The wealthier and the closer the pressure group is to the government, the more successful they are." a) How far do you agree? (25 marks) b) What does this tell us about pressure groups and democracy in Britain today

The wealthier and the closer the pressure group is to the government, the more successful the pressure group will be.

a) How far do you agree? (25 marks)

b) What does this tell us about pressure groups and democracy in Britain today?

To an extent, it is clear that the wealth of pressure group is a key factor in determining how successful they are likely to become. Ultimately, a pressure group consists of a group of people, who possess a common aim to influence government policy however; they do not seek to win power through elections. Pressure groups are often grouped into two categories, which are ‘insider and ‘outsider’ groups. Insider groups are provided with regular and privileged access to government when policies are made, whereas outsider groups do not possess links to the government and their advice is not required in any shape. Wealth is generally associated with ‘insider’ groups, as they are often the groups who are able to financially enhance a political party, which is enough motivation for the government to maintain their support for the respective pressure group. The impact on democracy is often cause for debate. It appears that insider groups promote a sense of elitism, as the wealth of a pressure group often determines whether it is classified as ‘insider’ or ‘outsider’ pressure group. The implications of this on democracy is that it is suggested that the views of the poor are capped and power is held by a few rather than many and for this reason it appears that wealth is the key determinant in regards to the success of a ambitious pressure group.

For the majority of outsider groups to succeed, they are likely to require a substantial amount of financial backing. An example of this is Greenpeace who possess over 3 million international supporters and a global annual turnover, which rose by 11% in 2009. Greenpeace’s overwhelming level of wealth has stressed the importance of wealth for outsider groups in particular, and Greenpeace’s wealth has enabled them to bring the issue of the environment to near the top of the political agenda. The wealth of Greenpeace has allowed them to branch out and employs high levels of employees, which is pivotal in attracting new members. The impact on democracy in the UK is evidently detrimental, as this suggests that wealth is the only attribute required to gain the attention of those in power. This is clearly decreasing democracy in the UK, as it promotes the voice of the rich, and suggests that pressure groups with wealth are fighting a more worthy cause, than those with minimal financial support.

Nevertheless, due to their outsider status, green peace’s influence on the government is limited. Therefore, they often require direct action in order to gain the attention of the government. This means that often outsider groups are unable to gain enough ammunition to have their voice heard and this means that their wealth may not always be enough to influence government policy. This suggests that the UK is still democratically active, as despite Greenpeace’s overwhelming level of wealth, they have been unable to influence the government effectively. This may well have severe repercussion for democracy within the UK. The implication here is that the wealthiest pressure groups are more likely to have their views taken into account by the government simply because of their large amount of wealth. This would reduce democracy, as it promotes false representation of the public, as those with high levels of wealth are not always the ones who have the public’s interests at heart.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Arguably, the amount of public support generated by pressure groups is a key determinant in the success of pressure groups. The role of the public is significant, often more so than wealth. This is due to the level of influence the public are likely to have over the government. Substantial public support will undoubtedly raise the revenue of pressure groups, due to an increase in donations and subsidies. Ultimately, the amount of backing a pressure group has from the public, will determine how urgently the government deal with the matter at hand. Subsequently, the impact of the media on pressure groups can be significant. By maintaining the support of the media/public, pressure groups will be able to lobby the government in an attempt to force change. This ultimately means that the role of the media can either make or break particular pressure groups. It is highly likely, that outsider groups will require the most assistance from the media, regardless of their wealth. Outsider groups such as the SSCS will rely heavily upon the media. This is due to the limitations of their influence on the government and for that reason, they must seek to gain the limelight in any possible way, and this is generally gained via the media. Another example of this is the infamous group ‘Fathers4Justice’, who rely on high-risk stunts in order to gain publicity for their cause. This enables them to generate media coverage, and often become a topic for debate within parliament. The presence of the media is one which cannot be swapped for wealth in this case.

The presence of wealth would probably not increase the success of Fathers4Justice, as the matter is unlikely to be high on the government’s agenda regardless of the wealth of the outsider group. However, the media coverage will generate publicity and potentially increase the fathers chance of gaining ‘success’ and altering the law. Therefore, the implications for wealth and public support in regards to the success of a pressure group are intriguing. It appears that without a considerable amount of public support, a pressure group’s amount of wealth is irrelevant, for example ‘Countryside Alliance’. For this reason, the wealth of a pressure group is not the sole reason for the relative success of any pressure group, as without public support, the government are highly unlikely to take note. Nevertheless, the impact of public support on insider groups can be limited, as insider groups reliance is debatable, as they are already able to influence the government, and do not require the media to aid them with that purpose. The impact on democracy is clear; it appears that at times democracy is enhanced, as no sectors of the public are excluded from expressing their support towards a pressure group. However, the presence of democracy appears limited at times, as the apparent elitist nature of pressure groups in particular insider groups whose wealth appears to enhance their influence on government ministers.

