If a pressure group believes a particular candidate will be sympathetic to their cause once in office, they will also try to encourage the electorate to vote him in. Pressure groups such as the Christian Coalition successfully employ this tactic. They provide voter guides to their members, informing them of the candidates’ views on issues that concern the electorate.
Pressure groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, also try and change the interpretation of the Constitution through the rulings of the Supreme Court. They will issue “Amicus Curiae” briefs in order to inform the judges of their point of view and thus act as a kind of expert witness.
Some pressure groups have become permanent insider groups by forming part of “Iron Triangles” with departments in the federal bureaucracy and with congressional sub-committees. This enables them to have considerable influence on policy, in areas such as agriculture, energy and defence.
In the UK pressure groups play a smaller role. The amount they are able to influence government is often dependent on the party in power. Throughout the 1980s the Trade Unions were very much marginalised while the Conservatives were in government, with the advent of New Labour, think tanks such as the IPPR have become instrumental in helping to formulate policy.
Pressure groups are unable to play a part in candidate selection as this is a function exercised by British political parties.
Pressure groups in the UK concentrate their efforts on the legislature, as Parliament is sovereign, and on the civil service, since this is the focus of policy formulation and implementation. The judiciary is becoming an increasingly popular target with the introduction of Human Rights legislation (2000) and the Treaties of Rome, Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice, which have devolved power to EU institutions, and thus resulted in a considerable increase in pressure group lobbying in Brussels.
The structure of the party system is a significant factor in explaining why pressure groups have a much greater role in the USA. UK parties are strong and cohesive, and effectively impose the whip on MPs placing restrictions on their voting- MPs are less likely than Congressmen to pay attention to the wishes of constituents. Parties remain weak in America. The system was designed to prevent “an alliance of interests gaining control of the whole”. This has made the legislature freer than it would have been otherwise to be sensitive to the wishes of the people.
“The House of Representatives is so constituted as to support in its members an habitual recollection of its dependence on the people” (Madison) This is referring to the frequency of elections. The whole of a congressman’s two-year term is spent in “election-mode”, making them an easy target for pressure group influence, and especially where groups are active in campaigning and fundraising.
As well as being weak, parties in America are “broad churches”, representing a substantial aggregation of interests. This in practice means that pressure group membership will be high as, by representing everyone, many feel that the parties don’t represent them. British parties have a tradition of being more ideological in character.
The fact that pressure groups are more influential in the US doesn’t in itself make the country more democratic in nature. The political system having many access points is often invoked as an example of a pluralist democracy in action, allowing people to gain access to decision makes. However, having more access points just makes it easier to promote a conservative agenda, especially in Congress. A particular bill only has to be blocked at one level for it to die, which is much easier that guiding a proposal through from start to finish intact.
Pressure groups in America could be seen to be obstructing democracy. Britain and the US are both representative democracies; the electorate transfer their sovereignty to their elective representatives in free and (mostly) fair elections giving them a mandate to make decisions on their behalf. Pressure groups in America are so powerful that, although they only represent a section of society, they often almost “coerce” the people’s representatives into making a certain decision.
Conversely, it could be argued that this is politics working as it was intended to in America, “Leadership is difficult precisely because the framers of the Constitution wanted it to be. Opportunities to check power abound, opportunities to exercise power are limited.” (David Mervin)
Britain’s pressure groups may be becoming more American in style. There has been more devolution of power to local assemblies creating more access points, and increasing British groups’ potential for influence.
