The Concept of Post-Totalitarianism
Vaclav Havel served as president in Czechoslovakia from 1989-1993 during one of the most pivotal and consequential time periods in Eastern Europe’s history. Communism, the staple of traditional Eastern European Politics, was crumbling all over Europe. However, the legacy of Vaclav Havel comes not from his work as president, but from his powerful and influential work as a political dissident that played a tremendous role in the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe.
The most influential of Havel’s work is his essay, “The Power of the Powerless.” In this document, Havel outlined a new political philosophy which challenged the weaknesses of Communism calling this new system: “Post-Totalitarianism.” He claimed that this system would restore the openness, trust, responsibility, and love that the Communist system historically lacked. This concept centered heavily on the notion that the most effective political structures are small, open, and dynamic. A small, equal, and unified group of leaders breeds trust and personal responsibility within its leaders. It would be less of an organized regime—a staple of communist ideology—but a community of leaders committed not out of want of power but out of a shared common goal for the betterment of the people. There would be no political parties or set traditional values, but a responsive government who commits themselves in any way to fill the needs of the people at a given time. He also backs the concept of self-management. In which workers are included in the decision making which inevitably breeds a feeling of personal responsibility for their collective work. He believes that Self-control and Self-discipline are far more effective than the Communist pattern of control and discipline.
Vaclav Havel’s system of Post-Totalitarianism relies heavily on charismatic leadership as he says that a leader’s authority should derive from their personalities. A leader in this philosophy absolutely must have the trust and backing of the people in order for the system to work. Most importantly, the leader should be chosen as a result of some need of the community. Once that need is satisfied and the purpose of the leader is no longer apparent, then a new leader must be chosen. This concept of leadership marks the essential and equal relationship between leader and follower. In this system, the followers have almost as much power as the leader, because they dictate when a leader is needed and conversely, when a certain leader is no longer needed.
The basis of Vaclav Havel’s philosophy is to utilize the humanity of people in government—a stark difference from the machine-like mindset of Communism. A government that centers on trust and responsibility, along with a common and shared goal will naturally breed good results and a successful society.
Leadership for Social Change | Saint Louis University 
Since forms of government are used to rule people, then characteristics of humanity should be a large part of creating the government. In this way, a leader for the government should be chosen by the people to fulfill a specific need. If a leader is chosen at random then the people being governed will be unsatisfied and possibly revolt against their leader. For a leader to be successful, they must be abel to connect with their people and communicate the wants and needs of a community. Communication is the key to creating a better community, and an effective government.
I agree that governments should be chosen by the people. If the government isn’t, then the government cannot be effective and successful and the people and followers will be unwilling to follow the leader. With this lack of followership, the leader has no power and has instead lost its power to the followers. Followers have the power in government, most of the time, if the government is a true and proper one.
Government is and should be run of the people, by the people, for the people. It is, after all, there to provide a purpose and fulfillment to the people’s goals and ideas. Therefore a charismatic leader seems ideal on paper. He/she is there when the people have a need for him/her and once that need is fulfilled, a new leader is chosen. But this type of leadership lacks the structure, core, and stability that a traditional government, such as democracy, provides. As a result, there is the danger of failure of order and also the government.
I agree that it is important to have a government that is influenced by the needs of the people, but it is a risky situation. Who determines when the charismatic leader is no longer useful? If not careful, these decisions could be made on a whim, without consideration. Government should be run according to the influence of the people, but it also needs structure.
The government should be concerned with the needs of the people, but I feel that charismatic leadership would not be effective in the United States. There are such a wide range of social issues that need correcting that it would take a ridiculous amount of time to chose a charismatic leader. How would we determine which cause to fix first and which leader to follow first? Also, the idea of choosing a new leader after each problem is fix would cause chaos. After each leader would step down, twenty different leaders would step up vouching for their cause. This would cause a lengthy election process and mass confusion among the public about who to elect next. Especially since social issues often overlap.
