COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL
Strengths & Weaknesses of
Social Movements &
Interest Groups
Political Science
Kirsten Marie Simonsen
Tutorial Group XA
19-12-2012
Word Count: 3.416
STU Count: 21.384
Kirsten M. Simonsen
Regular Exam 2012
Political Science
1,0 Introduction
This paper studies the strengths and weaknesses of two modes of political participation, namely
social movements and interest groups, with emphasize on the basic differences in the two modes
and the degree to which they fulfill the notion of democracy. In order to do this, Robert Dahl’s two
dimensions of democracy will be defined so that it is possible to look at the strengths and
weaknesses of social movements and interest groups with respect to democracy. Next social
movements will be defined, followed by explanations of the classical model, the resource
mobilization model and the political process model. Then interest groups will be defined, followed
by an explanation of the three traditions namely republican traditions, liberal traditions and
corporatist traditions.
This will give a foundation of the comparison and discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the
two modes of political participation which will be done in two levels. The comparison and
discussion will at the first level focus on the basic differences of the two modes in terms of entry,
methods and the ability to obtain power. The reason for including this comparison is that this will
also give the basic differences in strengths and weaknesses of the two modes of political
participation instead of just focusing on democracy. Then the second level of the comparison and
discussion of the two modes will move on to the theories of each mode, namely the models and
traditions of respectively, social movements and interest groups. This will give the ability to
compare and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of social movements and interest groups in terms
of democracy.
2,0 Political Participation
Robert Dahl emphasizes two dimensions of democracy which are both needed in order for the
government to be democratically responsible to the people. First dimension focuses on things like
association, belief and freedom of expression, which are rights and opportunities that the people
have the possibility to catch. The other dimension deals with actual participation in political life,
which Dahl states the importance of “The continuing existence of a democratic order would seem to
require that citizens, or at least some of them, sometimes actually do participate in political life by
2
Kirsten M. Simonsen
Regular Exam 2012
Political Science
exercising their rights and act on the opportunities guaranteed to them”(Dahl 2000, cited in
Caramani 2011, p. 89). Thus Dahl emphasizes the fact that political participation is crucial in
maintaining democracy. There are different ways of engaging in political participation, and when
comparing and discussing the strengths and weaknesses it is important to have in mind the
importance of the specific type of participation’s impact on democracy. Thus one must look at the
different modes of political participation in order to be able to compare and discuss the strengths
and weaknesses of these. Therefore the basic elements of social movements will now be explained,
followed by explanations of the theoretical models that go along with social movements.
The concept of social movements consists of three main parts being “a group of people with a
conflictual orientation towards an opponent, a collective identity and a set of common beliefs and
goals, and a repertoire of collective actions” (Kriesi 2011, p. 293). These three elements all together
describes the essence of a social movement, and it can thus be defined as ”Networks of informal
interactions between a plurality of individuals, groups, or associations, engaged in a political or
cultural conflict, on the basis of a shared collective identity” (Diani and Bison 2004, p. 282). Thus
according to this definition social movements are gatherings of people who share a strong common
identity against some cause or opponent, and therefore seeks to draw attention towards that certain
cause. It is relatively easy to enter a social movement since there are two simple methods of
creating awareness namely protest politics and information politics, which respectively can be
described as protesting in the public sphere, and organizing information at certain places(Kriesi
2011, p. 293-295). The actual power that the social movement will gain from the methods of
creating awareness depends mainly on the formal institutional structure and cultural models. Having
described the basics of a social movement, it is now possible to take a closer look at each of the
theoretical models of social movements in order to look at strengths and weaknesses.
The first model of social movements is the classical model, which argues that social movements
arise when some sort of breakdown occurs, which then leads to a disruptive psychological state
which will end up creating a social movement. There are several versions of the classical model, but
many of the models argue that the collective behavior of social movements is irrational, disruptive
and exaggerated. This model can be seen as the individual focusing on finding a way out of a
breakdown, and thus participating in a movement, and therefore this model does not see the
intention of a social movement as something that supports the democracy, but more as something
3
Kirsten M. Simonsen
Regular Exam 2012
Political Science
which is going to help the individual personally, getting over the breakdown (Kriesi 2011, p. 296).
