Are pressure groups a threat to the democratic process in the United Kingdom?

Pressure groups, are un-elected by the general public, yet they are a part of the political, and some could argue, the democratic process in the United Kingdom.

Pressure groups are normally single-issue groups, or they claim to represent the interest of a section of society or organisations.

Political parties by their very nature cannot hope to be experts on all areas of policy and issues, and therefore they have to consult with think tanks and/or pressure groups. For instance, whilst considering their policies on the environment, a political party may ask the views and opinions of the RSPB, friends of the Earth, Green peace or a particular university or think-tank. Pressure groups exist to influence government policy over the area or areas that concern that pressure group.

There are two main systems that can exist where pressure groups are concerned. These are pluralism and corporatism. British pressure groups fit in a the description of a Liberal sub-group of corporatism, there being a mixture of groups that have weak or no links to government and themselves (these tend to be groups such as the Animal Liberation front, and other, more radical environmental groups) and interest groups such as trade unions and the CBI.

The position of pressure groups in the democratic process within the United Kingdom is intriguing. Pressure groups rarely become active within the democratic process by way of seeking representation at a local and national government level.

Most pressure groups have some kind of internal democracy, but cause and episodic groups are likely to have a decentralised structure, taking decisions to the membership of the groups, where as corporatist groups will hold elections to committees that make decisions on behalf of the membership.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Interest groups such as the trade unions have a very democratic structure, as they are required to be by law. They do not want to be seen as undemocratic organisations that at times try to blackmail the government by threatening the government. Trade unions are the most prominent pressure groups for as they represent large numbers of the working public and they can threaten very effective sanctions against employers and/or the government is some instances, they can even paralyse a country until the situation is resolved. The trade unions are unique in having this position, they are at times seen to be working so closely with the government, that they are considered a very important part of the decision making process, and at other times they can take action against every government policy, by way of strikes. When the two situations occur at the same time, the question could be asked ‘who runs the country, the government or the unions’. This in distinction between interest groups and the government is a key feature when discussing whether or not pressure groups are a threat to the political system.

On one hand, they represent the minority groups, giving them a voice that they ordinarily wouldn’t have, they bring to the attention of the media their cause and what they think should be done by the government about that issue. They gain notoriety by holding demonstrations, rallies and by Lobbying MPs and the government. The effectiveness of pressure groups is subject to a number of factors. The first is the ‘quality’ of their memberships, i.e., whether they have a ‘mail order membership’, or whether they have a committed membership, ready to campaign day in, day out for their cause, be it through leaflet distribution, lobbying government (although the more financially capable groups employ professional lobbyists) or attending meetings, be they public or group meetings, and demonstrations. The effective groups normally have a committed membership, that is ready and eager to expand, and so be a mixture of the two types of membership. A group’s access to government is another important influence on the effectiveness of pressure groups, they seek to change the situation in the country, be it social or political, however, both normally can only be rectified by working with or persuading the government, access is critical, if the government chooses to ignore a pressure group, it is very hard, but not impossible to effect change and influence.

The organisation of pressure groups is crucial, if they have a corporate structure; it is more flexible and able to change position in the face of a rapidly changing situation. Whereas pressure groups whose decision making process is membership based, means that the group can’t be as flexible, but it can claim to represent the views of its membership. Having professionals, such as leading scientists, doctors, civil servants, captains of industry, the aristocracy, and MPs as prominent members of a pressure group, can increase its standing in the eyes of the public and those in power.

Resources is key to any pressure groups effectiveness, if they have a large amount of money as a result of donations, they can take their campaigning to a national or even international level. Having a staff is also a factor; they can organise and orchestrate campaigns for the pressure group. Staffing and income are interlinked, and normally so is the size of a membership.

The functioning of pressure groups raise questions about the democratic nature of decision making within them and the effects on democratic political processes of their activities.

The democratic nature of decision making within groups is closely linked to the question of the ‘representativeness’ of the leaders of groups and the views they express on behalf of their members, or the public. The leadership and active membership is predominantly middle aged and middle class. It could be argued that it is precisely the people who are best equipped to look after their own interests that are very keen to join groups which attempt to strengthen the individual’s chances of success in influencing the government. As a result of the conservatives coming to power in 1979, the most prominent and influential pressure groups, the unions, were made to hold secret ballots in advance of strike action, as previously the only vote was by a show of hands at a meeting. All ‘executive’ members of trade unions were required to be elected by the membership, rather than the executive. The government of the time claimed that these measures have given more power to the ordinary union members in decision making and therefore making the decisions of the leadership more representative of the views of the whole membership, rather than the paid officials. It also slowed down the unions responses to decisions taken by employers and the government that affect the union’s membership.

A Liberal democracy, has, as one of its concepts, the ideal that majority decision making should be coupled to the belief that minority interests should be none the less, protected. Pressure groups can be seen in the light of this argument as representing only narrow, self-interests and that to adopt their ideas would be seen as rejecting the will of the majority. In this way groups can be seen to have a disproportionate affect on government in relation to their size of membership, and that rich groups can hold sway over the government, despite their size. Thus it can be argued that the will of the majority is by-passed by the ability of pressure groups to influence the political system. This process can be seen as anti-democratic, and the will of the majority may be abandoned in order to please pressure groups.

A pluralistic view of pressure groups sees them as enhancing the democratic process. Pressure groups, it is argued, supply useful information for the government, keep it aware of the wishes of the people, and enhance the liberal democratic principles of political competion, with the result that a tolerant and open socitety will be created where an over-riding objective is the establishment of widespread concensus. The competion between pressure groups, it is argued, ensures that no permannet minority is created. The assumption is that the total of the opinions expressed by pressure groups, expresses the total of public opinion.

The number of conflicting voices that reach the government may seem endless, but, in terms of a pluralistic rather than a coporatist system, it is still the government that has to decide between the competing groups and that has the final say over decision making.

Pressure groups are an integral part of the polictal process in the untied kingdom, and the encorage public participation and the ability to freely express opinions and views, features of a democratic process, it would be unwise to say that they are a threat to the democratic process, since it was the democratic process that created them.

Paul Frame 12 LQM.