Why Free Riding in Democracies is a Serious Problem

I am pretty sure you have already heard about the problem of free riding. We can observe it whenever you can use or take advantage of something you don’t have to pay directly for but also cannot be excluded from. This can become problematic when everyone wants to use and take advantage of the good, but not enough people contribute to its provision.* And guess why we talk about it today: This problem also describes a challenge in democracies.

Source: https://ourwaterfront.org/feature/playgrounds/

In some regards, democracies are a public good. Not every individual in a democracy contributes significantly or equally to maintaining the public good of a democratic state, and it is hard to put the cost of democracy into figures, not even speaking about dividing those. At the same time, as a democratic state, you cannot exclude people who don’t contribute sufficiently or nothing at all to the democratic system. In this sense, democracies typically don’t take away their citizens’ rights just because they don’t discuss politics in their daily lives, not even if they did not participate in the election (this partly makes them democracies, almost unconditional universal rights and freedoms for everyone). However, this lack of democratic contribution can lead to a state that does precisely this, robbing citizens of rights.

As history and the recent past illustrate, the citizens’ failure to contribute to democracy often ends up in less democratic or even authoritarian situations. We can see it in several Latin American countries, where the lack of political education and financial resources leads to a gap in democratic participation. In many Soviet countries, it comes with a certain mentality of indifference towards the political system. In many Western countries, the rising disenchantment with politics is paired with decreasing scores in democracy characteristics. How do societies and political systems get there?

Stage 1: A perfectly fine working democracy

(the public good is provided adequately)

Often, a bloody war, civil war, or bigger political conflict precedes democracy and pays the costs for its emergence. As a result, in the current stage, citizens find themselves in a perfectly fine working democracy. A liberal democracy is established, and rights and freedoms are secured. There is little to no corruption, and everyone enjoys freedom and liberal rights. The political system works appropriately, the legislative and judiciary keep a check on the executive and vice versa. People are satisfied, most of the time, there is economic growth or at least the expectation of future prosperity. Democracy is provided in quantities, and everyone can take advantage of the liberal, peaceful situation. Citizens don’t really have to worry about the big economic and political questions because these are adequately addressed by democratic politics and policies.

Stage 2: Citizens get lazy and spoiled

(the good is still provided adequately, but many people start to free-ride)

Living in a working democracy might make people politically lazy. Everything is running smoothly, so why deal with politics? Citizens get spoiled with democratic liberties and take them for granted. I don’t care what these politicians are doing there in the capital; it’s going well for me now, right? The past governments weren’t the worst, so why should I carry myself to the next election ballot? It’s been going fine recently.

The problem: This mindset enables people in power to potentially abuse citizens’ inattention and do whatever they want. Just as much as the executive, legislative, and judiciary are part of the checks and balances, so is the general public. And it is necessary to hold people in power accountable.

Stage 3: Single individuals take advantage of the democratic ignorance

(upcoming market failure: due to lacking contribution, individuals take advantage of the public good for themselves)

Citizens’ laziness develops into an ignorance of democracy and democratic values. This carelessness serves as an incentive for people who want to abuse their political power. They enter the democratic system, get to the top of the power ladder, and do, more or less, what they want. Corruption increases, policies become less transparent, and one or another right is limited for some parts of the population. All of this is possible because, since stage 2, a majority doesn’t care anyway about what happens.

Stage 4: Abolishing democracy and liberties

(market failure: the good is not provided any longer in sufficient amounts)

Before you know it, the power-thirsty individuals in power hijack the system and make it their own in front of the citizens’ eyes, watching them in disinterest. It leads to democratically elected Presidents who incite to commit a coup d’état on inauguration day or politicize the judiciary systems. It enables presidents who try to absolutize the presidential power and limit the checking powers of the remaining institutions while their national supporters celebrate them as the first woman in power. It goes all the way to a president who starts a war against their neighboring country while nobody really knows what the population genuinely thinks about it due to decades of political manipulation and government-friendly propaganda. It creates an environment in which political journalism becomes increasingly risky and, ultimately, nobody can be as safe and free as before.

Overall, citizens lose the quality and quantity of their liberal democratic rights because they were free-riding on democracy for too long until the proper provision of the good was no longer given.

What can be done to prevent the stage 4 scenario?

In every free-riding scenario, a superior organizing entity can enforce an adequate contribution by everyone in order to secure a sufficient provision of the good. This is a spicy debate in the context of democracy, though. Do we want an authority that keeps in check that we talk about politics at least several times a week? That makes sure we watch political debates between electoral candidates? That forces us to vote whenever we should? Probably we don’t. You see, it is a delicate matter.

What else can we do if the classic solution for free riding is unavailable? We must make sure ourselves. We must be reflective and ask ourselves if we actually do enough to sustain our democratic systems. We have to critically interact in political debates and question political agendas. And we have to motivate the people around us to do the same. Ultimately, there is no superior institution that guarantees liberal values and freedom. Democracy is a good offer in the political arena, and if not enough citizens demand it, it won’t be offered sufficiently.

*Imagine a public park. The entry is free, so everyone can go there and enjoy their afternoon, but it still needs maintenance. Somebody has to empty the trash cans and keep all areas clean. Someone must trim the grass and take care of the plants. Maybe it has a fountain or a playground that needs to be fixed every now and then. Especially when the entry is for free, many visitors will want to enjoy the park without any costs. And some of them might treat the park and its utilities not in the best way- they think it’s for free and they don’t have to bother. This mindset, however, increases the costs even more. These people might throw their trash around after their picnic, teenagers spray graffiti on the slide, and people throw stuff into the fountain. Maintaining the park becomes more and more costly. The park has to charge an entry fee to finance maintenance and thus simultaneously limit the number of visitors with this economic barrier. Otherwise, the park will be dirty and destroyed or completely shut down eventually due to financial hardships.