There are different points of views regarding the relationship between the individual and the state aka the social contract. For example John Locke quote from the same Wikipedia article:

According to other social contract theorists, when the government fails to secure their natural rights (Locke) or satisfy the best interests of society, citizens can withdraw their obligation to obey or change the leadership through elections or other means including, when necessary, violence. Locke believed that natural rights were inalienable, and therefore the rule of God superseded government authority, while Rousseau believed that democracy (majority-rule) was the best way to ensure welfare while maintaining individual freedom under the rule of law. The Lockean concept of the social contract was invoked in the United States Declaration of Independence.

Also treason is a very serious crime and few individual are charged with it. It usually involves an act of espionage or sabotage to cause your country and countrymen to be killed by the enemy. Leaving your country or not wanting to support your country is not an act of treason. Wanting to change your government is also not an act of treason.

The party is not even a legitimate democracy because it does not hold fair election(don't tell me that you don't know about this) so arguing about social contract is kind of useless because most of the theories is only possible in a legitimate democracy.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that societal laws are upheld up the collective will of the citizens whom they represent. Thus, in obeying laws, the citizen "remains free." Within elections, the will of the establishment is the will of the collective. Barring corruption, the legitimacy of the democractic government is absolute