If we were to consider the pluralist model then it could be argued that democracy is in fact enhanced by the role of pressure groups. According to the pluralist model power is exercised by the mass of the population, rather than by a small elite group. Pluralists note that if the people do not like what government or those representing them are doing they can vote for an alternative option and remove them from office at the next election. This means that those who are representing them have to satisfy the people. They also argue that groups such as trade unions and political parties are vital to democracy as it allows voters to have an opportunity to exert some power over specific issues that occur. If we consider that normally when we vote in a general election we simply vote for the policies that are put forward by a political party, by having pressure groups and trade unions it allows us to play a more active role in the policy making process. Pluralists believe that pressure groups overcome the democratic discrepancy that builds up as most people’s political participation is to cast a vote every five years. This would usually mean that people would have little or no influence over decisions made between elections, and minority views not being represented. Pressure groups increase participation and access to the political system, thereby enhancing the quality of democracy. It can be argued that they benefit electoral democracy in two main ways, firstly, by providing an important opportunity allowing citizens to influence government between elections and lastly by allowing opinions to aired and heard.
Even though they may allow the public to influence between election times pressure groups themselves are not even democratic or representative of their own members. The groups themselves generally are undemocratic for example the leader will be appointed simply because he went to public school such as Oxbridge. Similarly although many commentators suggest that pressure groups are essential for minorities they do however, often overlook the views of single parents and minority races. This point is demonstrated in Politics UK Pressure groups are often not representative of their members and in many cases do not have democratic appointment procedures for senior staff (cited in Jones et al, 2001, 224). This particular view is also taken up by people such as Margaret Thatcher and the New Right as there opinion of them was that cooperation between government and pressure groups was neither democratic nor functional. She stated that her party had been democratically elected to run the government, not the pressure groups (cited in Budge et al, 2004, 326).
The role of ‘insider’ pressure groups could be argued though to enhance the quality of democracy as they could provide expertise knowledge to the MP’s shown by the fact Blair arranged to have quarterly meetings with the TUC in 2000. Pressure groups also prevent our rights from being invaded and can act as an effective check on the government. This is not just done by those on the inside but also those outside government apparatus as Greenpeace managed to gain significant media attention over the Shell Rig Brent Spar and the prevention of a sea burial. Greenpeace in the end was successful and made sure “all the governments of the north east Atlantic region” to “ban future dumping of steel-built oil installations” ( cited by Kirby, Alex. “Brent Spar’s Long Saga.”). This shows that with the help of the media pressure groups as in this case certainly enhanced the democratic process as the public were made aware of an important environmental issue.
There are problems that can transpire from insider groups working with the MP’s and civil servants. The criticism that comes about is the enmeshing of pressure groups in to the government policy making process (cited in Jones et al, 2001, 224). The problem is pressure groups essentially take up the role of Parliament (often referred to as Corporatism) and therefore are the ones being consulted with the passage of legislation. This is obviously undemocratic as we do not elect pressure groups but we do elect Parliament which represents an alternative to government to help protect our rights, therefore if Parliament is being overlooked in the favour of pressure groups this without doubt means that our democracy is being seriously threatened.
Karl Marx also has a similar view in the sense that he believes that pressure groups are undemocratic. Marx also thinks that only the pressure groups representing business will have any real say in the political agenda and generally trade unions will go unnoticed. Marxist’s believe that most pressure group activity will be concerned with the detailed management of inequality rather than the processes of or progress towards genuine democracy (cited in Jones et al, 2001, 225). This is of course likely as especially in the USA the slogan of you ‘have to pay to play’ is often used when referring to pressure groups and ‘soft money’ is used to gain the ‘interest’ of congressmen. Indeed many political commentators attribute America’s hostility towards Palestine to the existence of roughly 100 PAC’s supporting the state of Israel. They gave financial support to almost all members of Congress, including $1.2 million to those serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1990 alone. This perhaps illustrates the point that Marxist’s were getting at as it shows how the capitalist society works and those with money have most influence, and consequently threatens democracy.
The role of pressure groups in the UK is obviously important to and can be argued to strengthen the political process in the sense that they allow vital political participation to voters in and between election times. Furthermore it can be disputed that it allows the voices of minorities to be heard such as single parents. This coupled with the fact that pressure groups give expertise knowledge to the MP’s and civil servants whilst acting in our interests to protect to our rights and stop over powerful governments from passing unfair legislation you would therefore assume that pressure groups are beneficial to the democratic process. However, this is not the case as I alluded to earlier the majority of pressure groups are not even internally democratic themselves as the leaders are not elected and do not represent the views of their members. One of the most important issues is that of those inside state apparatus, as do you actually have any right to be there? The answer is no as they exert non-legitimate power to influence government to try and get their narrow means met. Margaret Thatcher is indeed correct in the earlier argument I put forward about government being elected and not pressure groups. Even though generally pressure groups threaten the quality of democracy in Britain they are useful in some ways, as I alluded to earlier the role of Greenpeace and how they aimed to change the laws regarding the environment, this is particularly important and shows they do have some role to play in democracy in Britain even though on the whole they do threaten democracy.
Bibliography
-
Jones, B t al (2001), Politics UK, 4st Edition, Harlow, Addison Wesley Longman
-
Budge, I et al (2001), The New British Politics, 2nd Edition, Addison Wesley Longman
-
Budge, I et al (2004), The New British Politics, 3rd Edition, Addison Wesley Longman
-
J Kirby, Alex. “Brent Spar’s Long Saga.” BBC Online News. 25 Nov. 1998. Online. Communication 376. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/218527.stm (8 Apr. 2003).
-
Heywood, A. (1997) Politics, Basingstoke, Macmillan
-
Ball, A & Peters, B. G (2000) Modern Politics and Government, Basingstoke, Macmillan
