'The existence of pressure groups makes government more democratic; the activities of pressure groups also make democratically elected governments more effective

Omar Saleem – Politics Essay

‘The existence of pressure groups makes government more democratic; the activities of pressure groups also make democratically elected governments more effective.’ Discuss

Before deciding whether pressure groups democratise government or make them more effective, it is essential to define what a pressure groups consists of. A modern democratic society involves active citizenship, an open government, the right to vote over the age of 18 years, community, free speech, participation and pluralism. Although elections provide an effective opportunity for people to play a part in politics they are only held once every four years, therefore pressure groups provide continuous involvement in politics.

Pressure groups provide an open freedom for citizens, especially minority groups. When like-minded individuals organise events such as demonstrations, campaigns and petitions, governments have no option but to sit up and take notice. Moreover, as pressure groups are based on a single issue, which a large group of people support, they can put their time and effort into being heard by the government.

In the USA however, the term “pressure group” is not favoured amongst academics. They see it as a tool that implies force rather than persuasion, thus refer to them as “interest groups”. This issue will be discussed further in the American politics part of this essay.

Pressure Groups In Britain

Stereotype has it that the relationship between pressure groups and the government is adversarial. However pressure groups often prove they are very useful by providing information to government ministers and civil servants if they lack information on policies, particularly controversial issues. Pressure groups provide a “Pro and Anti” argument when controversial issues are raised in parliament, henceforth it can be argues that pressure groups help departments make wiser policies for the people, democratising its appeal amongst voters.

Pressure groups support or acceptance of a particular policy can help to legitimise it, therefore increasing its chances of a successful implementation. When governments are formulating policies, they consult certain groups, e.g. The Ministry of Agriculture. Wyn Grant has distinguished these as ‘insider’ groups. Groups that do not have access to Whitehall such as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), is categorised as ‘outsider’ groups.

Pressure groups help disperse power, and ask for check on over-powerful legislatures and executives. They provide functional representation according to occupation and belief. They apply scrutiny to governmental activity whilst publicising poor practise. Media campaigns also raise public awareness of agendas within government, allowing for continuous representation between elections therefore enhancing the level of participation. Consequently democratically elected governments are seen as more effective both from the inside and outside. High turnouts regarding voters during elections are seen as consequences of effective government. In effect this is achieved in part due to the existence of pressure groups.

The ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The existence of some pressure groups has a negative effect on government, in turn making it seem far less democratic. For example the Anti Fox Hunting group has a reputation for violence and extreme action as its method of making itself heard. In fairness to the group this has worked as media attention has been vast. However as violence occurs government needs to crush it. Therefore by sending in armed police, confrontation is increased. The media and the public always show sympathy to the innocent member of the pressure group that has been caught up in the violence. Their opinion of the government wanes thus they are seen as less effective.

Some pressure groups are seen as far more effective at influencing government than others. For example the National Firebrigade Union has immense power over government. Their role in society is hugely important therefore they usually have popular pubic support. As a result when pay disputes arise, they have the upper hand in most cases. In addition pressure groups that attract vast media interest are far more effective at influencing government than others. Once again this can be applied to the Firebrigade Union. Having a well known leader who is always in the governments face also makes some groups more effective than others. As a result even if your leader is not so effective, like Andy Gilchrist, their presence alone can influence government. The singlemost important factor regarding the effectiveness of pressure groups is their regard within the public. If they are seen to be fighting a worthy cause, one that the government may no support, they get support. Human psychology is such that challenging power is for a cause you believe in is worth it.

Pressure Groups in the USA

As mentioned in the introduction, pressure groups within the USA are seen as interest groups. In the USA nine out of ten people belong to at least one interest group. On average, an American belongs to four groups. The success of interest groups is mainly due to four broad factors; the diverse and heterogeneous American society, weak opposition parties, the fragmented and decentralised structure of the US government and the expansion of government activity.

In the US many of the poor, particularly those from ethnic origins do not feel aligned to any party. This is especially true as a two-party system operates in the USA, in the 2000 General Election it was recorded that only 40% of the poorest fifth of the country voted, therefore many prefer to belong to an interest group. To a certain extent this contradicts British society as it is usually the poorest in society who feel the need to vote and express their opinions. This is possibly because British society does not hang under the loom of national censorship.

Political power in the USA is federal and therefore decentralised, allowing for more access points for ordinary citizens to lobby. The more people that belong to a pressure group, the more powerful it becomes. Unlike in British Politics, interest groups in the US provide 40% of funds for the House Members. Therefore their influence is far greater and as incumbent candidates receive money, they feel obliged to vote for legislation which sympathises with the interest group.

So where does the ‘real power of decision making’ lie? In effect in both the USA and Britain, it lies with the person at the top of power. However their power to make decisions is influenced in various ways. In Britain pressure groups in most cases have no influence over decision making. For example, the fox hunting law was passed inspite of widespread demonstrations and campaigns. Decision making in Britain is far more influenced by key members in the Cabinet. In the US however, decision making is influenced by interest groups. Financial issues are more essential in American politics than in British politics. Therefore, remembering where nearly half the Houses finance comes from, interest groups have more power. In addition due to factors such as censorship, the freedom of speech that interest groups have is something that is very popular amongst the American public. Consequently their support grows and so does their influence on power.

The power of interest groups derives from current issues. With lobbying being so vast in the USA it is necessary to broaden these groups. For example the business group is known as the National Federation of Independent Business which represents all business groups. Therefore with America being so powerful on a world business scale, the power of this group cannot be underestimated. Businesses such as General Motors (GM) and General Electric are well represented in Washington. These two businesses alone are so important to the economy that the majority of politicians are forced to listen to their concerns.

What is evident is that the groups with the largest financial weight have the mot influence in American politics, and in most cases do influence decision making.

The Pressure Groups Issue

In recent years there has been a general feeling among pressure groups to aim their efforts at the EU. As the EU expands and becomes more financially powerful their influence over British politics will inevitably grow. Consequently appealing to the EU will potentially reap rewards for the pressure groups. In addition pressure groups within a country as politically active as England will have more of an influence on the institutions of the EU than their European counterparts. Similarly to the USA pressure groups abroad have more of an influence on politics than they do at home. As a result the EU may favour these groups and help them with their issues.

However this can have a detrimental affect on government. Pressure groups with widespread support will effectively make the government seem far less democratic, as large numbers of people are rallying against its power. Their power will seem less effective and this will have a major influence on the world political scene. Therefore directing efforts to the EU could be seen as a double-edged sword. Ultimately the government may not have the power to help them regardless of if it wanted to.

Since Thatcher’s government believed it had a mandate to govern, many politicians have called for pressure group lobbying to be regulated. This is something that could have both benefits and costs for the government. In effect pressure groups provide a consistent link between the voters and the government, particularly between elections. By regulating their lobbying powers you break this link and many voters could become discontent with the government. However by regulating lobbying the government can make decisions it wants to without the worry of lobbying from pressure groups. It can be argued that this may make the government less democratic. In addition if people want to lobby, government regulations are unlikely to stop them.

Therefore it would most certainly be foolish to regulate lobbying in both Britain and the USA as both governments are dependant on the pressure groups to stay in power.

Conclusion

When weighing the positives and negative aspects of pressure group existence it can be sad that in general they do enhance democracy and make it more effective. Pressure groups play an essential role in a modern democratic society by giving people a voice if they do not intend to join a political party. Moreover it is essential to realise pressure groups intend to influence policy, not control it. Therefore the governmental powers remain whilst the keep a firm grip on their voters though pressure groups.