4. Minority interests
But perhaps the most important democratic function of pressure groups is to ensure that all of us, in small or large groups, are taken account of, protected and awarded equal status. If this does not occur there is a danger that democracy simply becomes rule by the majority. The nineteenth-century liberal philosopher, John Stuart Mill, referred to the dangers of the tyranny of the majority in this context. Majority rule, he argued, is not true democracy. Seeking majority support, political parties will inevitably have to ignore the interests of many minorities. It is therefore necessary for pressure groups to ensure that party rule is not converted into tyranny.
Another function of pressure groups is that they enable people to campaign on behalf of the disadvantaged. This type of campaigning is demonstrated by sectional cause groups who fight for certain groups within our society - those likely to have their views heard and taken seriously. This again promotes democracy since it allows for the needs of all of society to be taken into account when decision making. Groups such a Shelter and Mind, campaign for the homeless and the mentally ill, two sections of society who are not particularly affluent, vocal or able to influence the government themselves. These pressure groups raise the public profile on issues which could be otherwise ignored. On the other hand Animal Rights activists may too be seen as protecting the interests of a section of society which is not able to protect itself. Their methods can overspill into the violent or the antisocial. Militant action used by groups such as the Animal Liberation Front can become undemocratic.
5. Informing the government
Pressure groups can make governments aware of public views not shared in political circles. They can also generate new ideas, and devise programmes of reform, which professional politicians do not have the time to develop. However, one of the most important functions of a pressure group is the expert knowledge that they can bring to the government's attention. An example of this is the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, which helped to draw up the legislation required to make seatbelts compulsory. Membership of this group includes many experienced casualty doctors.
Certain pressure groups also have the important role of providing expertise and advice to the government in particular fields. Insider groups help the government by supplying them with relevant information concerning key issues. In order to do this they carry out detailed research and therefore the government trusts their results. This enhances democracy since it is an example of the government listening to multiple views and taking many factors into account when making decisions. The Association of Chief Police Offices (ACPO) is an example of an insider pressure group which the government consulted when drawing up the terrorism bill post 7/7. There are points against this argument though since such pressure groups can gain too much influence within the government, thus limiting potential for opposing views of less significant outsider groups.
*
The picture is not completely rosy, however, where pressure groups are concerned. There are a number of senses in which they may not democratic principles.
Some undemocratic features
1. Disproportionate influence
The question of whether some pressure groups do not conform to democratic principles revolves around the nature of influence. If all groups enjoyed the amount of influence which their size and importance warranted, the outcome might be considered democratic. But this perfect state of affairs does not exist. Some groups wield more power than their relative importance might suggest.
Some sectional groups, for example, hold a particularly strategic position in society. That is, we rely on them a great deal and therefore have to take their demands into account. The farming community, for instance, accounts for a tiny proportion of the total population, but farmers are responsible for much of our food supply and create much of the country side which many of us enjoy. Similarly, emergency and medical workers may have more power than groups which are employed in the private sector.
2. Finance
Related to their position in society is the issue of wealth. Clearly some groups have access to considerably more funds than others. All those sectional interests that represent employers and business in general inevitably have more finance available to them than charities, which have to rely on handouts from the public or scarce lottery funding. In particular, wealthy groups, including individual companies, have adopted the practice of giving donations to political parties. Clearly they are hoping for a sympathetic attitude if their chosen party wins power. Most notoriously, Bernie Ecclestone, who controls Formula One racing, gave £1 million to Labour before the 2001 general election. He was hoping to hold off a proposed ban on tobacco sponsorship of sport, a ban which would have hit motor racing especially hard. In the event, this caused such a scandal that the money had to be returned by Labour. But the Ecclestone case was only one of many which did not result in such an outcome.
3. Size
So finance undoubtedly can distort the democratic process. So too can sheer weight of numbers. When the Countryside Alliance put an estimated 300,000 on the streets in 2003 to protest about the ban on hunting with dogs and other rural issues, the government was panicked into action on a number of fronts, including an attempt to water down the hunting bill in Parliament. But the huge numbers on the demonstration certainly did not reflect public opinion on the main issue of fox hunting. This was firmly in favour of a full ban. Similarly, the million-strong march against the 2003 Iraq war was extremely impressive, but, in truth, the country was divided quite evenly on the issue.
4. Other factors
We can add several other factors that might lead some groups to enjoy a disproportionate amount of power. Insider status, as we have seen, gives some an advantage over others. There may also be sudden waves of public emotion that can thrust an issue into the limelight, possibly without full justification. The Snowdrop Campaign, for example, worked successfully for a ban on the keeping of handguns after public outrage following a school massacre at Dunblane in 1996. The result was rushed, unsatisfactory legislation that appears to have done little to reduce gun crime. Finally, there may simply be periods when a particular group enjoys the support of the government of the day. This has been true of ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) after 1997. But who can say that their successes do not infringe the rights of smokers to pursue their own pastime without persecution?
Finally, we must accept that some pressure group leaders may not truly represent the views of their members. This used to be a charge levelled at trade union leaders (less so since democratic reforms were introduced to unions in the 1980s), and it remains a danger. Party politicians are made accountable for their actions through the electoral process and through representative institutions. This may not be the case with pressure group leaders. Such a problem may not be widespread but it is certainly true that democratic controls over pressure groups are weaker than those affecting parties and politicians.