Therefore according to this model, the intention of social movements is not strengthening the
democracy, since it does not have something to do with political goals as such, and therefore the
purpose is not directly that of supporting democracy.
The second model of social movements is the resource mobilization model which on the other hand
sees the creation of social movements as a rational response by offended groups. This model has its
core emphasize on organization and that strong organization will lead to more successful
movements. Better organization can be captured by using great collective identity (catness) and
greater density of internal networks (netness) which will lead to a better organization. Therefore, a
social movement will have more success, and assuming bigger political impact, when the catness
and netness is fulfilled (Kriesi 2011, p. 296-297). This model then seeks to maximize the effect of
the social movement by providing the theory of catness and netness, and when the effect of the
social movement is maximized, the impact on the policy-making arena can therefore be maximized
and strengthen the democracy.
The political process model argues that social movements are political challenges by offended
people with focus on the level of organization as an important explanation of the mobilization.
Therefore this model is based on the same assumptions as the resource mobilization model, though
this model differs. It has two main elements which are putting the group into political contexts and
the subjective meaning that the participants in the social movement add to their position. Therefore
this model focuses on the political opportunities that one can gain when participating in a
movement, but also the constraints of participating in a social movement (Kriesi 2011, p. 298). This
model can be used to look at specific ways of how social movements are determined and how they
interact with the political context that the model puts them into. But the overall purpose of this
model is, as with the resource mobilization model, that more organization is better, though in this
model, the level of organization is emphasized. Having explained the basics of social movements
and the models that follows, it is now time to look at another mode of political participation, namely
interest groups.
Interest groups can be defined as “membership organizations that appeal to government but do not
participate in elections” (Wilson 1990, cited in Caramani 2011, p. 260). This means that interest
4
Kirsten M. Simonsen
Regular Exam 2012
Political Science
groups are communicating preferences or even threats to the policy-makers outside the regular
political body in order to get influence in the policy-making process. When joining and interest
group people usually have selective incentives, and thus they expect to get some kind of personal
profit of entering the interest group(Erne 2011, p. 266). Interest groups have several methods to get
impact on policies such as direct lobbying, political exchange, contentious politics, and private
interest government. The obtained power that interest groups will get over policy-making decisions
depends on what type of interest one is dealing with. There are three main traditions when
explaining interest groups and looking at the role of interest groups in society, which are the
republican tradition, the liberal tradition and the corporatist tradition. By taking a closer look at the
different traditions, it will be possible to make a comparison and discussion between this mode of
political participation and other modes of political participation.
Within the theory of interest groups there are different traditions as to how interests should be seen
in terms of democracy and the first tradition is the republican tradition. According to the Republican
tradition, interest groups are a big weakness for democracies, as Rousseau argues: “there should be
no partial society in a state and each citizen should express only his own opinion”(Rousseau 1973,
cited in Caramani 2011, p. 262). The main concern of this tradition is that interest groups would
become unequal in terms of size and power, and thus undermine the will of the people. Therefore if
one looks at whether interest groups would be beneficial to democracy in terms of the republican
tradition, one will find that interest groups are indeed a weakness to democracy, as interest groups
would gain more power than that of the voters (Erne 2011, p. 262). So this theory is very much
against interest groups in terms of the influence they may have on democracies. From this point of
view, another view on interest groups will be made in terms of the liberal traditions.
Liberal traditions see interest groups in a very different light, than that of Republican traditions,
namely that interest groups are strengths to democracy and is an actual source of liberty. Alexis de
Tocqueville made and argument which can shortly be stated as “associations represent the lifeblood
of civic life” (Erne 2011, p. 263). According to the liberal traditions the people would have to
gather together in groups, in order to have a say in a modern state whose rise is weakening the
individual citizen. This theory actually states that democracy is unavoidable due to this
modernization, and thus more and more people would have to become a part of politics in one way
or another. Democracy is seen as a new foundation of legitimizing politics, and thus it is important
5
Kirsten M. Simonsen
Regular Exam 2012
Political Science
to involve the people as much as possible (Erne 2011, p. 262-263). Therefore liberal traditions
argue that interest groups are strengthening the democracy and that they are an actual necessity in
modern society.
