Promotional groups exist to promote a particular cause. They are less likely to sustain any longevity, as their issues are often resolved, and are mainly found in the environmental sphere of society. Examples of cause groups are Shelter, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) and Greenpeace. Some cause groups have few members but exert a great deal of influence. For example, Liberty is a group with 5,000 members who successful priority is put whose pressure on the Labour Party, in opposition and in government, to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. On the other hand, some cause groups have many members but little influence. For example, in the early 1980s, over 250,000 supporters of CND marched in London on several occasions, but despite this show of popular support, they failed to influence the government’s defence policy.
In ‘Pressure Groups, Politics and Democracy in Britain’ Wyn Grant (1989), established a classification of pressure groups based on their status and methods rather than their aims. The latter category is split into insider and outsider groups. Insider groups have strong links with the decision makers within government and are regularly consulted. This means that they can gain easy access to the decision makers and therefore put forward their case directly. Generally, they abide by the ‘rules of the game’. For example, they tend to respect confidences and not to make public attacks on ministers. Insider groups can be further divided into two categories. The first is institutions within the state apparatus. This category includes organisations such as the Church of England and the Police Force. The second category is external groups. Whilst institutions within the state apparatus are consulted in the discussion process of governmental proposals, the same is not true of external groups with insider status. Instead independent organisations such as trade unions, charities or pressure groups, who are called upon by the government to provide expertise when it is needed. The type of group selected varies according to the government’s ideological orientation and other factors such as public opinion. So, the type of external groups given insider status varies from government to government.
Outsider groups, however, do not participate in the consultation process, mainly by government exclusion, but occasionally by choice. Most outsider groups aim to achieve insider status, for the opportunity to exert more influence. In the 1980s, CND was excluded from any consultation process with the government because its aim was unacceptable to the Conservative government. An extreme example of an outsider group is the Irish Republican Army (IRA), which seeks a united Ireland but has been considered an illegitimate organisation by the British government. It was considered anti-constitutional because its violent indirect method - terrorism - is unacceptable in a democratic country.
Three main models have been developed to explain who exercises power in the UK - the Pluralist, the Elitist and the New Right. According to the pluralist model, power is exercised by the mass of the population, rather than by a small elite group. This conclusion is derived from two main arguments. First, pluralists note that if a majority of people do not like what their representatives are doing, they can vote them out of office at the next election. Representatives, therefore, have to act in a way that is pleasing to the majority. Second, pluralists consider voting to be of irregular significance. General elections occur periodically and individuals are asked to vote for packages of policies put together by political parties. Therefore, voters do not have an opportunity to wield influence on the specific issues that concern them; so pluralists claim that people are able to exercise power between elections by joining interest groups - such as political parties, trade unions and other pressure groups. Group activity, they argue, is vital to the successful functioning of the political system.
What matters to pluralists about the distribution of power in society is not that it is unequal, but that it is widely dispersed rather than concentrated into the hands of the few. It also follows that, the state acts impartially - responding to the demands of different popular pressures. No single group can possibly dominate in society since, for every force exerted by one group, there is an equal and opposite force exerted by other groups. Pluralists argue that such a system is healthy because it encourages political participation, ensures that people can exert influence over decision makers, that power is dispersed rather than concentrated into the hands of a few and, at the same time, allows the view of minority groups to be voiced.
Democracy is a system of government where decisions are arrived at by majoritarian principles with representatives elected at periodic elections. Their political equality and freedom allow the voter an effective choice between competing candidates in a secret ballot. In the pluralist model of democracy, pressure groups play an essential role. Political parties cannot provide adequate representation for the full range of diverse interests and opinions in a modern democracy because their key function is to aggregate interests into a coherent political entity capable of governing the country. Pressure groups enable particular interests and cause to be heard and to exert influence in public decision-making. Yet it is precisely the representation of specialist interests and of single issues which may give cause for concern, both in terms of the methods used to achieve objectives and of the undue power and influence which particular lobbies can exert.
Pluralists believe that pressure groups overcome the democratic deficit that builds up as the most people participation in politics is to cast a vote every five years made between elections, and minority views are not being represented. Pressure groups increase participation and access to the political system, thereby enhancing the quality of democracy. They complement and supplement electoral democracy in two main ways: first, by providing an important mechanism by which citizens can influence government between elections; and second by enabling opinions to be weighed as well as counted.
Pressure groups improve the quality of government. Consultation with affected groups is the rational way to make decisions in a free society. It makes government more efficient by enhancing the quality of the decision-making process - the information and advice provided by groups helps to improve the quality of government policy and legislation. They are a product of freedom of association, which is a fundamental principle of liberal democracy. Freely operating pressure groups are essential to the effective functioning of liberal democracy in three main ways: they serve as vital intermediary institutions between government and society; they assist in the dispersal of political power; and they provide important counterweights to balance the concentration of power.
Pressure groups enable new concerns and issues to reach the political agenda, thereby facilitating social progress and preventing social stagnation, for example Women’s and environmentalist movements. They increase social cohesion and political stability by providing a ‘safety-valve’ outlet for individual and collective grievances and demands. Pressure groups assist the surveillance of the government by exposing information it would rather keep secret, thereby reinforcing and complementing work of opposition through political parties. They improve the accountability of decision makers to electorates. Although few people would deny that pressure groups play an important role in British politics, critics have argued that this role may not be the one suggested by the pluralist model.
Pressure groups improve participation, but in an unequal way, benefiting the well organised but disadvantaging the weakly organised. In this sense, they work against, not in favour of the public interest. Pressure groups themselves may not be representative of their members. Their officers are not usually elected. Few groups have procedures for consulting their members. As a result, the group’s members may not share the views expressed by group officials. Although the views of pressure groups may sometimes be considered, they are likely to be ignored if they do not confirm with the ideology or agenda of the decision makers.
Pressure group activity gives people hope that they can make a difference. This hope is a distraction. The ruling class would rather that people put their energies into pressure group activities, which do not question the fundamentals of the system than into political activity, which seriously challenges the right of the elite to govern. Group opposition can slow down or block desirable changes, thereby contributing to social immobilisation. The in-egalitarian way that some groups operate increases social discontent and political instability by intensifying the sense of social frustration and injustice felt by disadvantaged and excluded sections of the population.
In Britain’s secretive political system, groups and parties combined are unable to mount effective opposition to government policies because they generally lack adequate information. Large-scale demonstrations mounted by any group may lead to unpleasant clashes without the police, sometimes involving militants with their own agenda. This level of civil disobedience cannot be justified in today’s democratic system. Pressure groups are an essential dimension of any democracy, yet they can endanger democracy if sectional groups undermine the public interest or if the methods they use are corrupt or intimidating.