Pressure groups are not formally connected with the Government and are therefore separate from any funding in which the Government provides. Although, there are examples. The group ASH does receive funding from the government, the Department of Health, so this is not as straightforward a point as it first appears.
There are two divisions of pressure groups. One divides the interests of just one group, for example, The National Union of Teachers (NUT). The second is that they have an open membership which allows members to join freely, for example the environmental groups etc. Sometimes these groups are divided into what is called ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ groups. ‘Insider’ groups are seen as legitimate and more effective by the government. The ‘outsider’ groups, for example Greenpeace, are not consulted by the government. These ‘outsider’ groups do not have any formal links with the government or political parties and their issues are not taken as seriously by MP’s, therefore, in order to get their views across to the public, they tend to rely on the media to drum up support for their causes.
There are many different theories on pressure groups as a part of our society today, which has also placed more importance and popularity on these groups. There are four main basic theories on pressure groups. The first being the pluralist theory. To this theory, pressure groups are seen as a ‘good thing’, this is mainly because they make sure that there is a wide range of interests represented with society, and that the politicians are interested. They provide a channel for the government and the governs, and this in turn, compliments the electoral process. Pressure groups, in this viewpoint tend to balance each other out, for example, there are groups which represent big businesses, but, there are also Trade Unions which represent the employees, therefore one counteracts the other. The pluralist theory is more of a democratic theory.
There are many problems with this theory, and this leads on to the Neo-Pluralist viewpoint. The Neo-Pluralist theory argues that the Pluralist viewpoint is an idealist view of how pressure groups and politics are ran, but this is not always the way things happen. For example, the pressure groups which represent big businesses have more money to fund their groups, therefore they have more power than that, say, of the trade unions, so this is not as equal as it was first made out to be.
The Neo-Pluralist theory also looks for changes to the system, that way ensuring that everyone has an equal access to the system. This concept is seen by many as just a development of the Pluralist theory.
Thirdly, there is the Corporatist Model which does not really fit into the British system nowadays. Pressure groups have stable links and/or relationships with the governments and in return, its members support government policies. This was apparent in Britain in the 1960’s and 1970’s, but it is not really seen today. This theory is more associated with other countries, for example Scandinavia etc. There are disadvantages with this theory, namely the lack of accountability. It is very beaurocratic and it shows economic inefficiency.
The fourth and final theory on pressure groups that I am interested in is the New Right Theory. This theory, rather different from the previous three, is very hostile towards pressure groups. It regards them as narrow, self-interested groups. Followers of this viewpoint argue that pressure groups are not representative of society, as they are non elected. Also, there is not a pressure group to represent every single aspect of society, for example, there is no group which represents tax-payers in order for them to argue with the political parties of the rise in taxes.
During the 1980’s, in Britain there were lots of attacks on pressure groups, for example Doctors, Teachers, but more importantly, Trade Unions, by Margaret Thatcher and her Government. However, there are ways for pressure groups to withstand this kind of criticism and gain publicity and popularity – through the media. Pressure groups are regarded the media as very important, especially for those ‘outsider groups’ mentioned previously. They believe that if they can get the media to focus on their particular group or campaign then they will have the attention of the public, for example Greenpeace. This particular pressure group is very good at publicity stunts which bring about much media attention, and this sometimes brings about a change in Government policies. Politicians do not like bad media publicity, and Government Ministers are sometimes seen as ‘side-stepping’ away from their original viewpoints after such protests or ‘publicity stunts’. However, this kind of action is not without its drawbacks, as it is very unpredictable. These groups have no way of knowing how the government will react to their plight, and also, no way of knowing how the media will portray their cause. If the media choose not to follow up a story, or take an unsympathetic angle on the story then whatever has taken place has all been a waste of time. However, further to this is what is known as direct action. For example, the petrol blockades of September 2000. The media appeared to be more sympathetic to this than they were with the Miner’s strikes back in the 1980’s. It is an interesting point, but if the media turn against the pressure group and gives bad publicity for its arguments, then it is seen as counter-productive and could do the group more harm than good in the long run.
As stated in ‘The New British Politics’ by Ian Budge, Ivor Crewe, David McKay and Ken Newton (page 295);
“Public campaigns are often the last resort of pressure groups, but less so than they were, given the ability of groups like Greenpeace to stir up National and even international feeling. In spite of modern mailshot, advertising and marketing techniques, public campaigns tend to be expensive, time consuming and unpredictable. Some groups use advertising firms, but this can be expensive, and most have to use personal contacts with journalists. If this is not possible, and because there is fierce competition for news space, some groups try to force themselves into the news by organising a demonstration, protest, petition, or some eye-catching event. In extreme cases, illegal or violent means are used to gain public attention.”
There are many factors which, combined affect pressure groups and their popularity over political parties. Many members of the public believe that political parties, and in particular, the one in power at the time, are just ministers looking out for their own ends, and ‘each as bad as each other’. Public support for the political parties is a vicious circle, and government ministers, at times, must feel that they ‘cannot do right for doing wrong’. There is always someone criticising what they do, or don’t do, and it must be impossible to keep everyone happy. This possibly explains why pressure groups have, in some ways more popularity with ordinary members of the public. Voters want the government to be seen to do something to help them, and although pressure groups are usually only focused on one particular interest, at least they are seen by the public, through the media interpretation, as doing something, and there have been known specific cases where the work of pressure groups has eventually paid off, and government legislation has been changed, when the plights of some groups have been brought to their attention. Maybe it is because pressure group members are, in the main, just seen as ordinary people, like you and me, and not ‘jumped up aristocrats with big ideas’. Maybe, this is the reason why pressure groups have increased their popularity over the years, and more and more people are willing to listen to what it is they are actually saying. All of this aside however, the media does play, I feel, the biggest part in increasing popularity of these groups, and if this were to ever stop, then I don’t think that pressure groups would be seen as so productive or important by the ordinary person on the street.
Bibliography
Kavanagh, D. “British Politics: Continuities and Change” (2000) Oxford University Press
Budge, I. Crewe, I. McKay, D. & Newton, K. “The New British Politics” (1998) Addison Wesley Longman
Childs, D. “Britain Since 1945” (1997) Routledge
Coxall, B. & Robins, L. “Contemporary British Politics” (1998) Macmillan Press Ltd
Jones, B. “Political Issues in Britain Today” (1988) Manchester University Press
