Governments recognise the usefulness of pressure groups as a valuable source of information and expertise in helping them formulate policies. Governments will often consult with insider groups to find out about problems with their current policies along with suggestions for how this could be improved or to gauge negative feedback to new policies. By consulting the insider groups, government can also lend legitimacy to the policy. This is referred to as policy networking. (Jones, 2004 p237)
In complete contrast to insiders groups, outsider groups have no direct access to the decision makers, as they do not fulfil the criteria laid down previously.
With these distinctions is mind, it should be noted that not all groups exert the same level of influence over government. The extent to which they exert influence is down to several factors:
Political culture dictates how legitimate a group is – whether its formation is encouraged or discouraged, as this will affect the access it has to the decision makers. Political culture also dictates how likely the group will be to attract membership i.e. if no one joins; no one will take it seriously.
Institutional culture is a key factor. The structure of government can limit or open up access points that interests groups can use to campaign. For example, in the UK, the limited access points to the decision makers mean that a group must have insider status to make its point heard. If you are an outsider group, it is clear that the group will hold a relatively low level of influence, as the government do not view it as legitimate.
The existence of a dominant party system also lessens the access for groups as the only real way to influence decision making is by focussing on the governing party. If the cause is not already a concern of the government of the day, then there is less likelihood that the groups objectives will be considered by the Executive. With multi-party systems, there are more parties involved in decision making therefore groups have a better chance of being heard.
Public policy has a part to play. “The level of group activity fluctuates in relation to shifts in public policy, particularly the degree to which the state intervenes in economic and social life”. (Heywood, 2002, p 278-9).
There is a range of ways that groups can exert their influence, to a greater or lesser extent, over government. It could also be argued that some methods also exert influence over the public that can be used to rally support from the them so that, if the group itself cannot influence government, then public opinion may contribute to their campaign.
The methods used by groups are determined by certain factors which relate to the type of action taken and the associated financial cost. These factors include: the level of sympathy from the public to the group and its goals – the march against the war in Iraq attracted an estimated 1 million people. The size of its membership - the public sector union, Unison has a membership of 1.3 million (www.unison.org). The financial support and level of organisation. The impact that enforced sanctions by the group would have. For example, the 2002 dispute over firefighters pay resulted in nationwide strikes by the Fire Brigade Union and resulted in the military being drafted in.
The institutional links a group may have to a particular party i.e in the 1970s, the trade unions caused serious disruption in the UK. (Heywood, 2002, p280)
The methods used by groups to exert influence can be said to run on a continuum from low cost, low level, non-violent activities through to high cost, high level, violent activities. (Jones, 2004, p240)
Smaller, less well-financed groups may begin with activities such as petitioning which are then submitted to a local or central government. For example, if a local authority wanted to close a school, the parents may get together to produce a petition that would be presented to the local education authority. At the opposite end of the spectrum lie more extreme versions of direct action. For example, in recent years pro-life and animal rights campaigners have targeted high profile figures from that area for assassination or to inflict serious injury upon them. Some groups will use a combination of tactics to optimise their impact. (Smith, 1995, p17)
Mid-way on the scale is the lobbying and involves contacting MPs with a view to getting a particular item on the agenda or publicising a particular point of view. Nowadays, whilst hanging around the House is seen less, groups do still lobby MPs in order to try to advance their cause or group. However, access to the UK government is less successful by small groups due to its Cabinet-style government and strict party discipline. It is therefore the case that it is the bigger players with larger financial resources who can afford to employ professional lobbyists who gain most frequent access to MPs. In fact, since the 1980s, money spent on professional lobbyists has trebled. (Heywood) This has led to “increasing concern about the ethical issues raised by the proliferation of professional lobbyists offering to act as intermediates between pressure groups and parliament” (Grant, 1995, p74).
Professional lobbyists require financing and are therefore used mainly by sectional groups or businesses that have large financial support networks. Given this, it has been criticised for ‘buying’ political influence which suggests that if a group doesn’t have the financial resources to employ a professional lobbyist, its chances of being heard are smaller. A prime example of this practice and the ethical issues surrounding it can be seen in the tobacco industry which has invested millions into lobbying government in favour of a product which has been proven to kill people and put severe pressure on the National Health Service, yet it entirely legal. The reason this is allowed is due to the heavy taxation received by the government.
