What is the Role of Interest Groups in Contemporary British Politics?

GCSE Politics

Richard Millard

An interest group is an organized group of individuals, trade unions and consumer groups

which have shared interests and/or attitudes which articulate their demands or

‘Organisations which have some autonomy from government or political parties and try

to influence public policy. They presuppose formal organisation and thus can be

distinguished from acts of participation by individuals.’ (Hague and Harrow,

Comparative Government and Politics 5th edition, publisher Palgrave). Examples of

interest groups could be the NSPCC, RSPCA or The National Union for Students.

In reality there are two types of interest groups, one which does have a large influence on

The Government in its policy making and one which does not have as large impact on the

decisions in government. The first of the above are called protectional or sectional

pressure groups. These represent specific groups of people with entry barriers and include

organisations such as the NUT, Institute of Directors and the Confederation of British

Industry. The second type of group is called promotional or cause pressure groups. These

groups try to promote certain ideas in society to do with ecology, welfare and equality,

for example the RSPCA, Amnesty International and the NSPCC. I will now explain the role of these groups in contemporary British government.

Firstly promotional groups are groups of people who do not have a few ideas towards government policy but they are more interested in one sole idea, they also ‘Seek to endeavour to promote a particular cause, and for this reason are sometimes called cause groups. They are not self-interested in that the achievement of their objectives is not necessarily of direct professional or economic benefit to the members of the group.’ (http:historylearningsite.co.uk/pressure_groups.htm.). They tend to be most popular in well established states which have participatory culture, open media and the unique tradition of wealthier states of charitable giving. Although that promotional groups can not really draw on the same expertise as protectional/insider groups they can, however lobby at the government through other means due the mass following that some have. These other means can involve at the lowest level letters or petitions to government ministers to get their message across, the second medium level involves marches or demonstrations with placards or marches, but peacefully, for example when in November nearly a 100,000 students peacefully demonstrated in London due to the potential introduction of top up fees for students. Finally though there is the highly violent demonstration, assassinations or suicide bombs. The previously mentioned are rare but they are on the increase in today’s society, for example the violence seen at the majority of the G-Summits and with the violence and vandalism shown at Trafalgar Square and around London nearly every year with the May day marches. Even though that these processes of demonstration do have immediate public effect it is still unclear to many whether or not they do have any real impact in governments policy decision making. They do however in some cases make the governments ears stand up to the cause being raised, leading to them potentially addressing the issue. This over the last few years has happened a number of times, the march for the non-abolition of fox hunting and in Evesham the protest against the building of asylum camp to cope with the increasing numbers. It is important that the government listen to the demonstrators with the large, passionate following because if it is near election time the electorate in the end decide who gets in to power.

Within this subject of non-actor on the government, as with protectional, there is outsider groups who

‘Are either not consulted by the government or only consulted irregularly and not usually by a senior level. In many cases outsider status is an indication of weakness, in that, lacking formal access to government, these groups are forced to go public in the hope of exercising indirect influence on the policy process.’ (Heywood, Politics 2nd, 2002).

There are two varying categories outsider groups, the outsider group aiming for insider status and new groups that do not aim for insider status because ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Within this subject of non-actor on the government, as with protectional, there is outsider groups who

There are two varying categories outsider groups, the outsider group aiming for insider status and new groups that do not aim for insider status because they are ideologically opposed to the policies of the government. Firstly the groups aiming for insider status do this by ‘They do this by waiting for a different political climate, such as a change in government. If such a change materialises, they might immediately gain insider status. Outsider groups hoping for a change in political climate often work closely with the opposition in Parliament and, generally, their strategy is to abide by the ‘rules of the game’. And secondly the ‘Groups that do not aim for insider status because they are ideologically opposed to the political system. By definition, such groups have no interest in gaining access to governmental decision makers.’ (http:historylearningsite.co.uk/pressure_groups.htm.) An extremely useful example of an outsider group is that of the Irish Republican Army of whom the government flatly refused to cooperate with them because they were seen as a terribly violent organisation of which could have been of immense threat to the government and the people of Britain itself, so thought it was of too much risk to cooperate. In reality these types of organisations do not have any real impact on policy making so they try to get their point across by other means whether violent or non-violent.

On the other hand however the interest groups which do have an effect on the government do so with large respect, of which I now will discus in the below.

