Do Pressure Groups Strengthen or Undermine British Democracy - Essay Example

Do pressure Groups Strengthen or Undermine British Democracy? In Britain, pressure groups have been d to exert some degree of influence on particular political decisions. These groups use public opinion combined with the media to pressure political parties or the government to change or adopt certain policies. The main target of pressure groups is the parliamentary leadership of political parties. The number of people joining such groups is increasing every day. So does it mean that it enables them have more influence politically than they would have had as members of political parties? There is therefore a need to have a thorough examination regarding the role of these pressure groups in British democracy including magnitude of impact they have on the ordinary citizens. The subject deserves to be analyzed from both sides so as to understand the extend which these groups strengthen democracy and the extend they are a hindrance to democracy. A balance between the two sides of the research will be used to draw a conclusion on the role of pressure groups in regard to democracy in Britain. Pressure groups as a source of strength in British democracy Pressure groups are nothing more than formal institutions whose main aim is to impact on policies for public provisions in a democratic society. They present shared views, attitudes and perceptions regarding various policies. This type of non-partisan activism usually seeks to draw public attention to some issues in which they hold a controversial stand concerning them as compared to political parties. They then use various tools like campaigns and the media to create public awareness and raise public concern regarding them. This is important because some of the ordinary citizens may not be well aware of any change in policies nor how these changes are going to affect them. Therefore, they act as an important public awareness and education tool and hence a channel through which the public can enjoy their democratic rights. According to Coxall and Robins (1998), the best way in which pressure groups strengthen democracy is getting the public to participate in politics regarding various issues that affect them. This is important because it increases public participation in politics and their access to the government’s political system. They become more effective when there are confronting pressure groups holding varied views. This provides a platform for expression of views. The varied ideas are later on used to reach a consensus in which the varied views and concerns are considered. Pressure groups provide social progress as a way of strengthening democracy. The social progress is one that can be linked to democracy for example by enabling low political concerns and issues to find their way to the government agenda. This helps to avoid social stagnation in the society. Examples include environmental, disability and women’s movements. Pressure groups also form an important channel of communication between the government and the general public. They provide a channel through which the ordinary citizens can express their concerns and views and thus influence decisions that concern them. Most of the ordinary citizens do not have money, time or the required expertise to run campaigns meant to air their feeling concerning certain issues. The role of pressure groups in such a case is to use their resources and member contributions to run such campaigns. They can even go to an extend of employing people to disseminate advertisements, send mail shots, collect data and use the media to support the views of the citizens. This ensures that the people have a chance to greatly participate in the issue without using excessive amounts of time or money. Usually, those pressure groups with more members exert more influence on the various issues of concern, mainly political issues (Baumgartner and Leech, 1998). Grant (1989), explain that pressure groups in Britain have free operations. This is critical in attaining progressive and effective functioning of liberal democracy. Pressure groups serve as intermediary or link organizations between the government and the society. They assist the two groups to disperse political power and counter unhealthy power concentration by providing counterweights. Context social cohesion is critical in attaining a democratic nation. Holding to this perspective, pressure groups help to increase social cohesiveness by providing a safety-value outlet for the citizens’ collective grievances and desires. This also helps to increase political stability. According to Thomas and Rienner (2001), pressure groups in Britain strengthen democracy by improving the government particularly in the process of decision making. At times, some political parties consult particular pressure groups before making conclusive political decisions. This is a rational decision making procedure in a free and democratic society as compared to when the interests and views of the citizens are not put into consideration. The government uses the advice given by such pressure groups in addition to information collected by political parties to enhance the quality of its legislation and policies. From the pluralism point of view, pressure groups can be regarded as an end result of liberty of association. This is an important element of democracy and its power to end autocratic or tyrannical suppression of interests (Baumgartner and Leech, 1998). In the modern democratic Britain, it is not possible for political parties to provide enough representation of all the varied interests and opinions. They mainly concentrate in merging interests into coherent political tools capable governing the