In addition, the debate surrounding, whether the movement of pressure groups is elitist sparks claims that wealth is essentially the key determinant of a pressure groups success. Arguably, the UK’s political system could be described as ‘pluralist’ which would dismiss the claim that wealth is vital for the success of a pressure group. Pluralism enables us to expect a wide range of groups, interests, beliefs and ideologies to be allowed to flourish. However, the belief that the wealth of pressure groups determines their success is not an attribute of pluralism and if this is the case, elitism appears more plausible than pluralism. An example, which strengthens this claim, is the banking lobby. Often producer groups represent their shareholders and management rather than their workers. It is clear, that when such elite members are insider groups, it can only be detrimental, as the likelihood of these insider groups forming a combination with the government is high. The implications for democracy in general are severe. The presence of pressure groups appears to simply empower the already powerful, rather than ordinary citizens. The result is an increase in political inequality, which appears to merely reward those possessing wealth, expertise and connections to those in government. To add, pressure groups impact on democracy in the UK appears to be extremely detrimental, as it is extremely evident that some groups possess more power than others. For example, the influence of Robert Murdoch’s BskyB cannot be compared to a trade union or charity. The effect on democracy is that pressure groups fail to adequately equip the majority with a voice. Instead, they merely strengthen the voice of the wealthy and privileged. As a result, it appears that the pressure groups, which have access to vast wealth, are more likely to influence the behaviour of the government.

Also, the claim that pressure groups cater to all sections of society appears to be unfounded. Potential members, such as children, the homeless, the elderly are excluded from the pressure group world. It is claimed that it is too difficult to organize them; therefore they must rely on others to protect them. This appears to back up the claim that wealth is the only way required for an pressure group to succeed. This incident shows that regardless, of wealth, these type of people would be unable to found a pressure group. This suggests that wealth is often not enough to form a successful pressure group, and there are indeed other requirements for eligibility. Nevertheless, the implications on democracy appear to be negative. Pressure groups are actively excluding the voices of many, and this can produce a democracy deficit, if those who wish to be involved in a pressure group are unable to.

Nevertheless, pressure group can be successful in enhancing democracy in the UK, despite its apparent reliance on success Pressure groups can enhance political participation, which is essential for the survival of democracy in the UK The May 2010 General Election indicated that there was a democratic deficit. However, the growth of pressure groups appears to be an aid for the rise in political democracy. This does suggest that pressure groups can be successful in enhancing democracy, as they can find an alternative outlet for the public. However, the example from of children, the elderly, etc being excluded from pressure group brings the idea of elitism to the forefront yet again. It appears, that whilst pressure groups claim to cater for all, it is infact those with the most financial muscle who are most likely to succeed.

In addition, the wealth of a pressure group may not always be sufficient to sway the behaviour of the government. In the presence of severe ideological conflict, it is highly unlikely that a pressure group will be able to influence the movement of the government. During Margaret Thatcher’s reign, the trade unions were left out in the cold, due to the differences in ideological views. Whilst, the trade unions may not have been a wealthy pressure group, the presence of wealth is unlikely to have made a substantial difference to the decision made by Thatcher. The consequence of this appears to suggest that wealth certainly helps, but is not enough alone to influence the government. This shows that, whilst wealth is highly desirable, it cannot be used as a replacement for government agreement. As a result, this shows that democracy is enhanced. If the government are in sync with a less wealthy pressure group, it is likely that this group will have more sway over the government than a pressure group whose views contrasted with the government.

Ultimately, it is being to emerge that being wealthy does not guarantee the success of

a pressure group, as the tobacco lobby proved. In 2005, it was revealed by the Electoral commission that £20 million had been donated to political parties in order to subside their electoral expenses. Evidently, these generous sponsors felt that there donations would have potentially led to beneficial outcomes. These wealthy groups are also able to mount extravagant marketing campaigns to stress their cause. The impact of this on democracy is that the government appears to be more influenced by the wealthy, as the wealth held by these groups is something that the government could benefit from.

The presence of insider groups close ties with government suggests that pressure groups with wealth will ultimately seek this status in an attempt to influence the government. However, this is not always the case, as there are outsider groups who would never contemplate becoming an insider group. For example, socialist groups would never consider becoming associated with a Conservative government The implications of this suggest that whilst wealth, and insider status are extremely beneficial in influencing the government. However, it is still possible to succeed in influencing the government without becoming an insider or possessing great wealth. The public sector groups often possess not much wealth. However, due to their overwhelming amount of support from the public it is clear that the government have no other choice, but to comply to these pressure groups. This enhances democracy, as it shows that the public can still be influential in determining who the government are swayed by.

To conclude, it is clear that wealth can be extremely beneficial in enabling a pressure group to sway the decisions made by the government. However, wealth cannot be solely responsible for influencing the government. Without possessing similar ideological ideas to the residing government, it is highly unlikely that the pressure group will have any joy. The likes of Greenpeace and Father4Justice are prime examples of groups who rely heavily on direct action in order to influence the government due to their outsider status. The use of direct action is necessary for them to gain the required media publicity and to try and gain public support. The implication of wealth and pressure groups on democracy is that, whilst pressure groups claim to cater for all, they unfortunately appear to favour the wealthy. The elitist nature of this results in power becoming concentrated and dispersed amongst only a few. Ultimately, this sparks a sense of tyranny of the minority, as looking at the nation’s economic state it is clear that those with wealth are in the minority. The problem with this is that, ordinary citizens appear to be ignored in favour of those with a considerable amount financial wealth. However, it is clear that without wealth it is possible to still influence the thinking of the current government the public sector’s lack of wealth hasn’t been detrimental to its success. This shows that wealth may be important but the cause is even more so. This does enhance democracy as often the poorer pressure groups require a considerable amount of public support. Therefore, often these pressure groups are well supported, which means the government are forced to listen to the view of the public. The nature of pressure groups appears to be becoming increasingly elitist, as it appears that wealth and power is becoming too valuable in the search to influence the government. For this reason, I would personally say that the movement of pressure groups is currently flawed, and they must become more accessible in order to be relevant to everyone, and not just those who can support the government financially or by other means.