Then the third theory is the one of the corporatist tradition which argues that interest groups are
important for political life, but that there should be some regulation to them. The regulation should
secure that some interests would not grow bigger than others and thus gain too much power, and
then undermine the will of the people. Therefore power should be shared between interests in order
for the system as a whole not to be damaged, and thus secure the democracy. This has some traits
from the liberal traditions, since both traditions agree on the fact that interest groups should be a
part of society, but it is still important to note that the corporatist tradition does not want free
competition between interests, whereas liberal tradition wants free competition between interests
(Erne 2011, p. 264-265). Thus this tradition sees interest groups as a strength, at least when the
competition is shared between interest groups, which will then secure the democracy and the will of
the people. These explanations of social movements and interest groups then lead to the actual
comparison and discussion of strengths and weaknesses, first in terms of basic differences, secondly
with respect to democracy.
3,0 Comparison and Discussion of Strengths & Weaknesses
After having defined social movements and interest groups, it is now possible to compare and
discuss weaknesses and strengths in the two cases in terms of the possible ways of entering the
mode. Joining a social movement is rather easy since there is typically no membership as the thing
that holds the group together is a strong common identity. This is an advantage to social movements
as they allow citizens to engage in political participation only to some degree, and thus they do not
have to sacrifice too much. Interest groups on the other hand has more of a weakness on this point
since they have to take into account the selective incentives of people, meaning that people will
want to make some sort of private profit in order to participate (Erne 2011, p. 266). On top of this
comes that interest groups typically have some sort of membership requirements, and those two
aspects are a weakness to interest groups as such, since people will want personal benefits and they
´need some sort of membership. Though one could also turn the argument of membership around,
6
Kirsten M. Simonsen
Regular Exam 2012
Political Science
since interest groups then has an advantage when it comes to holding on to their members, whereas
social movements might have a harder time keeping people in the group. Thus in terms of entry,
both modes of political participation have strengths and weaknesses.
The methods used by each mode of political participation will now be compared, since this is
relevant for the next comparison namely that of the power they gain. Social movements have two
methods in order to have an impact which are protest politics and information politics, which
respectively, can be described as protesting in the public sphere, and organizing information at
certain places (Kriesi 2011, p. 293-295). Interest groups on the other hand, have more ways to get
political impact by for instance using direct lobbying, political exchange, contentious politics, or
private interest government. Therefore it can be an advantage to interest groups that they have more
ways of getting a direct political impact, since they have the possibility to approach the political
arena more directly (Erne 2011, 268-271).Whereas social movements on the other hand do not have
as many methods to get direct influence, because they have to show their discontent through the
public sphere and thus they might be able to get a more indirectly impact on politics.
The comparison of methods then leads directly to a comparison of the actual power of the two
modes of political participation. In terms of interest groups it can be beneficial to focus on the
interest’s ability to get an impact on the policy-making process, and thereby put the politicians in a
situation where they will have to listen. The difficulty of this task depends on whether it is a
business interest, since they do not face obstacles in terms of collective action, whereas labor unions
will face this kind of problem. Therefore it can be argued that interest groups have both strengths
and weaknesses in terms of obtaining power, depending on the concerned type of interest (Erne
2011, p. 266-267). To what degree social movements will have an impact on politics depends very
much on the formal institutional structure and cultural models, which includes for instance the
prevailing procedures of the authorities towards social movements. Thus there are both strengths
and weaknesses in both cases in terms of the level of power, since there are a lot of interfering
factors. After having compared and discussed the basic structures of each mode of political
participation, it is now time to move on to a comparison of the concerned theories with respect to
democracy.
7
Kirsten M. Simonsen
Regular Exam 2012
Political Science
When comparing the different models and traditions of the two modes of participation, it is possible
to find similarities and differences in the main arguments of each mode of participation. Taking for
instance the classic model and the republican tradition, one will be able to see that they both argue,
though not to the same degree, that their specific mode of participation is either not affecting
democracy or a weakness to democracy. Recalling Dahl’s two dimensions, one will realize that
these do not follow Dahl’s precondition for democracy, namely that sometimes some people have to
participate in politics(Mair 2011, p. 89) Therefore interest groups and social movements in terms of
these theories, are weaknesses to democracies, but at the other hand it was stated by Dahl that
political participation is needed, and therefore it is necessary to compare more traditions and models
so that political participation and democracy can actually correspond in a positive way. This will be
done by comparing liberal traditions with the resource mobilization model and their views on the
respective mode of political participation.