country. In this context, pressure groups become important in straightening democracy by enabling specific public and specialist interests to be heard. In this way, they impact on public decisions and public decision making process (Richardson, 2000). Pressure groups are important tools for extending and strengthening democracy among minority groups. They ensure that these minority groups and their interests get a good representation within the political system and the government. This is very important because there are cases in which minority groups get neglected due to their limited capacity. This requires that they get the help of larger pressure groups in order to get government attention. These pressure groups not only ensure that the minorities get government attention but also see to it that they are served accordingly or else, they raise it as public outcry against the government (Ridley and Jordan, 1998). According to Joyce (2002), pressure groups act as important surveillance tools for the government and consequently the people. Those standing in opposition to a certain issue or situation expose important information. Through such efforts, they complement and reinforce the works of official national opposition through political parties. Insider pressure groups are very effective in strengthening democracy in Britain. This is because they have a regular and direct access to the governmental departments responsible for their specific policy sectors. These groups have a very good chance of impacting on government policy outcomes and ensuring that democracy is maintained. Insider groups usually have the expertise and information that the government needs in its process of policy making. Therefore, these groups speak with authority on behalf of the sectors they represent. They also have high density membership and thus the views they present to the government largely reflect what the sector desires in terms of policies affecting it. Another feature that makes them more effective is that their goals are compatible with the government’s policy agenda for the particular sector. If any difference, it is small and highly negotiable. This makes these insider pressure groups to be effective tools of strengthening democracy in Britain (Thomas and Rienner, (2001). During elections, citizens have the chance to exercise their political democracy by voting in leaders they believe will deliver to them good services and bring about desired changes. The chosen individuals are expected to act on behalf of the people. After these elections, it becomes hard for the citizens to get a direct political influence on the government. It is at this point that pressure groups become important in supplementing electoral democracy. They ensure that the pledges presented in the manifesto of the government are implemented. In this manner, they become important channels through which the people can influence government between elections by having a direct influence on policy. This strengthens the British democracy. How pressure groups undermine British democracy It is positive to say that pressure groups strengthened British democracy. However, we cannot ignore their characteristic features which have become a hindrance to democracy. First, it is clear that pressure groups are never elected and neither are they accountable for. More often, they are under representative and hence the views they present at times do not give the true picture of the situation on ground. In connection to this, few of these groups have adequate procedures for consulting their members (Jordan and Maloney, 1997). The anti-parliamentary movement by pressure groups is one way in which they undermine democracy in Britain. In some instances, pressure groups conduct secret consultations with the government. This allows for covert deals to be granted by the government. Such a thing detracts those individuals who were elected as officials in parliament from having an open legitimate and democratic influence on government (Joyce, 2002). Plural stagnation can also result from pressure groups. This is because whenever there are opposing pressure groups, it can result to slowing down or even a ban of the changes desired by the government on behalf of the people. This contributes to social immobilisation in the society and hence undermining democratic movement. According to Grant (1989), it is true that pressure increases public participation but it does it in an unequal manner for example, through creation of elitism. Some pressure groups foster the idea that individuals who belong to certain classes are the only ones to benefit whereas the others are negatively affected. Those that have the attention of business elites and political parties have better chances of impacting on policy and decision making as compared to those who get no such attention. It also creates some form of discrimination on whose ideas get a representation before the government. For example, a pressure group that operates as a high-level lobbying of trade unions and professionals associations will only enable middle-class people to link and click with the people at the top/government. On the other hand, others who do not meet this criterion, for example, the poor people are not given any chance of participation. Such acts undermine the democracy among the low-class people in Britain. In such a case, the pressure groups can be said to work against and not in favour of public interest and democracy. Pressure groups need funding for their campaigns. However, this places them at a risk of acting in favour of supporting institutions which have adequate resources. Some of them achieve disproportionate impacts simply because of their financial ability and not because of