Sociology
All
Government
AS
A2
Government
Sociology
Home Sociology
and Politics Government Government and Politics
Links
Page
Modules
Home page and Politics and Politics
Links
Do Pressure Groups enhance or inhibit the Democratic
Process
See also Analysing Pressure Groups and Pressure Group Power
Supporters of liberal democracy believe that its main elements
[which include regular competitive elections based upon universal
adult suffrage, government accountability to parliament and
ultimately to the electorate, the rule of law and freedom of speech
and assembly] make for a relatively effective and representative
political system. However liberal democracies may be analysed more
critically using theoretical frameworks based around the ideas of
Marxism, Elitism, Corporatism and the New Right and we shall find
also that conclusions about pressure groups and democracy also vary
according to the analytical frameworks used to analyse pressure
group activity.
In the theoretical framework of democratic pluralism states are
assumed to be neutral arbiters [or impartial referees] evaluating the
claims of a vast number of possibly competing pressure groups in
accordance with the national interest. States are assumed to attempt
to represent the interests of societies as a whole rather than the
interests of a narrow ruling class or ruling elite and pressure groups
are said to make important contributions to the democratic process.
Thus whereas political parties represent the general interests of
voters across a range of issues pressure groups provide for the
representation of citizens’ views on particular issues relating to their
own personal well-being [as in the case of sectional groups] and/or
to their particular causes for concern [as in the case of promotional or
cause groups.]As a result of the resources at their disposal pressure
groups can represent individuals more effectively than they could do
themselves, a point which may be especially relevant to more
disadvantaged individuals such as the poor or the disabled and to
minority groupings such as immigrants. It is possible that pressure
groups can address controversial issues which political parties might
initially seek to avoid and likely also that as new issues reach the
political agenda new pressure groups can be formed to address these
issues .Pressure groups enable their members and supporters to
participate more fully in the political process on a continuing basis
between general elections and this is likely to enhance political
understanding and thereby to strengthen support for the liberal
democratic system as a whole.
The existence of rival pressure groups for example supporting or
opposing the increased use of nuclear power, liberalisation of
abortion regulations or the war in Iraq will help to ensure that both
sides of these controversial issues can be fully debated .Pressure
groups may also sometimes be able to provide governments with
important information not otherwise available to them thereby
improving government decision making. For example governments
may be aided in the development of health or education policy by
information provided for example by the Royal College of Nursing,
the British Medical Association and the various teaching unions.
Once policy has been decided relevant pressure groups may also
encourage their members to carry out government policy and may
also scrutinise government performance to assess whether policies
are being implemented effectively. In summary pressure groups may
contribute to government effectiveness by stimulating debate, by the
provision of useful information by help with the implementation of
policy and by scrutiny of government performance.
By the provision of opportunities for political participation via”the
normal channels” pressure groups may indirectly help to ensure that
citizens do not turn to more radical methods in their attempts to
pressurise the government so that pressure groups are seen as
providing a safety valve preventing destabilising opposition to
government and thereby increasing the overall legitimacy of the
liberal democratic political system.
However it has also been argued by more critical analysts that
pressure group activity may in some cases undermine in various
respects the principles of liberal democracy.
Marxists especially claim that liberal democratic governments favour
disproportionately the interests of well funded, well organised procapitalist pressure groups because governments depend for their
very survival on the profitability and efficiency of private capitalism
on which in turn levels of employment, living standards and
economic growth depend. Governments are therefore unlikely to
introduce policies which are not supported by private enterprise.
Furthermore pro-capitalist pressure groups are likely to be granted
insider status which means that their negotiations with government
are often secret which undermines both their own and the
government’s accountability to the general public.
Furthermore most pressure groups, apart from trade unions, are
joined mainly by relatively affluent middle class people and most
pressure group leaders [who may not be chosen by especially
democratic methods] are even more likely to be middle class
although we cannot automatically assume that pressure groups’
middle class members and leaders will not attempt to represent the
interests of other social groups.
However these points taken together do suggest that the poor and
otherwise disadvantaged groups such as many disabled people and
members of some ethnic minority groups are themselves relatively
unlikely to be involved directly in pressure group activity and
relatively more likely to be represented by under-funded outsider
pressure groups which despite their best efforts may be unable to
greatly influence government. Indeed it has also been argued that the
existence of so many pressure groups persuades people to believe
that they have influence when in fact they have very little.
It has been suggested that from the 1940s to the 1970s national
political decision making operated within a framework of so-called
corporatism or tripartism in which government decisions were
influenced much more by business and trade union leaders than by
the leaders of other pressure groups. Critics of corporatism have
argued that it gave excessive political powers to business and trade
union leaders who had not necessarily been fairly elected; that
business and trade union leaders did not necessarily have the
interests of the country at heart; that they each possessed
considerable veto power enabling them to force governments to
accept particular policies rather than facing ,say, a prolonged strike
or reduced private sector investment; and that the excessive power of
these groups undermined the pluralist claim that power was
distributed among many separate pressure groups.
From the 1970s theorists influenced by New Right ideology accepted
the above criticisms of corporatism. They argued in particular that
the trade unions had excessive powers which they used to weaken
the economy via damaging restrictive practices, inflationary wage
demands and strikes and that welfare oriented pressure groups such
as Shelter and the Child Poverty Action Group raised unrealistic
expectations of increased spending on the welfare state which when
they were not met served only to undermine confidence in
government. Fewer criticisms were made of the activities of private
industry although there were sometimes significant disagreements
over economic policy but critics of New Right ideology rejected this
analysis of both trade unions and welfare pressure groups..
We may conclude that theorists influenced by democratic pluralism
have been most likely to praise the democratic activities of pressure
groups but that theorists influenced by Marxism, Elitism,
Corporatism and the New Right have adopted a more critical
approach. While recognising the importance of these criticisms one
only has to imagine a political system with no independent pressure
groups to see that they do on balance make a significant contribution
to the operation of liberal democracy.