The Palestinian Social Contract Between the Rule of Law and the Requirements of Resilience

The author

Dr. Darar Ahmed Al-Abadi

The social contract refers to the set of principles, rules, and values that underpin the agreement between members of society and the public authority to organize their common affairs, determine the basis of the legitimacy of authority and the limits of its exercise, as well as the corresponding rights, freedoms, and obligations that fall on the state and the citizen. It does not necessarily assume the existence of a written contract in the traditional legal sense, but rather expresses the constitutional, legal, and political framework that defines the nature of the relationship between the ruler and the ruled, and among the citizens themselves. In the modern state, it is based on a number of pillars, foremost among them the rule of law, citizenship, equality, the separation of powers, the protection of rights and freedoms, participation, and accountability. From this perspective, the social contract is no longer merely a philosophical idea to explain the emergence of the state or justify the existence of authority; rather, its content is present in the constitutional principles that define the source of authority, how it is exercised, and the guarantees established for individuals in relation to it. The essence of the modern social contract is that the exercise of authority is not absolute but rather constrained by law, and that the citizen is not merely a recipient of state decisions but is a holder of rights and a partner in public life and a source of legitimacy. In return, the citizen bears the obligations and duties imposed by law towards society and the state. In the Palestinian context, this concept finds its foundation in the Declaration of Independence and the amended Palestinian Basic Law, and in the principles that underpin the Palestinian constitutional system, foremost among them that the people are the source of authority, the rule of law, equality, the protection of rights and freedoms, the separation of powers, and the subjection of public authority actions to oversight and accountability. Thus, the Palestinian social contract can be viewed as the relationship that is supposed to link the citizen with public institutions based on citizenship, law, rights, duties, and mutual trust. The idea of the social contract gains particular importance in the Palestinian case because this relationship has not developed in the context of a fully sovereign independent state, but rather under a highly complex political and legal reality, where the continuation of occupation and its constraints intertwine with internal challenges that have accumulated over the years, foremost among them political and institutional division, the decline of democratic life, and the accompanying economic and social crises, culminating in the war in the Gaza Strip and its wide-ranging humanitarian, social, and legal impacts. This makes the discussion about the future of the Palestinian situation not limited to the reconstruction of what the war has destroyed, but extends to rebuilding the relationship between the citizen and the institution, and among the components of Palestinian society itself. Talking about rebuilding the Palestinian social contract does not mean creating a new constitutional system or bypassing existing legal frameworks, but rather primarily means reactivating the principles on which the Palestinian legal system is based, foremost among them equal citizenship, the rule of law, judicial independence, the protection of rights and freedoms, political participation, neutrality of public office, accountability, transparency, and equal opportunities. The existence of legal texts alone is not sufficient to build trust; rather, this trust is formed through the citizen's feeling that the law is applied to everyone, that their rights are not affected by their political or social affiliation, that the judiciary is capable of protecting them, and that the public administration exercises its powers to serve the public interest within the limits set by law. In this context, transitional justice emerges as one of the important legal and societal approaches to addressing the effects of division and conflicts. It is not limited to judicial accountability but extends to uncovering the truth, redressing harm, institutional reform, community reconciliation, and ensuring non-recurrence. The Palestinian situation requires a specific conception of transitional justice that takes into account its particularities and the continuation of occupation, distinguishing between the responsibilities arising from it and the necessity of addressing the effects of internal division and the damages and violations that resulted from it, in a way that leads to rebuilding trust between the citizen and institutions and among the components of Palestinian society.

In this context, reconciliation should not be a substitute for justice, nor should justice become a means for revenge or settling political scores. Sustainable reconciliation is based on the law, preserves the rights of the affected, provides appropriate means for redress, restores trust in institutions, and ensures that the practices that contributed to deepening the division do not recur. Therefore, Palestinian reconciliation should not remain confined to an agreement among political forces, but should extend to a community reconciliation that restores the value of citizenship as the legal basis for rights and duties.

The social contract in the Palestinian case acquires an additional dimension directly related to steadfastness on the ground. Steadfastness is not achieved merely by asking citizens to remain, but by providing the legal, economic, and social components that make this existence possible and dignified. The right to education, health, work, housing, social protection, access to justice, and equality before the law are not just separate individual rights; they represent, in the Palestinian context, essential elements to enhance the community's ability to endure and persist. Hence, protecting the land cannot be separated from protecting the human beings who live on it. From this perspective, the rule of law, good governance, and social justice become tools to enhance steadfastness itself. A citizen who feels that the law protects them, that the judiciary is independent, that their dignity is preserved, and that their opportunities are not determined by their political or social affiliation, and that public administration treats them based on citizenship and equality, is more capable of stability and participation in building their community. Conversely, feelings of discrimination, lack of justice, or absence of equal opportunities not only weaken trust in institutions but also affect the cohesion of society and its ability to face crises. The importance of this is even more evident during the reconstruction phase, as the rebuilding process should not be limited to facilities and infrastructure, but should itself be subject to the principles of legitimacy, transparency, equality, and justice in resource distribution and redress. It should ensure the participation of those affected in determining priorities and provide clear mechanisms for oversight, accountability, and objection to decisions that affect rights. Because rebuilding institutions and facilities without restoring citizens' trust in them will not be sufficient to achieve true community recovery, and rebuilding a home does not fully achieve its purpose if the family that will live in it does not have the components of education, health, work, legal security, and a dignified life.

The strength of the social contract is not measured solely by the texts that establish it, but by the extent to which it reflects on the daily life of the citizen. Respect for legality in administrative decisions, equality in access to jobs and public services, independence of the judiciary, protection of public funds, and enabling participation in public affairs are all practical applications of the idea of the social contract. The more a citizen feels that the public institution represents them, protects their rights, and is itself subject to the law, the more their trust in it increases, and their sense of belonging and responsibility towards their community is reinforced. Therefore, the desired Palestinian social contract must return the citizen to the center of the legal system, making citizenship the foundation of rights and duties, the rule of law the basis for exercising authority, transitional justice a means to address the effects of the past, and social justice a tool to enhance resilience. The Palestinian challenge in the upcoming phase is not limited to reconstructing what the war has destroyed, but extends to rebuilding trust between the citizen and the institution and between Palestinians themselves. While rebuilding the land is a national necessity, establishing a state of law and a community of justice constitutes one of the most important guarantees for the continued existence of the Palestinian people on it. True resilience does not rely solely on demanding that the citizen remain, but on building a legal and societal system that provides the means for this existence and preserves their dignity, rights, and future.