Skip to main content

With Havel & Hitchens gone, who now carries Orwell's torch?

Vaclav Havel and Christopher Hitchens both died this week.

They will both live on for a while though, because they each occupy a special place in my mind. They were both prominent fighters for human freedom against oppressive regimes. One, exorted the West with his intellect, wit and words to acknowledge its responsibility to fight for the ideals of freedom and against hypocrisy. The other was a politician, poet, playwright and philosopher who won a long fight with Soviet totalitarianism that will always inspire others. They were both in their own way heirs to the legacy of the contrarian genius of George Orwell, who helped define the 20th century's intellectual resistance to all forms of totalitarianism.

Vaclav Havel seems likely to go into the pantheon of our civilization's heroes of human freedom. In April 1975, after the Soviets had crushed the Prague Spring with tanks and installed a new puppet in power,  Havel (in Matt Welch's words)  "committed an act of such sheer ballsiness that the shock waves are still being felt in repressive countries 30 years later". He wrote an open letter to the Soviet installed puppet dictator, Gustav Husak, setting out why and how totalitarianism was ruining Czechoslovakia.
So far, you and your government have chosen the easy way out for yourselves, and the most dangerous road for society: the path of inner decay for the sake of outward appearances; of deadening life for the sake of increasing uniformity; of deepening the spiritual and moral crisis of our society, and ceaselessly degrading human dignity, for the puny sake of protecting your own power
This letter apparently was clandestinely distributed as a samizdat behind the Iron Curtain and has been attributed with being the catalyst for the growth of the dissident movement in Central Europe. "Absurdistan" he christened the Soviet Union. And that he was successful, with others, in eventually peacefully steering Czechoslovakia into democratic freedom is inspirational globally. Civilization is in his debt, because his example of resistance, dignity, courage and persistence can, and will be, drawn on for eons to come by those seeking succour under the oppressive yoke of totalitarian government.


Christopher Hitchens, though great in his own way: a brave contrarian and debunker of hypocrisy within the cultural cacophony of the West; and destined to continue be much loved by those that knew him or read his polemics whilst fresh, seems more likely to drift into obscurity. He will likely occasionally be dis-interned as a brilliant pamphleteer of our era by future scholars of the late 20th century, for this era could easily be forgotten, but for for the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 and 9/11.

Havel and Hitchens had much to say about both these events and their impact on our humanity and  civilizational values. The future will of course determine its own version of history on these matters, but it is to be fervently hoped that both these men will find their deserved place.

They have both been compared to, and at various times have metaphorically fought in the minds of others for the title of heir and successor to George Orwell. Hitchens wrote a book called Why Orwell Matters. In reviewing it in the Weekly Standard David Brooks argued that the great man's mantle and relevance had actually passed onto a new contrarian's shoulders: "At this moment, oddly enough, Hitchens matters more than Orwell." 

Whilst Matt Welch in the May 2003 of issue Reason argued:
At exactly the same time, the one man in the world of the living who could justifiably claim to be Orwell's heir was expounding almost daily on Saddam Hussein and international terrorism -- even while rushing through one of the most frenetic periods of a famously accomplished life. Vaclav Havel, the 66-year-old former Czech president who was term-limited out of office on February 2, built his reputation in the 1970s by being to eyewitness fact what George Orwell was to dystopian fiction. In other words, he used common sense to deconstruct rhetorical falsehoods, pulling apart the suffocating mesh of collectivist lies one carefully observed thread at a time.

So with both Havel and Hitchens now gone, who is to carry Orwell's great contrarian passion for human freedom forward?

It seems likely, and it is surely to be hoped, that the next chapter in this great and continuous battle for human dignity and freedom will be fought most intensely in the great rising super power of the East, China.

The inevitable huge tensions between the vast numbers of employers, industrialists and entrepreneurs gaining in wealth throughout China and their dysfunctional but all pervasive central and regional government overlords in the Communist Party, seems ripe territory for dissidence and courage of the scale and calibre that Orwell, Havel and Hitchens set. And even this analysis does not adequately acknowledge the role to be played by the "Power of the Powerless" in the vast social dislocation of  billions of Chinese peasants transferring from the verities of their rural villages to the relativism of urban alienation in cities on a scale never before seen in human history.  Somewhere there surely the new torchbearers for Orwell's passion for human dignity will be found and heard.




News Flash: Kim Jong-il dies.

So that illness finally got him (old and bad joke). A horrible tyrant, who oppressed millions of North Koreans for decades, goes in the same week as these two great fighters for the dignity and indomitable spirit of free people. Both the good and the bad have died this week. It emphasises the need to publicly revere the good where we can see it working, and to publicly revile the bad works of those who have not bettered the lot of their fellow humans.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Michael Jackson, martyr ?

. Someone has to die for their beliefs to be a martyr . Drudge pointed to headlines last Friday saying that Jackson's was a " Death by Showbusines s". So in the sense that Jackson seems to have died for his belief in celebrity, yes, he might be called a martyr. I never got Michael Jackson. Thriller didn't thrill me at all ( Now Noel Coward, that's another story ). But I did get a bit of a kick from seeing others get him. He was boppy and catchy and slick, as well as monumentally fluffy and hugely impaired. What I struggle with is the apparently massive consequentiality of fluffiness and impairment like Jackson's. What is the fuss about the passing of a semi-talented song and dance weirdo from decades past? Boris Johnson, the London Mayor, has had a stab at explaining it to we mystified souls who struggle to get with the programme. He reckons it's just like Princess Di. And I agree, to the extent that I was almost as unprepared for and dumbfounded by th

Rugby bureaucrats, Stalin's spawn?

In recent weeks two larger than life Rugby players have experienced the tyranny of justice in a universe even more capricious and hostile than their sport: the world of sports officialdom. First Bakkies Botha , the great and brutal Springbok second-rower, got a raw deal from some small minded and ignorant Rugby officials. They banned him for a couple of matches over an incident that any disinterested rugby fan will tell you happens at nearly every ruck in every game of rugby: the clean out. The Springboks protested this dumb decision by each Springbok player wearing an armband saying "JUSTICE 4 Bakkies" at the following Test match against the British & Irish Lions in Jo'berg. And now the Springboks themselves have been cited by the International Rugby Board for "bringing the game into disrepute" and breaching the "IRB Code of Conduct" by questioning the disciplinary rulings of IRB sanctioned bodies. From little stupidities, big stupidities grow

Will Ray Finkelstein's statutory "News Media Council" enable a totalitarian state?

" The fight for freedom begins with free speech " Aung San Suu Kyi, The Observer, Sunday 11 March 2012 Aung San Suu Kyi was not saying this specifically in response to the report published 11 days earlier by the Honourable Ray Finkelstein QC on 28 February 2012 of his "Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation", but she could have been. Mr Finkelstein says in his report to the Australian Federal Labor government, who commissioned it, the following: 11.44 To rectify existing and emerging weaknesses in the current regulatory structures it is recommended that there be established an independent statutory body which may be called the "News Media Council", to oversee the enforcement of standards of the news media. ... 11.55 The News Media Council requires clearly defined functions. It is not recommended that one of them be the promotion of free speech. There are other ample bodies and persons in the community who do that more than adequ