Today, it is very fashionable to talk about civil society; the term is on everybody’s lips, but when you ask people to define the concept, it becomes clear that they do not really understand its importance, how it developed, or the basic conditions that must exist in order for civil society to operate. For example, can a civil society exist under occupation? Palestine, you will soon discover, is a unique example in this regard, as even in the absence of central government we had a flourishing civil society. This leads us to the question: What is a civil society?

Even social scientists have a problem defining civil society in a precise manner, and each has a slightly different perception of its meaning; in other words, there is no consensus on the exact meaning of the term. I think that one of the most appropriate definitions is that of Michael Walzer, an American professor. He sees civil society as "… a dense network of civil associations" working openly in a democratic society and having the ability to reach the decision-maker in order to influence events. This dense network is said to promote the stability and effectiveness of the democratic polity through the effects of associations on citizens and their influence on decision-makers. What we are talking about is their ability to gather, to take decisions and to make these decisions known to the decision-maker to allow him to take into consideration the hopes and aspirations of the civil society. On the other hand, by gathering and associating, citizens are mobilized to participate and be active.

Alexis de Tocqueville proposed another definition. De Tocqueville, a French intellectual who is often referred to as the ‘father of democracy’, went to the US at the height of the French revolution and after studying the American political system, published a very famous book called Democracy in America, which contained his own definition of democracy. In the book, which was published in the 19th century and has since been reprinted many times, De Tocqueville emphasizes the ability of association to foster patterns of civility in the actions of citizens living in a democratic polity. He stresses that a democracy is the only political system that allows you to act openly with regard to politics without any censorship.

In a more recent publication, Civil Society and the State, published in 1988, John Keene maintains that the term civil society refers to a mixture of various forms of associations, including unions, clubs, charities, religious associations and other types of formations that freely interact and communicate with each other in a spirit of civility and tolerance, not only for their own sake, but for the sake of the entire population. Neighborhood committees, interest groups, philanthropic enterprises of all types - all these kinds of associations are part of civil society. It is important to note that the fact that there is a civil society does not allow one civil group to act selfishly for their own goal without regard to the others. For example, you might have the right to speak freely, but this does not mean that you have the right to go into a building and shout "fire" when there is no fire, because you have to take into consideration the good of the group as a whole.

In 1992, Adam Seligmann, in his book The Idea of Civil Society raises very important questions related to the underlying concepts of civil society, such as the meaning of the common good and its definition. When talking about civil society, it is necessary to consider how state and society can interact and reinforce each other in a manner that creates and sustains a democratic system. Sometimes, we face people who think that they monopolize the truth and they want to impose it on everybody else. Should we allow that? In many societies, we currently have a problem with fundamentalists who think that everybody should behave in a manner that they define, be they Jewish, Moslem, or Christian. They want us to believe that their beliefs benefit everyone, but do they have this right to impose their beliefs on us? Is this the meaning of civil society?

The chief virtue of civil society is its ability to act as an organized counterweight to the abuses of the state apparatus, but what if the state apparatus is a tyrannical apparatus? In Latin America, civil groups acted collectively and were successful in changing the regime, but only after paying a high price. Also in a democracy, a civil society provides a buffer between the state and the citizens.

To understand the role of civil society in the modern world, we have to understand how and under what circumstances civil associations operate; moreover, we have to look at the differences between a civil society in countries of the Third World and those of the First World. What does a civil society do? In some countries in Latin America, in Argentina or Chile, for example, civil society actually allowed the people to free themselves of authoritarian regimes by exercising collective resistance. In the case of Palestine, the case is slightly different because you are not only talking about a repressive regime, but also a very cruel and brutal military occupation. With regard to the Third World in general, we see that democracy is not always a condition for the existence of a civil society, although it can be a consequence of the work of civil society. Civil groups work towards democratizing society from below while pressing the authoritarian political system for change.

The school of Alexis de Tocqueville is reflected in Western moralist writings. As they refer to democratic societies that are already operational, e.g., in the US or the UK, they see the chief virtue of civil society as being the capacity of those involved to act according to the norms of generalized reciprocity. This has to be based on trust and on the fact that everyone is taking the common good as a whole into consideration while doing his own thing. People are not able to cooperate if they do not trust each other.

We can define civil society as the community of civil associations providing the network for civil engagement within which reciprocity is learned and enforced; thus, trust is generated, and communication and patterns of collective action are facilitated. Groups will not want to do anything that others will consider offensive, because if they do, they will lose credibility and their ability to operate on common ground, according to widely acceptable norms. The condition for this system to work is that you must have societal pluralism, i.e., the ability of all these groups to work freely and equally.

