If individuals unite to form a government, give their consent to their government to obtain the protection of rights, and work to maintain collective order and security, it is better to write down the rules of consent – a treaty. Whether the nation has 13 states or 50 — with 3 million or 330 million citizens — a country as large and diverse as the United States needs a written treaty between government and citizens. In moral and political philosophy, the social contract is a theory or model that was born in the Age of Enlightenment and generally concerns the legitimacy of state authority over the individual.  Social contract arguments generally postulate that individuals have agreed, either explicitly or implicitly, to give up some of their freedoms and submit to authority (of the sovereign or the decision of a majority) in exchange for the protection of their remaining rights or the maintenance of social order.   The relationship between natural and legal rights is often a subject of social contract theory. The term takes its name from the social contract (in French: Du contrat social ou principes du droit politique), a work by Jean-Jacques Rousseau from 1762 that discussed this concept. Although the precursors of social treaty theory are found in antiquity, Greek and Stoic philosophy, and Roman and canon law, the pinnacle of the social contract was the mid-17th to early nineteenth century. Century, when it turned out to be the dominant doctrine of political legitimacy. In this context, this article shows that after independence, mena countries had very similar company contracts, based on the provision of social benefits and not on political participation.
We maintain that after 1985 they continued to degenerate due to population growth and budgetary problems. The Arab uprisings of 2010/11 were an expression of discontent with a situation where governments did not grant political participation or social benefits such as employment. Since then, partnership contracts in MENA countries have evolved in different directions and their long-term stability is questionable. We are tackling the question of how they can be transformed to become more inclusive and therefore more stable. David Gauthier`s „neo-Hobbean“ theory argues that cooperation between two independent and selfish parties is indeed possible, especially when it comes to understanding morality and politics.  Gauthier particularly highlights the benefits of cooperation between two parties with regard to the challenge of the prisoners` dilemma. . . .