BOOKS
651
(though this is not to deny the contributions of then-exiled authors like
Leszek Kolakowski, Agnes Heller, or Ferenc Feher) . What makes the
Czech president/philosopher/playwright an extraordinary case is the
truly unusual intensity of his theoretical reflections, and the fact that,
despite many political and personal obstacles, he entered and has
remained directly involved in the political game. Havel's refusal to bid
farewell to politics is the apparent source of Keane's view of Havel's
career as a political "tragedy." Obviously, Havel's commitment is the
result of both the local political and cultural environment, as well as the
personal calling of a democratic intellectual.
The perception of the political realm as inherently demeaning for the
true intellectual is the opposite of Havel's way of grasping and participat–
ing in politics. For him, as for Hannah Arendt, the domain of freedom is
in danger whenever action and thought part ways. Precisely for this rea–
son, although often contested and fiercely criticized by some among his
former dissident colleagues, not to speak of insidiously attacked by those
who did little or nothing
to
bring communism down, Havel has persisted
as a moral magistrate of his nation. There is a dose of hubris in the way
he plays this part, but can anyone successfully act as the Prince in the
absence of such a belief in his or her own mission? Compare Havel
to
another East European president, Romania's Emil Constantinescu, a crit–
ical intellectual of whom many of his fellow countrymen had high expec–
tations. Constantinescu decided not
to
run again in the
2000
election
because he was disgusted with corruption, bickering, and mudslinging.
This has not been Havel's choice and, whatever his mistakes, including an
inordinate concern with his own family's property rights, he has not given
up the main options heralded in his pathbreaking, dissident political writ–
ings. Indeed, Havel's position rests on the assumption that politics
deprived of critical reflexivity is a futile, preposterous exercise. Speaking
about his rival Vaclav Klaus's allegedly "pragmatic" position, Havel indi–
cated the risks of a politics stripped of moral nerve: "He sees things solely
in terms of responsible individuals, the blind laws of the market and a cen–
tralized state: everything else he regards as nonsense.
It
is a very short–
sighted political attitude-if not actually suicidal."
John Keane's biography of Havel is an ambitious, idiosyncratic, and
often disturbing book. On the one hand, I admire Keane's refusal to
engage in hero-worshipping because, as he proudly asserts, his book is
an unauthorized, critical biography. On the other hand, the purpose of
the whole endeavor is mystifying. Is Keane documenting the tragic
predicament of intellectuals involved in turbulent politics? Or is his book
an expression of personal frustration with Havel's decision
to
persevere
