Under what conditions can interest group activity become a threat to democratic accountability?
Under what conditions can interest group activity become a threat to democratic accountability? To answer this question we must first understand what a pressure group is and what one does. Following this we will examine the activities of pressure groups as they attempt to influence the policymaking process in five different areas: - public opinion, civil servants, ministers, Parliament and political parties. Whilst examining this we will also be considering the implications this has for notions of democratic accountability. In What is Politics, Bernard and Tom Crick define politics as “the study of conflicts of interests and values that affect all society and how they can be conciliated” . This defines politics as the ideal of conflict resolution within and between societies. Its sets an ideal that fair and just forms of compromise are more desirable than resorting to force, and sets an ideal for political systems to aspire to, even if they are too often restrained by pragmatic considerations. This conception of politics is closely related to the idea of pluralism . This term describes society as a multitude of competing groups that represent different social aspirations. These groups are said to compete, on what is meant to be a metaphorical level democratic playing field, for power within society. Within the framework of the state, pluralists see political parties and pressure groups as essential, enabling the various interests to, as Hannah Arendt would say, ‘act in concert’ . Heywood would define a pressure group as “an organized association which aims to influence the policies or actions of government” . Whilst political parties fight elections, develop policies, form government, and hope to define the populaces broad interests, pressure groups have emerged to promote the interests of social groups and causes that are not represented across the conventional political spectrum. These groups are essential to the pluralist conception of democracy. They campaign to
influence the holders of power and can be separated into two types: - Interest/sectional groups, who act to protect the interests (which generally tend to be material) of their members. They generally take the forms of business organizations, professional associations and trade unions. Examples of these types of groups can be seen with the British Medical Association (BMA), The Transport and General Workers Union and the National Union of Students (NUS). Cause/promotional groups operate above self-interest and serve to promote a general cause or idea. Membership is not limited by profession and can cover a broad range of interests such ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
influence the holders of power and can be separated into two types: - Interest/sectional groups, who act to protect the interests (which generally tend to be material) of their members. They generally take the forms of business organizations, professional associations and trade unions. Examples of these types of groups can be seen with the British Medical Association (BMA), The Transport and General Workers Union and the National Union of Students (NUS). Cause/promotional groups operate above self-interest and serve to promote a general cause or idea. Membership is not limited by profession and can cover a broad range of interests such as sports, education, welfare, science and environment. Examples of these include the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (RSPCC), Shelter, the Consumers Association and Amnesty International. Pressure groups can be categorized into a further two groups. Insider groups , who are recognized as representing legitimate interests, therefore enjoying privileged and often institutionalized access to government through routine consultation or representation on government bodies. For example, the National Farmers Union is consulted in the annual price review . Outsider groups though are seldom consulted, if ever, and rarely at senior level. This could be for a variety of reasons. The government for instance would not wish to consult the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, as they would consider some form of nuclear deterrent as essential for maintaining the public’s safety. Some groups may wish to avoid being too closely involved with government in the fear of ‘going native’. Groups though have moved to insider status if their interests are reflected by the government of the day, as the environmental groups did in the 1980s . This move is not always an advantage for groups as it means their members would have to abide by any collective decisions made and adhere to the rules and customs of the political elite. Insider status though is not guaranteed and is a privilege granted by politicians, who can withdraw their patronage at will. For a group to get their opinion heard and subsequently influence policy, they require an arena within which they can open some line of communication with the government. This can range from influencing the public to negotiations with top-level officials. The director of Child Poverty Action Group had alluded to how influential a favorable public opinion could be when he stated, “coverage in the media is our main strategy” . An informed and interested public can have positive effects on notions of accountability. However, any group’s financial predicament will have consequences on a group’s ability to represent its cause in the public eye. Therefore