The existence of pressure group makes government more democratic; the activities of pressure groups also make democratically e

SP1400A Kirti Patel

Pressure Groups

The existence of pressure group makes government more democratic; the activities of pressure groups also make democratically elected governments more effective”. Discuss.

A pressure group is an organised interest group, which seek to influence the formulation and the implementation of public policy. In both the United Kingdom and the United States of America, membership to political parties has decreased, meanwhile membership to pressure groups have increased. Pressure groups differ from political parties in that they do not seek to win political office; in addition, they concern themselves with sectional policy rather than a wide range, and therefore pressure groups aim to protect or advance a shared interest.

The first amendment of the US constitution claims citizens have the “right of speech, petition and association”. Seeing as the constitution is sovereign, it plays an essential role in protecting the rights of organised interests. Americans favour the term interest group to pressure group, as the word pressure implies force. In the USA, nine out of ten people belong to an interest group and on average an American belongs to four. The diverse and heterogeneous nature of the USA, the weak parties, fragmented government and the expansion of government activity have all led to the expansion and the success of pressure group activity.

There is a misconception that the relationship between pressure groups and government is always adversarial, however in reality, they are advantageous in that, governmental ministers and civil servants often consult pressure groups for information in order to make good policies. They often seek information from several relevant groups, as an interest groups approval can help legitimise a policy or even enhance its chances of it being implemented.

After the Second World War, in the UK and USA most pressure groups were organised around business, labour, agriculture and profession, now not only is there an upsurge in the number of pressure groups, there is also an increase in the number of concerns pressure groups present. With the diminution in membership of political parties, it appears that people would prefer to invest their energies in pressure groups rather than parties. Within 50 years, membership to the Labour Party has declined from one million to 280,000 members; the Conservative Party’s membership has decreased even further from 3 million to 318,000. Meanwhile, membership to organisations such as the National Trust (2.8 million members), and to the Royal Society (one million) has increased. Jordan and Maloney said in 1997 “it may seem parties are replaced by pressure groups but people prefer to do very little in public interest groups as opposed to very little in political parties. People prefer pressure groups as they have more chances to involve themselves in politics. They have a chance to protest, petition and lobby which is all part of a healthy democratic society.

The term “pressure group” is a broad term; so political commentator Wyn Grant makes the distinction between insider and outsider groups. Although difficult, it is possible to distinguish one from the other, by looking at the strategies they employ. Insider groups “abide by the political rules of the game to obtain better access to government and therefore have more chances of achieving their objectives” For a group to gain insider status, not only do they need to want it, the government have to grant them it. Groups attain insider status because they posses expertise that cannot be readily obtained elsewhere; and they have to represent an important faction of society. Groups such as the British Medical Association and the Confederation of British Industry have all been granted insider status as they have on many occasions provided essential information and have a reliable track record. The National Farmers Union (NFU) is another core insider group; government regularly consults it. Leaders of the NFU often meet with ministers at Whitehall, and this was particularly evident during the Foot and Mouth crisis as the leaders often had regular access. It is also important to note that classification changes with government, for example the Trade Unions were definitely considered as an insider group under the Labour government however when the Conservative Party was in power, TUCs were considered very much on the outside, in particular with Thatcher.

This is a preview of the whole essay

For many groups insider status is desirable, however there are groups who do not want it, for example environmental groups have often declined money offered to them by the Euro Commission as it may affect their independence, because although insider groups are influential, they must also moderate their demands to make them seem more realistic. Outsider groups often use direct action, which can vary from mass protest marches to criminal vandalism. Many of these groups operate outside the political establishment, and they do not want to be trapped in the political system. For many groups, the principle motive is to attract media attention in order to motivate the public and gain support. In the past, direct action has been frowned upon, however today it appears to be an effective means of gaining support, as protesters are often middle-class, educated people, as is the case with many members of the Animal Liberation Front. Policy is often a secondary or third objective to direct action, for example, an Eco-Warrior’s primary concern may be to destroy crops, and their second concern is to attract media attention. Some groups resort to terror tactics, for example, anti-abortion groups in the USA have been known for shooting doctors who have carried out abortions. These groups because of the strategies are regularly unsuccessful when trying to influence government, and many feel that the terror tactics some groups use undermines the authority of government.

