Assess the contribution of interest groups to democratic government

Authors Avatar

Assess the contribution of interest groups to democratic government [50] – Oli Palmer

An interest group is an association of individuals who share similar beliefs that seeks to influence governmental policy in order to further their individual interests. The term ‘democratic’ literally means government by the majority, however a modern day ‘democratic government’ is a lot more complex. A modern democratic government would be expected, whilst acknowledging rule by the people, to take in the views of the minorities. There are clear benefits to the contribution of interest groups to government; the Pluralist view emphasises that in a healthy democracy, their role in education, encouraging participation, providing an alternative and assisting in the legislative process are all positive contributions. However, there are numerous arguments that negate their positive contribution, such as the ‘elitist theory’, which accounts for the differing levels of influence between the groups; certain groups have a greater influence due to greater resources. Furthermore, other issues arise such as the influence of money within interest groups, and that this sways from any positive democratic contribution; especially in America where the ‘revolving door syndrome’ highlights serious issues. Whilst there are perceived limits to their beneficial contributions, interest groups play an invaluable role in education and participation and therefore their contribution is overwhelmingly positive.

Interest groups may be considered as bad for democratic government because different groups have different levels of influence; far from the idea of the plurality system’ which suggests that all groups act equally. This idea is propagated by Schattsschneider in the ‘elitist theory’ in which he claims ‘the flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper class accent.’ This is the view that only the larger and more established groups such as the Chamber of Commerce in the USA or the Confederation of British Industry in the UK can actually gain access to government, and the fact that only a minority of groups are well funded and well established means that the system is biased against smaller groups. This view is furthered by the Corporatist view which discusses the privileged position that certain groups enjoy in relation to government, which enables them to influence the formation and implementation of policy. This cosy relationship is seen clearly in America where corporate organisations wield a vast deal of power due to their access to lobbyists. For many, the ‘revolving door syndrome’ in America is incredibly undemocratic, as it seems that Congressmen are working for Lobbying groups whilst in Congress in return for funding/a highly paid job afterwards, such as  Billy Tauzin in 2003 who pushed through  a $1.3 billion bill on prescriptions, then went straight into a pharmaceutical job at Pharma, vastly increasing his salary from 150k to 2 million. Edward Kennedy famously described them as ‘the finest Congress money can buy.’ This leads to unequal competition between groups as ‘iron triangles’ begin to develop, leading to deals being made behind closed doors and a small channel of views being taken on board, which is contradictory to democratic process. So whilst there are currently around 15,000 -based lobbyists (consultants, lawyers, associations, corporations, NGOs etc.) and around 2,600 special interest groups have a permanent office in Brussels seeking to influence the policy of the European Union, there are undoubtedly groups that have greater influence than others. Moreover, in living in an increasingly smaller world with greater globalisation, this trend is set to continue, as larger interest groups such as the National Farmers Union in Britain are easily able to target supra national bodies such as the EU. Thus, Interests groups and corporations with large amounts of resources and a great number of access points allow them to exert more influence, which reduces participation amongst other aspects of society and leads to the assertion of plutocracy.

Join now!

Following this view, the fact that certain groups have greater influence means that sectional interests may impede on the greater good. For example, Obama’s Health Care legislation which was passed in 2009, many pharmaceutical companies attempted and successfully influenced the bill. In fact, $1.2 billion was spent on lobbying in health care in 2009, and indeed, large corporations such as the American Medical Association and Glaxo Smith Klein were able to promote their sectional interests. In the UK as well, pressure groups affect the process of legislating, which can be considered a bad thing for democratic govern, considering they already ...

This is a preview of the whole essay