Whilst this may seem an uneven balance of power, in 1985, a House of Commons Select Committee on Members Interests said that
“ it is the right of any citizen to lobby their Member of Parliament, and if he considers that his case can be better advanced with professional assistance he has every right to avail himself of that assistance” (House of Commons, 1985, piii). Therefore, the question over the professional lobbyists remains only an ethical one, as the practice itself is perfectly legitimate. (Grant, 1995, p74)
It could be argued that New Labour’s approach to pressure groups changed long before their re-election in 1997. During the period between their comprehensive defeat in 1979 and their re-election in 1997, it was recognised that the party had to dramatically adapt if it was ever to dream of returning to power. It realised that rather than merely appeal to traditional supporters, New Labour had to appeal to ‘Middle Englanders’. They also felt that their associations with certain groups in the past had cost them the 1992 election and they continued to disassociate themselves from the trade unions in an attempt to strengthen their links with big businesses. (Jackson, 2004)
Groups such as merchant bankers, insurance companies and The Chamber of Commerce began gaining more influence during the Conservative years of Thatcher and Major but this has been continued by Blair under New Labour. Whilst traditional sectional groups like trade unions and teachers unions have lost influence over the same period. (Jackson, 2004)
Pressure groups continue to play a role in society but their role has changed and they have less of an influence over government now than in years gone by. Their effectiveness is still influenced by the institutional structure of government and the party system. But since New Labour came to power in 1997, this institutional structure and party system has appeared to silence the voice of the groups. The existence of the Cabinet-style of government, due to the large majority held by New Labour has meant that more often than not their policies are carried through. As such, the influence of pressure groups has declined.
There has also been a reduction in party membership as less people on the street are willing to commit to the political parties. This may be due to a reduction in the distinctiveness between the parties and their mandates. The role of trade unions has also lessened, as they no longer have the kind of consultative role they had during previous Labour governments. Their influence was drastically reduced during the Thatcher years and New Labour has continued this - their membership has decreased by around 2% since New Labour came to power. (www.dti.gov.uk)
However, this same situation has led to a rise in social movements who favour direct action, an ideological stance linked to the New Left (Heywood, p284), which may be an attempt to counterbalance New Labour’s move from a traditional left wing party to its embrace of more right wing policies such as relying on the market for economic growth and constitutional reform.
Whilst it is difficult to tangibly access the impact of social movement on policy, social movements work by capturing the imagination of society and centre around many of the broader issues which affect society such as equal opportunities, war and capitalism. For example, the recent Live8 concert held in order to help stamp out poverty in the Third World was part of the wider Make Poverty History campaign that could be regarded as a social movement. This occurred around the time of the G8 summit at Gleneagles, which attracted large numbers of people fighting under the anti-Capitalism banner.
The existence and increased support of these movements is a symptom of the highly influential political culture that exists in Britain, and globally, today. In the last two decades of the 20th century, the influence of the traditional pressure groups, including trade unions has decreased. It could be argued that this decrease has been accelerated during the period of government under New Labour since 1997. However, this acceleration period appears to now be being challenged by an increasingly politically aware electorate. Whilst they may be more likely not to turn out and cast their vote in an organised election, they are much more willing to belong to social movements to ensure their voice is heard. Failure to listen to this voice will have serious ramifications for New Labour.
BIBLIOGRPAHY
Books
Grant, W (1995) Pressure Groups, Politics and Democracy in Britain, Harvester Wheatsheaf
Heywood (2002) Politics, Second Edition, Palgrave
House of Commons (1985), First Report from the Select Committee on Members’ Interests, 1984/85, HMSO
Jones et al (2004) Politics UK, Fifth Edition, Pearson Longman
Smith, M (1995) Pressure Politics, Baseline
Journals
Jackson, N (2004) Pressure Group Politics, Politics Review, September
Websites
27 November 2005
27 November 2005