Why are we talking about all this? How does it relate to our Palestinian society? Do we have something called civil society, or is it impossible for civil society to exist when we are still under occupation? Palestine is a unique case in that, between 1967 and 1991, in the absence of a state and central government, and without any formal, centrally organized political socialization via schools, the media, religion, friends or family, people began to organize themselves in civil groups - which subsequently became known as NGOs - and took over the role of a government. Actually, more than 400 NGOs evolved throughout the different sectors of Palestinian society between 1967 and 1990 in order to fill the gap that was left by the lack of a government.

It is true, to a certain degree, that many of the NGOs were political and backed internally and externally by factions. Most of the successful NGOs that actually substituted the central governmental authority in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip were Communists or so-called Leftists, apparently because they were very well organized. But the reason why they organized themselves into NGOs was to help the medical sector, nothing else.

Although the loyalty of many of the NGO employees was to the faction and their main concern was serving the faction’s cause, the people that came to get help from these NGOs did not regard them as political groups; in order to get help, they would go to any political group, even to the Israelis. You might have thought that a person belonged to your organization, but he was coming to you out of need, not because he was politically or ideologically committed to you. When I first came back, everybody was telling me that the Leftists or the Communists had taken over all the NGOs and were going to come to power and rule us - the fact that this never happened is proof that people did not believe in their ideas, even though they turned to them for help.

A very basic concept in this regard is the difference between a political party and an interest group. A political party has permanency; interest groups, once they have achieved their goal, dissolve and everybody goes home. In the US, for example, you now have professional lawyers with offices, sitting there and soliciting a fee in order to achieve the goal of an interest group. They are permanent in the sense of being part professional offices, but they are not permanent in the sense of being a political party. Why? A political party has a declared agenda, a political platform, and it operates according to that platform. A professional legal firm will take your case irrespective of whether or not it has anything to do with its own agenda. On the other hand, as long as there is a need for civil groups to take common action, they will exist, and totally different people will work together in such groups to achieve common goals.

As mentioned above, civil societies in the Third World face special problems. They are not allowed to flourish in a democratic environment, but civil groups are sometimes able to defeat professional militaristic dictatorships by collective action. In Palestine, we have a similar situation.

Factionalism as in Palestine leads to competition and this often does not serve the people. However, one can also take the other extreme and play the devil’s advocate, by saying, that on the contrary, competition is excellent and should be there because it brings out the best in the human being.

Returning to the ten principles of democracy, one could say the US has a democracy, and that the Americans lead in human dignity, liberty, and representation for Americans, but in outside relations, there is no such thing as human dignity, or liberty for other people. This is because what is good for the gander is not good for the goose. American society allows the American male to do whatever he wants yet if he sees his sister going out he makes a big hullabaloo. In the US, what is good for the [White Anglo-Saxon Protestant] Americans is not good for the blacks, it is not good for the Puerto Ricans, it is not good for the Mexicans. But this has nothing to do with the theory of democracy; the theory is there and is applicable.

Another example is Israeli democracy. Israel is a very democratic country for the Jews, actually for a particular sector of the Jews, the sector that serves in the army. Why do you think someone like Shimon Peres did not win the elections? Only because he was not a general. People went with Rabin and Barak, they will go with Sharon and so on, but they will not go with a civilian. Israel is not yet ready for a civilian because the Israelis do not trust their leaders, they do not even trust each other. What is good for an Israeli Jew is not good for anyone else. An Israeli Jew has all kinds of rights that Palestinians do not have: he can buy a home on credit, he can get an Israeli ID card right away when coming to Israel, etc. Israel is a democratic country, but it is democratic for the Jews only. Look at the degree to which the Arabs that have lived with them since 1948 are disadvantaged.

Another example is Palestinian society. It has been there for decades, but there is no doubt that at this particular stage of our history, some of its highly important aspects are being mismanaged. In 1989 to 1992, because of need, Palestinians were able to organize superbly, despite all problems, and proved to the international community that they could make it. Yet, since 1995, Palestinians started to feel a little bit different. There is a difference in the psychology of people who are actually cornered and facing desperation and are forced to organize. Suddenly, in 1995/96 Palestinians felt reasonably secure because of all of the outside support they received, and so they went into reverse rather than organizing and taking this historical stage into their own hands as a Palestinian civil society. Why do the same people who have been claiming for the last 50 years they have built the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, when they finally have the chance to build their own society, mismanage it like this? This has to be studied separately with all its different factors: psychological, economic, social factors, the people who came from outside, the people who are inside, the relationship between them, etc. But in terms of civil society, even under occupation, which is an extreme contradiction of civil society, Palestinians must chose to work and fight together whilst organizing their civil society.