the more wealthy groups will have a stronger voice in the public arena, as they will be able to employ the use of the advertising industry to reach the nations subconscious. For example, in the early 1990s the nuclear industry was investing in improving it’s public image, transforming their infamous Windscale site into Sellafield, and using costly TV commercials to entice the public on guided tours of the redeveloped site . Groups in less fortunate positions will be resigned to resorting to less glamorous means such as marches, demonstrations and occasionally violent confrontations to attract public opinion. These efforts at promoting causes are generally forced to the margins due to competition with other events in the headlines, and in the case of any violent protests, any publicity gleaned from such an incident could only feasibly be perceived in a negative light. Some groups may be in the fortunate position of being ‘insiders’. Much pressure/interest group activity does not concern general policy issues, but detailed and technical matters handled by the Whitehall departments . The policy cycle also begins and ends with senior civil servants, who are responsible for the drafting and then implementing of policy decisions. Insider groups, through their working relationships government can gain inside political knowledge in exchange for their expertise or agreement on an issue. Access to senior civil servants may also lead to links with ministers. The un-elected nature of the civil servants and their role in the policy making process make this a contentious avenue for pressure groups to exploit and discredits any notions of democratic accountability, as they are not elected. Direct access to ministers at heart of government may seem as the most promising of all channels. However, such privileged access does come at a cost. The Major government, keen to prove there was no such thing as a free lunch, created the Millennium Club . Businessmen were charged ten thousand pound for the opportunity to meet ministers at lunches, receptions and private functions. There was also a Premier Club, which had a membership fee of a hundred thousand pound, opening the doors to the Prime Minister and the cabinet for any potential suitors. Groups not able to afford such fees and not of ‘insider’ status would be unable to gain access to ministers, therefore closing a particular avenue for them to influence policy. This illustrates a clear advantage that some sections in society, namely business interests, have an advantage in financial terms, granting them access to senior ministers, that some less well financed groups are unable to exploit. This does not support pluralist notions of democracy of a level playing field therefore leaving notions of accountability considerably undermined. Groups may also attempt to lobby parliament in order to be heard. Some groups employ professional lobbyists with contacts and experience in moving in such circles, but this tends to be expensive and is the favored method of the wealthier groups. For example, in 1996, a very detailed measure requiring water to be supplied to caravan parks was being considered in a parliamentary standing committee . The point of contention with the piece of legislation revolved around who would be responsible for the installation of such equipment, the Country Landowners’ Association, or the water company. Both parties employed lobbyists to promote their causes, but the advantage was held by the CLA as more of the MPs concerned were land owners than share owners in water companies. This debate does help promote pluralism, as it shows two opposing groups competeing for a different outcome on the one issue. Inevitably the group with the most resources available will prevail. Groups may decide to approach political parties in the aid of their cause. Who they try to appeal to can depend upon the groups own ideological leanings. For instance, a group such as Shelter or Age Concern would expect more from a socialist party whilst business interests would except more from a party from the new right. More over, the pairing of capital and labour with the two parties would suggest a distinct advantage in funding for the Conservative party. However, the parties will seek to court interest groups by tailoring their manifestos to their needs, just as Labour danced to the tune of business interests in the 1990s . In conclusion, the success of any campaign, or a groups ability to hold the government accountable depends on a group’s status as ‘insider’ or ‘outsider’, and the amount of financial funding it has at its disposal. This does not reflect the notion of a metaphorical level playing field that pluralists try to portray democracy to be. As insider status is not guaranteed, groups need to rely on financial backing and therefore may resort to attract backing from a sympathetic Capitalist establishment. Therefore, the right to promote an interest in Britain, and the ability to hold the government accountable, does not come without any restrictions of finance or social position. As Tony Benn had noted, “information is the oxygen of democracy”, therefore those who have the most influence over the supply of information can influence the result of any political problems by structuring perceptions. Word Count: - 1588 Bibliography John Kingdom, Government and Politics in Britain, Polity 1999 Ian Budge, The New British Politics, Longman 2001 Andrew Heywood, Politics, Palgrave 1997 T & B Crick, What is Politics, Arnold 1987 Wordcount = 1623