There are a few general rules that determine which of those above is in or out in terms of the policy decision making. The protectional groups in the main tend to have two types of groups within itself; the first has a large voice due to a number of substantial, practical reasons. It is called an insider group (also some promotional groups), ‘They have strong links with decision makers and are regularly consulted. They are groups that the government – local or national – considers to be legitimate and are, therefore, given access to decision makers.’ (http:historylearningsite.co.uk/pressure_groups.htm.) A good example of this in Britain is:

‘Since most policies relating to civil liberties and political rights are developed by the Home Office, a group such as Liberty (formerly the National Council for Civil Liberties) is compelled to seek insider status, which it does by emphasising its specialist knowledge and political respectability.’

(Heywood, Politics, 1997, published by Macmillan Foundations.)

This is due to the fact that the individuals within these organisations have the ability to provide an intellectual view for the government when they are deciding policies or making laws for their specific industry. So the encouragement of the participation of the organisations is essential to ensure that the correct outcome is reached, so not to cause major problems when passing the laws through. This argument of the involvement of protectional groups suggests that in British politics ‘‘Classical pluralism,’ holds that power is widely and evenly dispersed in society, rather than concentrated in the hands of a elite or a ruling class,’ (Andrew Heywood, Key Concepts in Politics 2000, publisher Palgrave.) is of common practice in the contemporary world of British politics due to the need for both parties in the end to reach the desired outcome. However although this system of practice is common it does not, like many other concepts in politics, bring about the outcome desired by both organisations, as seen to be the case at the beginning of this year with the dispute over the fire fighters pay and more recently the potential introduction of top up fees for undergraduate university students being disputed over by both unions, of which are protectional pressure groups. Although these differences in beliefs occurred there are ample resources to insider groups to imply why their advice/consultation is taken to note so seriously by the executive. These resources will now be discussed. Firstly there is public sympathy which can be created when the pressure group creates sympathy for its cause and the goal of the organisation. This enables the group to raise the awareness of it so making the government alert to its needs and wants so enhancing the chances of the government doing something. Secondly the membership base or the activist base of the group. This, although not a fundamental aspect to the groups success is pivotal because it enables the group to obtain further financial strength and the fact that there is more likely to be members who are highly skilled and have superb organisational skills. Therefore the way in which the group is run will be better so showing the government that they are capable of running themselves so have the ability to discuss with the government. Finally it may have political or institutional links to political parties so increasing the likelihood that their voice/stance will be heard. This can only be done by a number of organisations as shown below:

‘Business groups are far more likely than, say, trade unions or consumer groups to employ professional lobbyists (people who make representation to policy makers) or mount expensive public elations campaigns because, quite simply, they have the financial capability to do so.’ (Heywood 1997).

There are however methods used by interest groups that are shaped by the channels of access through which their influence is exerted. This is done through a number of principal channels which are:

Legislature.
Assemblies.
Political parties.
The public of the state.
The mass media.
Bureaucracy.
The judiciary.

All of the above listed have the ability to work at both a national and a supernational level. In Britain and in all states an interest group activity ‘Tends to centre on the bureaucracy as the key institution in the process of policy formulation. Access via this channel is largely confined to major economic and functional groups, such as large corporations and trade unions.’ (Heywood 1997). This is probably most evident when in the 1980’s the National Union of Teachers consulted with the government over changes to the education system. Also on that issue the ‘Influence of the defence industry on the Ministry of Defence is profound,’ (Weir & Beetham 1999), further enhancing the point that governmental organisations do need expertise help in even sensitive issues like these ones.

In conclusion I think that it is fair to say that pressure groups do have an impact on the policy decision making in the British government. However I think that from my research there are really three groups of which I interest groups can be categorised in to. Firstly there are two groups of which have an effect on the policy making; these are the promotional insider groups and protectional groups. This is because of their ability to share their expertise with the government to ensure the correct outcome is reached. Secondly there are the promotional outsider groups who do not have any effect but set about to portray their message in which way possible. So my final conclusions are that without interest groups I do not feel that there could be a way to reach the desired outcome for the government, the organisation involved and the people of the British state.

Bibliography

Andrew Heywood (2000) Key Concepts in Politics (Palgrave)

Andrew Heywood (2002) Politics 2nd (Palgrave)

Andrew Heywood (1997) Politics 1st (Palgrave)

Rod Hague & Martin Harrop (2001) Comparative Government and Politics (Palgrave)

Drucker, Dunleavy, Gamble & Peele (1986) Developments in British Politics (Macmillan)

Stuart Weir & David Beetham (2002) Political Power and Democratic Control in Britain (Routledge)