Further categorisations can be made into case and interest groups, which differ from insider and outsider groups. They are populist groups concerned with a single issue. Snowdrop is a cause group set up after the 1996 massacre at Dunblane, 16 children and a teacher were killed. This brought the fact that guns were readily available into the forefront. The group targeted the labour government, and they ban he private ownership of guns. The Fuel Tax Movement took place in Autumn 2000 over the rise in petrol and diesel. They used modern methods to operate this- the Internet and mobile phones. The result was that Gordon Brown made small decreases in fuel duty and cuts in road tax, and farmers won subsidies to the cost of tractor diesel.

Pressure groups will seek the party that they feel will be most sympathetic to their cause. Trade Unions target Labour, as they have traditionally been sympathetic to them, and groups such as Charter 88 target the Liberal Democrats. In the USA, interest groups mainly target congressmen; because the relationship between congressmen and constituents is not very strong, whereas in the UK MPs feel they have a loyalty to their constituents. Groups in the UK target Members of Parliament from both Houses; the MPs from the Lords as they conduct more debates, and MPs from the Commons so they can pose questions for them at Question Time, and this is considered undemocratic. Many groups are in regular contact with MPs; Baggot’s research showed that 12% of insider groups were in contact with Cabinet Ministers weekly, and 45% monthly; 14% were in contact with Junior Ministers weekly and 67% monthly; 25% were in contact with Senior Civil Servants weekly and 49% monthly and finally 55% of pressure groups were in contact with Junior Civil Servants weekly and 76% monthly.

There has been concern over the amount of influence pressure groups can have over MPs which led to the Nolan Report in 1995. MPs had to claim the extent of their earnings, MPs were forbidden from asking questions from outside interests, MPs were restricted on what they could say on behalf of outside interests and the had to declare their interests. “Tory sleaze” remained; Neil Hamilton (Junior Trade Minister) accepted money from Ian Greer Associates (a well-known lobbying company, and agent to Harrods Owner Mohammed Al Fayed) in return he would get British citizenship for Al Fayed. It is common for pressure groups to form informal contacts, which are members of the “ruling elite”. Marxists claim that this is how the biggest decisions are made, behind closed doors

Lobbying is another strategy employed by pressure groups. In the UK, there has been an increase in lobbing, which indicates that we are moving more towards the American model, and today there are over 60 lobbying organisations set up around the country. In the US and the UK, “professional persuaders” or lobbyists are often people who have previously worked for the government. In the UK, many lobbyists are former MPs or have ties with MPs such as Jimmy Reid, son of John Reid who was Scottish Secretary. In the USA, many of the lobbyists are former congressmen or former lawyers who have over the years formed relationships with members of Congress.

Since entering the European Union in 1975, pressure group activity in Brussels has increased. With EU law setting precedence in the UK, many feel that it would be more beneficial to lobby the European Parliament. The Commission counted 3,000 pressure groups in Brussels along with 1,000 lobbyists, which mainly represent business.

In the USA, the separation of powers system and the decentralised structure has provided many access points for groups to seek influence. Lobbyists target all three branches of government; the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. Although congressmen are the main target, the courts have become a focus for pressure group activity, with judges making important decisions regarding policy in a growing number of issue areas. Lobbying occurs on a much larger scale in the USA, and is the main strategy adopted by interest groups. After the Second World War, a larger more active government emerged and the levels of lobbying increased dramatically. “Lobbying by “professional persuaders” who have access to elected and appointed officials is still regarded as the best way of exerting influence.” With the USA being a relatively new country they are more tolerant of pressure group activity. In Washington, 20,512 registered lobbyists had legal access to Congress in 1999, and this figure will have most definitely grown. Some 3,000 pressure groups employ full time staff, which are permanently based in Washington DC representing large companies often business such as General Motors and Enron. Like in the UK, bureaucrats rely on lobbyists for information needed for new bills. This has led to “revolving doors”, which is the easy movement pressure groups and the executive. In the Reagan-Bush years it was reported that some lobbyists wrote legislation for Congressmen. Specialist companies are hired to recruit influential individuals. The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 required individuals to register as lobbyists.

“Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic candidate in the 2000 presidential election campaign, frequently attacked the power and influence of “special interests” in American politics. He claimed the big corporations such as the tobacco companies and “big oil” often worked against the interests of ordinary working Americans and their families.” Expenditure on lobbying activities in 1998 was $1.42 billion. The business lobby is particularly influential in the USA as they possess so much money, and both the Democrats and the Republicans are vulnerable to big businesses, this is a threat to democracy. For example, the British American Tobacco in 1998 spent $25 million on lobbying as Congress were considering a bill which introduce radical changes to the way tobacco products were regulated. The company managed to persuade legislators to block the bill in Senate.

In the UK, the Labour Party is also beginning to be vulnerable to big business, Formula One Racing boss, Ernie Ecclestone managed to get Blair to step away from his green position on tobacco advertising on racing cars and listen to him. With the rich and powerful groups in charge, there is concern that the smaller groups are not represented. Many groups have too many financial resources, which may be out of proportion to the importance of their concern, which is the case with National Rifle Association which is currently the second most powerful interest group in Washington DC.

Political Action Committee is set up by interest groups to contribute funds to governmental candidates. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 restricted PACs from giving any more than $5,000 to any particular campaign but did not set any overall limit on their overall contributions. After this act the number of PACs soared from 608 in 1974 to more than 4,000 in 1995. There are more corporate PACs than any other. PACs funding of Congressional elections is heavily directed towards incumbents. In 1998, incumbents received 78% of PAC donations. Some congressmen do not accept money offered to them by PACs but the majority rely on it. However, if you have access to legal money to finance an election campaign you are likely to have an advantage over a challenger who does not. Members of the House are elected every two years, anyone seeking re-election is almost constantly engaged in a search for cash. Many office holders in the House spend more than $1 million during an election campaign. Although there is no clear evidence which proves PACs influence voting behaviour, many Americans still believe they do and that they are undemocratic. "Elected officials are the only human beings in the world who are supposed to take large sums of money on a regular basis from absolute strangers without it having any effect on their behaviour" Barney Frank, Congressman.

Pressure groups allow citizens, in particular minorities to unite with like-minded individuals in order to represent a common cause. When these individuals unite, they are able to provide checks on individual ministers and government and publicise their poor practise. This is particularly advantageous in the UK where there is a lack of checks. Pressure groups allow continuous participation from the general public, there are other opportunities for citizens to participate in politics such as referendums, however these are rare in the UK; and there are elections which are held at least every four years.

Some see pressure groups as selfish challengers to a legitimate government who have a mandate to govern. Margaret Thatcher was quite opposed to pressure group; she felt that she “did not need advice”. Some see pressure groups as undemocratic as they feel the rich and powerful groups such as the CBI exploit them. In the USA the use of PACs are somewhat damaging to democracy as they hold much influence due to money playing such a vital role in US politics. Lobbying can be argued as being undemocratic to an extent, as former congressmen use their contacts to get favourable policies for the companies they represent, and the policies may not benefit the US public as a whole.

When weighing the positive and the negative aspects o pressure group existence, they generally enhance democracy and make it more efficient. Pressure groups play an essential role in a modern democratic society, and suits the needs of those who do not wish to join a political party. Moreover, it is important to realise that pressure groups only seek to influence the formulation of policy, not control it.

Bibliography

David McKay 2001. “American Politics and Society” (5th Edition). Blackwell Publishing.
Bill Jones, Dennis Kavanagh, Michel Moran and Philip Norton 2004. “Politics UK”. Pearson Education Limited
Robert Singh 2003. “Governing America”. Oxford University Press
Jeremy J. Richardson 1993. “Pressure Groups”. Oxford University Press
Neil McNaughton September 2001. “Populist Movements”-Talking Politics
Wyn Grant September 1999. “Inside Out”-Politics Review
Grant Jordan February 2004. “Groups and Democracy”-Politics Review
Ian Grant February 2001. “Pressure Groups and PACs in the USA”-Politics Review