Every political theory begins with an assumption about human nature
VENI, VIDI… AND UNDERSTOOD?
1.The First Question
Every political theory begins with an assumption about human nature. The problem is that most public debates begin after that assumption has already been accepted without discussion.
Néstor Daniel Scherman
Never before have we possessed such power to influence human behavior. Artificial intelligence, algorithms and digital platforms can shape decisions, influence preferences and concentrate information on a scale unimaginable only a few decades ago. Yet our public debates continue to revolve around the same familiar questions: more government or more markets, more regulation or more freedom.
These are important questions. But they are not the first question.
Every serious discipline begins by understanding the material with which it works. No engineer designs a bridge assuming there will never be wind. No physician studies the immune system by imagining a world without disease. Politics should begin in exactly the same way: by asking what human beings are actually like.
Every political, economic and institutional theory rests upon a particular conception of human nature. Whether explicit or implicit, that assumption shapes both the design of institutions and their limits.
Aristotle, David Hume, Friedrich Hayek and many others reached different conclusions, yet shared one intuition: no political order can be understood without first reflecting on the people who will inhabit and administer it.
History rarely provides simple answers. But it does allow us to test our hypotheses. Organizations created to solve problems may develop incentives to preserve themselves. Political parties that promise to limit power may eventually expand it. Companies founded to compete may later seek protection from new competitors.
While trying to make sense of these recurring patterns, I found a metaphor: the gravity of power.
Just as gravity attracts matter, power often appears to attract more power. Not always. Not inevitably. But frequently enough to justify institutional caution.
Technology does not change human nature; it amplifies its consequences.
Institutions should not be designed on the assumption of ideal citizens or exceptionally virtuous leaders. They should continue to function when ambition, fear, the desire for recognition and the determination to preserve influence emerge.
Perhaps the best way to judge a political system is not by how it performs when everyone follows the rules, but by how it responds when some try to use those rules to strengthen their own position.
If we misunderstand the material from which institutions are built, we should not expect those institutions to perform as intended.
Perhaps the first question of political theory was never the state, the market or ideology.
Perhaps the first question has always been the human being.