I like the idea that a government would try and cater strongly to the needs of the people, but I’m not sure if this is a new idea. In my opinion, any effective government would want to please its people. I do like this thoughts on self-control and self-discpiline. I think if you can get your people to be more self motivated this will help your society overall. I agree with jennifer’s comment that catering to the people’s need is important, but we must keep in mind the structure.
I believe that effective government occurs when a balance is struck between the leaders and the followers. The followers must be willing to give their loyalty to the leader and the leader must be willing to lead based on the people’s needs. If either side lacks this criteria distrust will exist and the government will not be as strong. This said, I also believe the system should be chosen by the people. If the population is going to “buy in” to leadership, they must believe they had some say in creating the government they follow. The leadership must be willing to sacrafice their own personal wants for those of the population if they are going to be truly trusted.
The ideas of Havel correspond to current predictions of the future job market. Historically, workers may have stayed with the same company for 20, 30, or even 40 years. Current thoughts are that the college class of 2012 will hold between 4 and 5 different jobs in their first ten years of work. Like Havel’s idea of post-totalitarianism, these jobs will consist of “small, open, and dynamic” groups of individuals working on a project, and once that project is completed they go their own ways.
Havel’s ideas are interesting: he believes in short lived, project based governments. I believe that a lot would get done because leaders would be judged on their ability to complete a task and their charisma in convincing people to vote them in to complete that task. I don’t know how I would feel about living in a society in which our leaders were project coordinators and not professional politicians: what if I absolutely despised the project they were working on? The project would be 100% completed. Perhaps a 100% success rate in government projects is not all it is cracked up to be.
I definitely agree with Morgan. If the government was based more in a project-project mindset, a lot more would be accomplished. The group working on a particular project at a particular time would be more specialized in the matter at hand rather than certain individuals trying to cover all areas of expertise. I also believe that the government should be chosen by the people, for the people. The leaders should be chosen for how charismatic they are to an extent, but overall for their ideals and what they plan to do. I feel as if in America the “likability” of the politicians many times fogs their true abilities for the job. There is a fine line that should separate the followers and the leaders. If the area becomes too foggy, when the leader chooses to do something that is for the best of the cause but may not be the best for the group, it could cause friction.
I feel that Havel’s idea of a Post-Totalitarian government sounds good hypothetically but it seems like it would be impossible to truly implement. While some leaders do care solely about the needs of the people, I believe it would be difficult to find this type of leaders for a large scale community, such as a country. With that much power being given to the leader it would be difficult for them to ignore that power. On a small scale I believe it could work great, when the leader is no longer needed the followers would decide who, if anyone, would take their place. This would be much more difficult with a more solidified government on a large scale.
I agree with many of the core principles taught by Vaclav Havel. His leadership style of charismatic leadership is one that has proven to work efficiently and inspire many. A leader’s personality must be one that is representative of the passion or vision of the group. The leader must also gain the complete trust of his followers to move forward, for the role of a leader is to function as a voice for the followers. I also wholeheartedly agree with Havel’s principle that followers have almost as much power as the leader, because a leader is only needed when there is a group of followers. A leader is nothing without his/her followers.
I agree that a government needs to find a balance between leadership and followership. It is essential that the public likes a leader and feels they are fit for the job. When the public, or followers, can not support a leader, the smallest mistakes turn into an outright riot. A leader needs to gain the support of his followers while still giving them direction in their lives.
I agree that government definitely needs to be more centered on the people. Government was not designed for fame or popularity. I think our society has gotten away from government’s true purpose. I also really like the idea of self-management and self-discipline. The more self sufficient people can be, the better off the society will be.
Vaclav’s idea is great. If it is made to be for the people and represented by the people, then it should be based on the people. However, like its stark opposite (Communism), it is only that great on paper. It is a hope that cannot be achieved. There must be a happy medium in between the two. A government governs the people with some level of equality and authority, along with the connection to the people and their needs.
I agree with Kaitlin on this one. If we had a project-based government and they were elected by 51% of Americans to do a job I thought was far from what America should be doing, I would probably leave the country. It’s a good idea in general, but you have to think about what kinds of projects the government would be doing and how they would affect the general public.
Reblogged this on wernerschwartz.