The state in all its forms is the result of an agreement concluded by any group to form a political entity (executive, legislative and judicial) that manages their lives and protects them from internal and external dangers, and guarantees their natural rights, by reformulating them into social rights. This is the simplest definition of the state that we can offer, as the state is the result of an agreement or contract concluded by society with itself, and it is termed that this agreement is called a social contract, the latter discusses the relationship of the citizen and the state, and provides the answer to an important question, Why should we submit and accept the authority of the state?
Three great thinkers who dealt with the social contract in research and detail, they are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jacques Jean Rousseau. The three presented their perceptions of human beings before the rise of societies. As for Locke, he tends to the innate goodness of human.
Because of the difference of the three in this first scenario, their interpretations and jurisprudence in the social contract differed between it being an absolute and obedient rule in order to curb human evils, as Hobbes sees it, and between a system that sees the nation as the supreme authority, and that the group does not meet on falsehood and that the government is an employee of the nation that puts it in order to pursue its interests only According to Rousseau.
As for John Locke, he believed in absolute innate human rights (life, liberty, and property) and saw the constitutional monarchy, three-powers, as the optimal system, so individual rights dissolve into the general will and innate rights turn into social rights under the legislation of the law and the constitution, and that the nation does not abandon For her rights, but the state entrusts her with the conditions of citizenship.
And our place does not accommodate the explanations of the big three theorizing in this regard, and it is available to every aspirant, and the important thing is that the social contract in all its forms is based on three conceptions, the first of which is the original state of the human being, and the form and cause of societies emerge, and the second is what the natural rights of this person are, and the third is the best way to preserve these rights And converting them from innate rights imposed by nature, to social rights imposed by law.
If we agree that the past is measured against the present, and that common sense is the origin, then the original situation here is in agreement with Locke that it is good par excellence and that societies were formed due to the nature of mankind and economic and security needs, and cooperation was the title of their survival of course, and thus we negate our need for absolute authority to protect us from the evils of ourselves.
What natural rights are there is no doubt the right to life (and this is the first purpose of the divine law) and freedom (this is not a privilege but an inherent component of the human being) and the right to property with two conditions, the first of which is to benefit from it and prevent it from being damaged (in order to provide the individual and society) and the second is not to prey on others and leave for everyone what It suffices him, and possession is entrusted to work and talent. These natural rights need a law that organizes them under the framework of the state in which the individual interests of the original (natural) state dissolve into the interests of society and its social rights (this does not necessarily mean the individual or group abandoning the innate rights, but rather is a form of depositing these rights with the government to safeguard it.
If the government fails in the past, it loses its legitimacy by breaching the contract, and this is not a threat to the system, but rather a safety valve for it and preserving it.) Society here is the observer and accountant for the work of the government that has been entrusted with the role (implementation and legislation) of these laws, and settling disputes between people (the judiciary) back to these legislations Also, in return, the citizen fulfills his obligations towards the state, such as maintaining order and obeying the law and defending it in all circumstances.
Based on all of the foregoing, the absence of any of these perceptions, or any ambiguity in the relationship of the citizen and the state, takes us compulsorily for the absence of trust between the state and its agencies and society and the consequent distortions in the national identity, the values of belonging, and the disintegration of the internal ranks, which may threaten our human being economically Security and social, and it refers us to a state of general lethargy and indifference, which we will pay for in the event of any threat or danger that requires us to stand side by side.
I think that in our Arab world, and in light of the current changes and circumstances, we need to write a new contract between our educated and conscious citizen and our governments, in which we preserve ourselves and our country, in which everyone has an audible voice that generates a consensus that puts us all in one trench, which draws the citizen’s relationship with the state, rights, and duties, restores confidence The state and its organs in society, and society’s trust in the state and its legislation. Society supports governments and gives them legitimacy with which to face external and internal challenges, and societies return to the role of monitoring the performance of these governments armed with a clear vision of the need to submit to the power and support their duties and obligations towards the state. This vision does not permeate any dark angle that may be implemented. Anyone from them, this will only immunize us and our country against the next challenges and guarantee the future we want for our children.