Proponents of democracy do not always, or only, come from within the civil branch of state and society, writes Amin Howeidi* I hear people talking about "civil society" as if society has become divided into two sections, or more. I find the term terribly annoying. We have already divided societies along ethnic, religious and class lines. Do we really need to divide them yet again into civil and uncivil? And which part exactly is the uncivil one? Is it the military? Do we really need to split society into many islands? Do we really need more walls of separation in our midst, like the one Israel is building to keep the Palestinians out, and Palestine in? What is particularly disturbing about the term "civil society" is that we're not in agreement on its meaning. Is civil society something distinctive from military society? Or are we referring to civilised society; to the evolvement of refined relations among individuals and groups within the same society; to the way we relate to political authority? To shed light on the matter, I am going to discuss the military and their role in society. Hopefully, this would convince others to abandon this unfair categorisation and begin thinking of society as an integral whole. I will start out by offering definitions for some key words that are relevant to the debate: military, militancy, military rule, and national security. A military person is a full member of society. Individuals who wear military uniform share the same values, hopes and aspirations as everyone else. They have the same rights and obligations. And when called to duty, they're even ready to give their lives for their country. Military people are citizens commissioned by the nation to perform certain tasks. They do so as a lifetime career or for the duration of their military service. I see no reason to view military people as a class apart, for they belong to society just as everyone else does. Militancy is an attitude. A militant country is one that seeks to expand and interfere in the affairs of others. Militancy is not another word for militarisation or armament. In militant states, the military and the industrial-military complex plays a certain role that conflicts with democracy. In militant states, the military is a contender for power. Militant states use the bulk of their resources for military purposes. Israel is a case in point. Examples of militant states include Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Egypt under Mohamed Ali. At present, the US can be viewed as a militant state. Since the neocons came to power, the US has been invading countries at will and in violation of international law. It has sought to impose its own system and promote its own interests by force. The US is a country where military industries offer tremendous boost to production, trade and employment. Militant states have an economy that is geared towards continual war. We're not talking war economy here, which is a temporary phenomenon. Look at Israel. Here is a country that is constantly marshalling resources, including foreign aid from the US, to stage aggressions against its neighbours. In a report submitted to the White House and Congress, the US public auditor has called on Israel to make peace with its Arab neighbours, saying that there is no guarantee that the US will be able to sustain the same level of assistance to that country in the future. In regional terms, militancy triggers arms races and turns regional conflicts into proxy wars. Militancy favours might, not right. Military rule is a label that applies to despotic and totalitarian regimes. Under military rule, the primary aim of the state apparatus is to keep power in the hands of the rulers, even when national security is compromised as a result. Under military rule, laws become arbitrary and power cannot be rotated, irrespective of whether the rulers are military people or civilians. Military rule can evolve under a national government that disregards democracy and restricts the freedom of its citizens, the civilians just as the military. Military rule can evolve under foreign occupation. It is noteworthy that a certain branch of the US armed forces -- the so- called "G5" -- is dedicated to civil- military operations. Military commanders have often assumed leading posts in democratic countries: Dewitt Eisenhower in the US, Charles de Gaulle of France, Winston Churchill of the UK, Alexander Haig of the US, and Ahmed Orabi of Egypt. The latter is the one who made constitutional demands on behalf of the entire nation to Khedive Tawfiq. If anything, this proves that military men can be just as democratic as the next person. As for national security, it is a concept that embraces but is not confined to military security. National security involves development in every area in the country. National security is therefore the responsibility of the president, not the defence minister. National security is about strategy and technology, not just arms and defence. To attain national security, a state should develop its economy as well as keep its borders safe and secure. What I am saying is that one cannot speak of civil society without oversimplifying the picture. One cannot speak of civil society without belittling certain members of our society who are crucial to our progress. Civil society is only one part of the picture. States need to be civil, but they also need to be strong. Societies need democracy just as they need to repel their enemies. Civil society and the military are not mutually exclusive. We need both. So perhaps we should talk of society as a whole and forget about further distinctions. Or, if you really need to, why not start referring to civilised society instead? * The writer is former minister of defence and chief of General Intelligence.
