omitted many parallel structures that would deserve consideration with equal urgency. Individual parallel structures will also be linked with Charter 77 to varying degrees (I attempt to express my opinion on this also through the length of individual points) — some will be its integral part, toward others it will act as midwife and wet nurse, and finally to others it will provide above all a guarantee of legality. Parallel structures created in this way will certainly in various areas surpass the framework of the Charter and sooner or later must acquire autonomous existence: not only because they do not "fit into" the Charter in its present form and mission, but mainly because in the opposite case we would not be building a parallel polis but a ghetto. Nevertheless, the Charter should certainly not in any fundamental way separate itself from these initiatives and delimit itself against them: by such a step it would transfer from the position of civic initiative to the role of mere observer and would thus deprive itself of a greater part of its moral charge. For the future, it is necessary to count on the fact that we will rather agree on a common starting point of our effort than on its external boundaries. After all, the Charter as a civic initiative necessarily passes continuously into the initiatives of others, and given the nature of a free association it does not even have at its disposal the means by which it could in any directive manner define its boundaries. In this respect, the Charter was, is, and will be founded solely on — always renewed — trust that individual groups of signatories, in mutual responsibility and understanding, will refrain from actions that would be fundamentally unacceptable to other groups or would otherwise disrupt the original unity and solidarity. Nevertheless, Charter 77 must of course also continue to fulfill its most proper task (apart from the "legislative" problematics, which I mention in point a): to monitor cases of serious violation of human rights, to draw attention to them, and to bring suggestions for remedy. This means primarily to continue in the creation of fundamental documents. Substantive documents should appear at most in two-month intervals, otherwise continuity will be disrupted. It is necessary substantially to expand the circle of signatories and non-signatories who will actively participate in the preparation and creation of documents — in this respect I very much welcome the proposal for the public announcement of themes and teams being processed and those responsible for editing. On the other hand, personal opinions and attitudes of the authors, naturally different from other opinions and attitudes, will necessarily be reflected both in the method of processing the given problematics (and this aspect will manifest itself the more strongly, the more specific the delimited area will be) and in the proposed solutions. It is in the interest of all of us rather to reconcile ourselves with this fact than, out of a false striving for objectivity and tolerance (see my polemical gloss above), to produce documents that would resemble diplomatic protocols in their duplicity and emptiness. Further, I proceed to requirements that already to a certain extent relate to my plan. I think that documents should not be addressed only to the authorities, but also and indeed above all to all our fellow citizens. This places certain demands on them: they should deal with truly generally pressing problems, they should not be inappropriately long (otherwise they will not reach the majority of recipients — appropriateness, however, depends on the seriousness of the theme), and they should be sufficiently intelligible also for the lay public (that is, they should avoid legalistic or other specialist jargon). If we want to eliminate and not contribute to the general sense of futility and hopelessness, we must in my opinion not overlook the hitherto dubious results of the attempt at dialogue with political power and must learn from them. This means to go still further; nothing prevents us from proposing, in our documents, suggestions for "parallel" civic activities enabling improvement of the given state — in addition to or even instead of proposals for institutional remedy. If the processing of documents ceases to be the goal and is considered merely a part of a more enduring effort to examine the causes of the unfortunate state and to promote its remedy, then Charter 77 certainly faces no danger that it will fizzle out and become a mere producer of "rustling papers." Such an approach, in which documentary activity would merge with the uncovering of various possibilities of remedy and with the stimulation to their utilization, would simultaneously represent the most natural transition to the plan presented here, building a parallel polis. May 17th 1978 *Vaclav Benda* --- [1] I shall not refrain here from polemicizing with the author of the notes to the "manifesto of a positive approach," although in other respects his position is in many ways sympathetic to me. In his critical remarks on the mentioned conceptual article, he legitimately insists on maximal patience and tolerance: he illustrates his requirement with the example of the difficult and almost painful origin of the "religious" document X. However, among the signatory and non-signatory public there prevails a broad consensus that the "religious" document is, together with the document on literature /the circumstances of its origin were similar/, by far the least substantial that Charter 77 has created to date. Whereby I return to my original theme: patience and tolerance are certainly virtues, but they must not be mere art of compromise and opportunistic approach, rather an expression of mutual respect and moral claim. Genuine tolerance presupposes not only regard for the fundamental mental barriers of the partner, but likewise full respect toward the fruits of another's effort and intellectual exertion. Only such tolerance enables creative opinion plurality; tolerance of compromises leads only to grayness and toothlessness. Moreover, I admit that in criticizing the mentioned example I have perhaps shifted the author's intention somewhat, and I do not exclude mutual agreement in the matter of patience, tolerance, and also in other important affairs.