Source: https://odishapostepaper.com/edition/5829/orissapost/page/6
The Free-Rider Dilemma
-Bruhaspati Samal-
There are moments in history when silence becomes louder than slogans, when folded hands become heavier than raised fists, and when the greatest tragedy is not oppression itself but the willingness of the oppressed to live comfortably beneath it. Every civilization has been shaped not merely by those who fought, but equally by those who watched from the sidelines, waiting for others to bleed so that they themselves could later harvest the fruits of sacrifice. History is a strange courtroom. It rarely remembers those who remained silent, yet those very people are often the first to claim the rewards won by others. The tears shed by a handful become the smiles of millions. The prison cells occupied by a few become the freedoms enjoyed by generations. Every right that appears ordinary today was once an extraordinary demand raised against overwhelming resistance.
This paradox is not confined to the freedom movements of the past. It continues to haunt modern democracies. Whether the issue is examination paper leaks, unemployment, crimes against women and children, pension reforms, labour rights, environmental protection or public accountability, the pattern remains painfully similar. A small section protests, another section silently watches, and yet another openly criticizes the protesters. Ironically, when the struggle succeeds, the benefits flow to everyone without discrimination. Political scientists describe this phenomenon as the "free rider problem," first systematically explained by economist Mancur Olson in The Logic of Collective Action. Olson demonstrated that whenever the benefits of a movement are public and cannot be restricted only to participants, many individuals prefer to remain passive and enjoy the rewards without contributing to the struggle. Social movement scholars have repeatedly confirmed that collective action often suffers because people assume someone else will bear the cost while everyone will eventually receive the benefit.
This explains why thousands remain absent even when the issue directly affects them. Participation demands courage, time, resources and sometimes even personal sacrifice. Silence, on the other hand, appears safe. But this apparent safety is deceptive. If everyone chooses silence, no movement survives and no reform is ever achieved. Take the recurring issue of examination paper leaks in India. Every leaked paper destroys not merely one examination but the faith of millions of honest students. The consequences are universal. Students belonging to every political ideology, every religion, every caste and every economic background suffer equally. Yet whenever students organize demonstrations demanding accountability, one frequently observes another section questioning the protest itself instead of questioning the administrative failure that made the protest necessary. Such criticism does not strengthen democracy; it weakens society's ability to correct its own mistakes.
The same contradiction is visible in the struggle of employees and pensioners. Across India, organized labour movements over several decades have secured fundamental rights which today appear almost natural — periodic Pay Commission, Dearness Allowance linked to inflation, House Rent Allowance, Leave Travel Concession, medical facilities, pension benefits, gratuity, bonus, maternity leave, compassionate appointments, regulated working hours and numerous service protections. None of these emerged spontaneously from governmental generosity. They were secured after decades of negotiations, demonstrations, strikes, court battles and sustained organizational pressure by trade unions and employees' associations. Even international labour history recognizes collective bargaining as the principal instrument through which workers improve wages and service conditions. Yet, the curious reality is that many individuals enjoying these very benefits criticize those who continue to struggle for unresolved issues such as pension security, restoration of defined pension systems, better working conditions or protection of labour rights. They forget that had previous generations adopted the same attitude, the benefits they enjoy today would never have existed.
This is precisely how the free-rider dilemma operates. Modern labour research shows that union-negotiated improvements frequently extend even to non-members because employers generally apply revised service conditions uniformly for reasons of administrative convenience and fairness. Consequently, workers who never participate often receive the same improved salaries, safer workplaces and enhanced benefits as active members. Researchers describe union achievements as "public goods" because their benefits are largely non-excludable.
Psychology further explains why people remain silent. Many fear retaliation. Others believe that a single individual cannot make any difference. Some assume the movement will fail anyway. A section identifies more strongly with political loyalty than with personal interest. Others experience what psychologists call the "bystander effect," believing someone else will intervene. Still others convince themselves that neutrality is wisdom. In reality, neutrality in the face of injustice often strengthens injustice itself.
History repeatedly proves otherwise. India's independence was not achieved because everyone participated. It was achieved because a determined minority refused to surrender. The abolition of discriminatory laws across the world, the establishment of universal voting rights, labour protections, civil rights, gender equality, environmental safeguards and constitutional freedoms all began with relatively small groups confronting overwhelming public indifference. Later, entire societies inherited their victories.
Economic studies likewise demonstrate that collective action produces enormous returns extending far beyond active participants. Wage settlements influence entire industries. Pension revisions affect future retirees. Educational reforms benefit generations yet unborn. Anti-corruption campaigns improve governance for citizens who never attended a single protest. Environmental movements protect children who were not even born when the demonstrations occurred. Public goods possess precisely this remarkable characteristic: once achieved, everyone benefits irrespective of individual contribution.
The moral question therefore becomes unavoidable. Is it ethically acceptable to consume the fruits of sacrifices while condemning those who planted the tree? Can one celebrate improved salaries while ridiculing trade unionism? Can one demand transparent examinations while mocking students who seek accountability? Can one expect justice while discouraging those who speak against injustice?
Therefore, the next time voices rise against injustice, the real question is not whether every slogan is perfect or every protest is flawless. The deeper question is whether silence will solve the problem better than participation. Those who remain silent today may indeed enjoy tomorrow's victories, but history will always know who paid the price. The rights we enjoy today were purchased not by the comfort of spectators but by the courage of participants. Every protest that secures justice becomes a bridge over which even its critics eventually walk. The bridge never asks who built it. But history never forgets.
(The author is a Service Union Representative and a Columnist)
*****
0 Comments