the good view they present. It could also result from their links with political parties for example Labour or Trade unions (TUs) which give money (Thomas and Rienner, 2001). Pressure groups tend to create disharmony and social dislocation. As a result of their campaigns, there is an increased social frustration and sense of injustice among the excluded and disadvantaged groups in the society. This leads to disharmony between them and the government and thus blocks any chance of negotiations. Some of the pressure groups are limited in their extends/capacity and this undermines democracy. It leads to a situation in which some of the views and situations in the society are highlighted while others are not. On the other hand, the society heavily depends on and trusts such groups on matters of democracy. According to McLaughlin et al (1993), the insider groups are effective in representing their various sectors. However, their freedom of speech is usually limited compared to the outsider groups. Their limited freedom of speech has a direct hindrance to the democracy enjoyed by its members. That is, it means that their capacity to express themselves has also been limited. Some actions of pressure groups especially the outsider groups are not based on substantial evidence. This is mainly because they lack adequate information. This makes their hope of bringing about change just a mere distraction. The elite at times use pressure groups to distract the attention of people from direct participation in political parties so as to secure their power to govern. Political parties challenge the right of the elite to rule whereas pressure groups do not question fundamentals of the system (Jordan and Maloney, 1997). Outsider groups have not or simply do not want to form a consultative role with the government. They have limited or no access to the relevant decision makers or departments. This makes it hard for them to gain any recognition in the government and thus undermining the democratic rights of those they represent. The need for pressure groups diminishes when a new government has already become established. For example when the Blair government came to office, it relied on consultations with such groups on its first term. By the second term, the government had developed new likes for purposes of policy advice from task forces and officials. This reduced their reliance on pressure groups. Events such as the fuel protests in 2001, protest to counter changes in disability benefits in 1999 among others makes the government unwilling to listen to pressure groups. This undermines democracy because their actions that are not approved by the government cause them not to be heard and consequently the voice of the ordinary citizens in them (Joyce, 2002). As much as they increase public participation, only the well organised pressure groups benefit from their campaigns and achieve something worthy at the end of the day. On the other hand, those that are weak and less organised do not benefit the society. Instead they just help strike an enemity between them and the government. In some instances, pressure groups have mobilised for demonstrations. The result of this is unpleasant clashes between the protestors and the police. Such amounts of disobedience can never be justified in democratic systems. According to Coxall and Robins (1998), it is mandatory for all individuals including pressure groups to act within the law in Britain. However, some pressure groups break the law or use violent approaches to get attention from the media. They break the law because they are concerned about their welfare more than the broader good of the society. This means that act to benefit more than the citizens. This is evident when they stage strikes like public transport, fuel or TU strikes. Conclusion From this research, it is true to say that pressure groups strengthen democracy in Britain while at the same time, they undermine democracy. It comes out clear is that what determines their role in regard to democracy depends on the purposes they set and the outcome of their actions. The major setback to their aims is the secretive political system in Britain. This makes them not achieve adequate opposition to governed policies. The British government needs to handle these pressure groups effectively and ensure that it maintains good relationship with them. This will eliminate any conflicts between the two groups and hence give room for true, open and sincere negotiations. The two groups should also discourage secret negotiations so as satisfy the real meaning of democracy. References Baumgartner, R and Leech, B. (1998). Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science. Princeton. Princeton University Press. Coxall, B and Robins, L. (1998). Contemporary British Politics (3rd Ed). Hampshire. Palgrave. Duddley, G and Richardson, J. (1998). Arenas without Rules and the Policy Change Process: Outsider Groups and British Roads Policy. Political studies. (4) pp 727-747 Grant,W. (1989). Pressure Groups, Politics and Democracy in Britain. London. Philip Allan.  Jordan, G and Maloney, W. (1997). The Protest Business. Manchester. Manchester University Press. Joyce, P. (2002). The Politics of Protest. Basingstoke. Palgrave. McLaughlin, A. Jordan, G and Maloney, W. (1993). “Corporate Lobbying in the European Community.” Journal of Common Market Studies. (2) pp191- 212.  Richardson, J. (2000). “Government, Interest Groups and Policy Change.” Political Studies (48) pp1006-1026. Ridley, F. and Jordan, G. (1998). Protest Politics: Cause Groups and Campaigns. Oxford. Oxford University Press. Thomas, C. and Rienner, L. (2001). Political Parties and Interest Groups: Shaping Democratic Governance. Boulder, Colorado. Read More