First, you must realize that the establishment Havel was against was an authoritarian regime which stifled the individual and their freedom. Havel was not inherently an anarchist or anything of the sort to an extent that would make itself manifest or tangible in his political work or in his influence over the fledgling democracy following the end of the communist regime in 1989. His philosophy was very much in line with the core values and traditions of a modern democratic state, and as such it is difficult to clearly point to a particular part of the constitution and label it as reflecting his beliefs.

That being said, there are certain parts of the Czech constitution which are either Havel's own work or which were drafted following his input. First and of these parts is the preamble, written by Havel himself and edited by Milan Uhde, another prominent dissident and signatory of the Charter 77. An immediate and obvious link to the basic ideals of a modern democracy can certainly be found in the passages about "inalienable values of human dignity and freedom", but those should come as no surprise.

Of more interest is the wording "a free and democratic State founded on respect for human rights and on principles of civil society". The explicit mention of a "civil society" is Havel's doing, as it was a concept of which he was a great proponent. Therein perhaps lies the most significant and overt connection between Havel's philosophy and the constitution, and in fact the words "civil society" cannot be found elsewhere in the document.

Havel viewed civil society as the core concept of a democracy, and an authoritarian regime such as the one imposed by the communists in Czechoslovakia was by its very nature in direct opposition to it. In one of his speeches, Havel said that the state was to be limited to "what no one else can do... such as legislation, defense, justice". He often spoke about how a free society must be structured "from the bottom to the top", again in direct contrast with the prescriptive, authoritarian state of the past. Hence the democratic state was not something Havel would rile against, he viewed it as a framework in which a civil society could exist, and something which was in turn created by the free will of this society.

A civil society as envisaged by Havel had three key parts. The freedom of assembly leading to a natural structuralization of society; a decentralized state with a strong, independent public and local administration at the lowest level which allows for immediate public participation; and finally the delegation of the responsibilities of a state to better suited subjects – Havel once said "the state seldom is a good doctor or a teacher" – such as non-profit organizations, thus ensuring their independence but at the same time allowing for some degree of both oversight and support.

You can probably see that these ideas are not particularly revolutionary, and as stated in the opening paragraph, they are quite compatible with what we today would consider as quite standard in a free market democracy and what we might found in the constitutions of such countries worldwide.

The second part of the constitution which was changed at Havel's insistence might also offer a kind of a link between his beliefs and the final document. There was one more component to Havel's thoughts on civil society – it assumes people to be responsible and decent. Perhaps it was his personal feelings on this matter which had Havel support the inclusion of elements of direct democracy in the constitution, i.e. a referendum or rather the possiblity thereof. On the other hand, perhaps not too much should be read into this as Havel did not see a need for a plebiscite during the NATO accession talks, and the Czech Republic has remained firmly entrenched in the principles of representative, not direct, democracy.

The third and final change in the Czech constitution with Havel's handwriting on it is somewhat peculiar. It is the Article 7 which says that "the State shall attend to a prudent utilization of natural resources and to protection of natural wealth" and which is a revised and shortened version of Havel's original proposal.

In the end it is rather difficult to draw a clear line from the humanistic beliefs of Václav Havel and the legislation of the Czech Republic or Czechoslovakia simply because generally speaking, these values are an inherent part of a free, democratic country. There are certainly parts which do reflect his own philosophy or that of his fellow dissidents, but once again these do not stray far from the core tenets of individual liberty, human rights, the free will of the people and all of these coming together in a civil society.