Daily Journal:

There was, as fashionable political philosophers would say, a clash of two civilizations. What did Havel carry? Of course, the idea of ​​political culture, the idea of ​​human dignity, the idea of ​​social forms and procedures, without which the existence of ideas and people, no matter how good they may be, is impossible, because both ideas and people need to reproduce, keep the level, it becomes no worse, but better, only then their common life does not calm down and does not turn into a swamp, in which, well, as in the old joke: this is your homeland, son... On the Russian side, of course, there was experience accumulated mainly in the human rights movement, bitter experience of disappointments 90s, but, nevertheless, in general, the results of the meeting are not pessimistic. The parties still heard each other, the parties have something to say to each other.

One side is Havel and the European political culture of the country, which, of course, had, as Tsvetaeva wrote, “two hundred years of captivity,” but then still had 20 years of freedom, I mean the years 18-38, and then the experience of historical confrontation, which was not limited to the intelligentsia, first in 1968 and 1989 - and you can point your finger at this experience and say: this is a positive result. Another conversation is what it was worth in historical, political, cultural, human and some other sense, this is already material for discussion. But we can point our finger at this result - here is a country that is on a democratic path, this is a European country, this country does not discuss the problems of a special path, its chosenness of God, its some kind of amazing spirituality, its institutions that go back to the pre-Petrine past, which need to be revived and then supposedly everything will go the way - this is a completely different experience, different from ours. Russia cannot present such a positive thing yet, but this does not mean that conversation about it is impossible - it may only begin here. At least I'd like to think it starts here. And, perhaps, when the roasted rooster of disappointment pecks at one sensitive place of political leaders, some advanced groups of the Russian population, then from that moment some kind of conversation, some kind of movement, some kind of activity will begin to collect what is left , an attempt will be made to reach a new level of existence, interest will arise in other, younger, groups that think differently, look differently, maybe in the end something will come of this. Havel’s idea that immediate results cannot be expected is very correct. In general, in this sense, he is an adult, mature, thinking person. And it’s time for us to leave teenage hopes and illusions, take, if possible for Russia and its advanced groups, this new adult tone of conversation, adult forms of living together - what the main blow of totalitarianism was dealt, these are, of course, forms of human solidarity , and therefore, forms of human dignity, because it turned out that there was nothing to protect them with. All forms of solidarity were destroyed. And this has entered the depths of every person, it is felt not only in our social existence, it is within our ideas about what another person is, how to live with him, how to interact with him, and so on. This is a real historical and political trauma, we must, as they say, “work” with it. God grant that this work begins...