After having compared two cases where the mode of participation was seen as either having no
impact on democracy, or being a weakness to democracy, it is now time to compare the opposite
case. Recall that liberal traditions argued that interest groups are a crucial part of democracy, and
that the resource mobilization model had a core emphasize on organization and that strong
organization will lead to more successful social movements (Kriesi 2011, p.297). Then when setting
these theories up against Dahl’s two dimensions, it is possible to see that both interest organizations
and social movements are important for maintaining democracy. Therefore it can be argued that
both modes of political participation are strengths to the democracy, and, in terms of social
movements, the catness x netness states that stronger organization will lead to stronger social
movement and therefore even better conditions for democracy.
Again two more cases have been compared, with a new outcome which is namely that of the mode
of participation as having a positive effect on democracy. But it is possible to find a middle way
between the two first comparisons when comparing corporatist traditions with the political process
model. Corporatist traditions are taking the basic assumptions of the liberal traditions and thus see
interest groups as a part of maintaining democracy, though regulations are needed in order to
distribute the power between interests (Erne 2011, p. 264). The political process model is also
basing its assumptions on an already made model, but it takes into account two more aspects being
political contexts and the subjective meaning that the participants add to their position (Kriesi 2011,
8
Kirsten M. Simonsen
Regular Exam 2012
Political Science
p. 298-299). These theories are therefore seeing their respective mode of political participation as
something that strengthens democracy, but in the case of the corporatist tradition introducing some
regulation. The political process the theory has been further extended, but it still has the basic claim
that social movements strengthen the democracy. Thus from the point of view of these two theories,
social movements and interest groups strengthens the democracy, though few things have to be
taking in to consideration.
4,0 Conclusion
This paper concludes the strengths and weaknesses of social movements and interest groups on two
levels. The first level is making conclusions on strengths and weaknesses of entry, methods and
obtained power in each mode of participation. In terms of entry it was found that social movements
are easy to enter and leave, whereas interest groups are harder to enter which can both be an
advantage and a disadvantage in both modes of participation. Then the methods used by social
movements are more indirectly affecting policy-making compared to interest groups, which can be
a weakness, whereas interest groups have an advantage in this case. In terms of the degree at which
each social movements and interest groups obtain power depends very much on respectively the
formal institutional structure and the type of interest.
The second level are drawing conclusions on the different models and traditions of each mode and
hold them up against Dahl’s two dimensions of democracy. Here the classic model and the
republican tradition found that their specific mode of participation is either not intentionally
affecting democracy or is a weakness to democracy. Then the resource mobilization model and the
liberal tradition were compared to conclude that in both social movements and interest groups, in
terms of these theories, are seen as a strengthening of the democracy. The third comparison was
then between the political process model and the corporatist tradition, where it was found that social
movements and interest groups strengthens the democracy, though few things have to be taking in
to consideration in terms of regulations and extensions to the model.
Thus the overall conclusion is that in terms of the basic assumptions of the modes of political
participation there are both strengths and weaknesses. In addition, whether interest organizations
and social movements contribute to democracy, depends of what theory is being emphasized on.
One could also have explored the weaknesses and strengths of other modes of political participation
such as election and referendums, political parties or political communication.
9
Kirsten M. Simonsen
Regular Exam 2012
Political Science
6,0 Reference list
Caramani (2011). Comparative Politics. United States: 2nd. ed. Oxford University Press
Diani, M., and Bison, I. (2004) “Organizations, Coalitions, and Movements”, Theory and Society,
3: 281–309
Erne, R. (2011). “Interest Associations” in Caramani, D. (ed) Comparative Politics. 2nd. ed.
Oxford: Oxford University Press: p. 259-274
Kitschelt, H. & Rehm, P (2011). “Political Participation” in Caramani, D. (ed) Comparative
Politics. 2nd. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press: p. 331-351
Kriesi, H. (2011). “Social Movements” in Caramani, D. (ed) Comparative Politics. 2nd. ed. Oxford:
Oxford University Press: p. 292-310
Mair, P. (2011). “Democracies” in Caramani, D. (ed) Comparative Politics. 2nd. ed. Oxford:
Oxford University Press: p. 84-101
10