Totalitarian Regime, the First Instinct for a

¶ … totalitarian regime, the first instinct for a lot of people is to keep their heads down and try to go about their lives as best they can. There is a good case to be made for this -- no good comes to people who are paid a visit by the likes of the Stasi or NKVD. Yet, there is something about non-resistance that is inherently wrong.

In 1978, Vaclav Havel, the future Czech President, argued that such non-resistance contributes to a "panorama" of society, presenting the impression that non-resistance in the face of brutal totalitarianism is somehow acceptable. Havel argues that even small forms of dissident behavior -- little subtle gestures -- can carry great meaning when they are repeated throughout society.

Yes, the decision to make such a gesture is difficult because of the increase in risk to one's own person and family that protest gestures carry, but such risk is a small price to pay for freedom. It is important never to surrender one's values for expediency, especially not in the face of brutality. Havel was one of the most famous dissidents in the Eastern bloc, and he recognized the value of showing solidarity.

A small sing or symbol, perhaps imperceptible to those in power, he suggests can provide all the strength that people need to help rise up against totalitarian governments. When such symbols are absent, the tableau that is painted illustrates a society that accepts the conditions under which it lives. Those who do not accept such conditions may not feel confident that their views are widely shared. It is critical, therefore, that dissidents make their voices known.

Even in the face of severe oppression, those voices can be known in subtle ways, and when subtle symbols of resistance become a common part of society's tableau, society itself transforms. Taking such a view is a little bit controversial. Havel himself was "all-in" as a dissident, but he cannot reasonably ask everyone to put their lives on the line. His response is to argue that dissent, while carrying risks, also has rewards that are not only highly individual but transcend the individual as well.

The individual regains his freedom and humanity through resistance, and but he is also making a contribution to society that has a snowball effect. When faced with oppression, there is no shame in protest. Havel speaks out strongly against those who would fail to protest, as they are failing to express their true selves. In the Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn points out that among the educated classes in Moscow during the U.S.S.R.

days, it was almost an insult not to have spent any time in prison, as to fail to be incarcerated was a sign that one had not expressed their resistance sufficiently. Havel argues much the same. Outside of the Eastern European context, these same principles hold true. In Syria today, and in places like Egypt and Libya last year, the power of speaking up without fear is evident.

The only shame it not to participate in resistance, for that means that one is too meek, and has had his or her humanity suppressed too greatly. Havel's essay highlights.