In his essay “Of the Independency of Parliament” (first published c. 1741), David Hume defends the Enlightenment idea that constitutions should assume that individuals, including politicians, are self-interested and that rulers will try to abuse their power. A famous passage reads:
In constraining any system of government and fixing the several checks and controuls of the constitution, each man ought to be supposed a knave, and to have no other end, in all of his actions, than private interest.
Consequently, a constitution must be knavish, that is, establish checks and balances in a way that the self-interest of some (Hume mentions the executive) will constrain the self-interest of others (in the legislature). Contemporary public choice theory further emphasizes that political analysis must assume that politicians are as self-interested as ordinary individuals. (The reader interested in a defense of “knavish constitutions” may consult Brian Kogelmann, “In Defense of Knavish Constitutions,” Public Choice, 196 [2023], pp. 141-156.)
Pehaps Hume underestimated the potential threat from the chief executive, especially in today’s context of an inordinately powerful state. The chief executive could be more dangerous than a knave if he happens to have character defects or cognitive deficits. If Hume came back to life, I would respectfully suggest that he might be more explicit about politicians at the helm of the state and add something like:
It is not impossible that a ruler, elected or not, be an ignorant idiot.
Hume must have known the danger. Caligula (emperor from 37 to 41 AD) pretended to be a god. A “mad and unpredictable tyrant,” he was assassinated by a member of his Praetorian Guard. Nero (reigned 54-68 AD), brought to the supreme magistrature by the Praetorian Guard (“the Senate thus had to accept a fait accompli,” writes Britannica), had his own mother and his first wife assassinated. He gave public performances as a poet and lyre player. After a revolt on the frontier, he reportedly said, “I have only to appear and sing to have peace once more in Gaul.”
Hume might reject my proposed amendment as too polemical for his scholarly demeanor. I would point out that “knave” was a very strong and pejorative word at the time he was writing, and that he emphasized it in his essay; and that my proposed addendum simply highlights the danger of personal power.
******************************
Statue of David Hume in Edinburgh
