Pressure Groups

What are pressure groups?

A pressure group is an organised group that seeks to influence government (public) policy or protect or advance a particular cause or interest.

Groups may promote a specific issue and raise it up the political agenda or they may have more general political and ideological objectives in mind when they campaign.

Pressure groups operate at: Local; Sub National (Regional); National and International level (including European Union)

PRESSURE GROUPS AND POLITICAL PARTIES

Pressure Groups are different from Political Parties

(1) Different objectives

Parties seek representation and power through elections whereas pressure groups in the main seek political influence. Parties often focus on the national interest whereas groups may be concerned with sectional issues / single issues.

(2) Structure and organisation

In the main political parties are inherently more democratic. There are internal elections for the leadership and this is only sometimes the case with some pressure groups (most commonly trade unions).

(3) Size, resources and support

Political parties used to be mass membership vehicles. In the 1950s support for and membership of the main political parties was vast. Today the membership of political parties has significantly reduced in comparison. Pressure groups are much larger vehicles of political participation. The trade union movement for example boasts approximately 7.6m million members. Though, like parties membership is in decline, the number of trade unionists outnumbers the members of political parties by a ratio of about 20-1.

(4)Tactics

Political parties will employ traditional tactics of communication and campaigning which are seen as legitimate forms of expression. Pressure groups will also adopt the same tactics but many reserve the right to use protests and tactics of civil disobedience to put their points across. Pressure groups may also resort to deliberate law breaking.

(5) Success.

Political Parties enjoy, to a greater or lesser extent, some assurance of political success. Even the more fringe parties can lay claim to having achieved their aims.Plaid Cymru, the SNP, The Green Party, UKIP & the BNP have all experienced some limited forms of success, and for the first time since the National Government during the war the Liberal Democrats once again play a pivotal role in government.

The success of pressure groups is more difficult to judge. Pressure groups vary enormously in their ability to influence public policy. The major core insider groups  such as the CBI and the BMA will have vast (though often unseen) influence in terms of shaping policy. Outsider groups by contrast such as the Stop the War coalition will usually fail even with significant degrees of support. BY contrast the Gurkha’s successful campaign to settle in Britain had a high degree of public visibility.

There is inevitably some overlap in functions and roles of groups and parties!

Many smaller parties fight elections but have no realistic hope of achieving political power. They may in effect focus on a single issue and though they have a party label and may contest elections they are effectively more akin to pressure groups than they are to political parties.

Look at this video issued as part of the 1997 Election Campaign by James Goldsmith‘s Referendum Party.

The Referendum Party was a single issue party, thus more closely resembling a pressure group than a conventional political party.

Some organizational and funding links between some groups and political parties

You will need to take into account both the similarities and differences between political parties and pressure groups.

SECTIONAL INTEREST GROUPS

Represent common interests of a particular section of society Membership is often closed / restricted Sectional groups seek to represent the majority of their particular group of members Members of the group often stand to gain personally from the success of their campaigns

Sectional groups might include; TUC, the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, British Medical Association, Federation of Small Businesses, National Farmers Union, the Law Society.

Royal British Legion, Association of Radical Midwives, British Road Federation, Chambers of Commerce, Society of Motor Manufacturers, Magistrates Association, Chief Superintendants Association

Freight Transport Association, Country Landowners, Musicians Union, British Nuclear Test Veterans’, Association Royal College of Surgeons

PROMOTIONAL/CAUSAL PRESSURE GROUPS

Causal groups often promote a particular set of economic / politics objectives or ideas. These objectives may not be directly linked to the people who support / are actively involved with the group. Causal groups tend to have an open membership – seeking to gain a critical mass of popular support and campaigning strength.

It is important not to confuse mass membership with political influence – many small causal groups have significant political clout. Members of these causal groups are often driven by a very strong desire to initiate change or change society’s attitudes

Welfare Causal Groups

Shelter, Low Pay Unit, Child Poverty Action Group, National Association on Mental Health

Fair Trade, Action on Smoking & Health, LIBERTY, NACRO, Victims of Abortion

Age Concern, Prison Reform Trust, Outrage, War on Want

NSPCC, National AbortionCampaign, Families Need Fathers

Environmental Causal Groups

Greenpeace, FOE, Countryside Alliance, WWF, Campaign for Preservation of Rural England

Living Earth, Ramblers, Pedestrians Association, RSPB,

Compassion in World Farming, Reclaim the Streets, Transport 2000, British Trees Earth First

A distinction between insider and outsider pressure groups is also made. Within this distinction there are different types of insider and outsider

Functions of pressure groups

Pressure groups are a vital part of a healthy democracy. Indeed the sustained and rapid expansion of pressure group activity and involvement in the political process is often heralded as a sign of growing political involvement among many thousands of people. Among the role played by pressure groups, large and small, we can identify the following:

• Promote discussion and debate and mobilise public opinion on key issues

• Perform a role in educating citizens about specific issues

• Groups can enhance democratic participation, pluralism and diversity

• Groups raise and articulate issues that political parties perhaps won’t touch because of

their sensitivity

• They provide an important access point for those seeking redress of grievance

• They represent minorities who cannot represent themselves

• Groups can be an important and valuable source of specialist information / expertise for an overloaded legislature and civil service

• Many groups play an important role in implementing changes to public policy

• Pressure groups encourage a decentralisation of power within the political system. They act as a check and balance to the power of executive government

Groups can become involved in influencing and shaping public policy at many different points. For example, groups can seek to raise issues up the political agenda. This might speed up a process of political reform that might already be in the minds of the government or the opposition. Groups can be brought into the consultative process (see the distinction between insider and outside pressure groups) and may try to have an impact when a bill reaches the stage of Parliamentary drafting, debate and amendment. Finally as mentioned above, many groups are actively involved in implementing political decisions and evaluating their relative success or failure.

Interest Groups

Interest groups are associations of individuals who have common goals and who work together to achieve their goals by attempting to influence government policy. These groups are also sometimes referred to as voluntary association or pressure groups. They are voluntary groups in that their members tend to join them out of their own free will because they see them as an effective way to achieve their political ends. They are pressure groups in that they tend to apply pressure on governing officials in their attempts to persuade them to seek out their desired political ends. In democratic societies, such groups are the primary mechanism for representing public opinion and/or articulating the demands of a particular group. Interest groups generally present the viewpoints of the citizenry they represent to the government in an organized, and thereby, effective way.

Although interest groups may articulate and aggregate the diverse interests found in society in the scope of the political arena, they are not synonymous with political parties. This is because they seek only to influence government in their member’s favour, not to harness the power of government. Thus, once an interest group seeks control over the machinery of government, it is no longer an interest group, as it has, in effect, become a political party. However, this does not mean that interest groups will not work with political parties, or even become affiliated with one, to achieve their policy goals. Thus, the fundamental difference between interest groups and political parties is that interest groups are merely seeking to further their own interests in the political process and political parties are seeking to control the political process.

Interest groups are found in all states. However, their diversity and permitted activity tends to be quite limited in non-democratic or closed societies. To the extent that they exist in these societies, the significance of interest groups is minimal because these systems generally do not tolerate opposition in any form. Thus, the mandate of these groups is likely to be dictated by the government. Consequently, their autonomy to represent the interests of various groups in society will be substantially limited or non-existent in non-democratic systems.

Interest groups play a significant role in democratic political systems and policy processes. They provide the citizenry with an avenue of participation in the political system, and they are often the initiators of the political process through their articulation of demands to governing officials. Interest groups can get the government to look at issues of fundamental concern to their group members by persuading them to form public policy or legislation on the matter. Without interest groups bringing such issues to the forefront and forcing government officials to deal with them in a collective and organized method, the individual members of society who share the common goals of the group would likely not be able to get the government to deal with their concerns. Furthermore, the diverse and competing interests which are characteristic of a democratic society, necessitate a need for people to actively form associations to articulate their interests to government leaders effectively.

Interests groups employ a variety of tactics and engage in a variety of activities in their attempts to influence government policy to their own ends. For example, their activities may include undertaking direct political action, providing material resources such as goods and services to political actors, exchanging relevant data and information with those in the political system, and so on. Major groups with large enough numbers also have the valuable tool of cooperation. For instance, they may express their discontent with a particular policy by convincing the members of their group not to comply with the policy, thereby, making the policy unworkable in practice. Such action is intended to persuade the government to look into desired changes. These groups may also use their access to scarce, specialized information as a leverage tool on government. To some extent, they can withhold such information from government if the government refuses to address their problems or does not address them in what the group deems to be an acceptable manner.

Other ways these groups can affect the end result of the policy process are by electoral activities in which they may raise money, supply workers, or rally votes for a particular party that seems likely to favour their cause if elected. Another tactic is through the utilization of public information campaigns in which they attempt to influence policy indirectly by impacting upon the entire population. More dangerous tactics such as violence and the disruption of social order may also be used to dramatize the group’s cause and show that it is willing to pay a high price for the attainment of its goals. Even litigation may be used by these groups to affect the development of policy by working within the court system. This may be important in setting a precedent in matters for which there is no pre-existing legislation or policy. The tactics that interest groups can employ are endless. However, what does dictate which ones they will choose to employ is the source of its power whether that be from mass numbers, financial capabilities, or whatnot. Furthermore, the nature of the political system in which they exist will have a profound impact on what tactics they can use in the pursuit of their goals. After all, interest groups in authoritarian societies will be much more confined in how they can influence government policy than will be interest groups in democratic societies.

Despite all the other tactics available, lobbying is still the primary tool used by interest groups in democratic societies to get the government on side with the group in its policy decisions. The focus of this activity depends on the institutional arrangements of individual political systems, but the object of the activity is always to secure favourable policy decisions or the appointment of specific individuals to positions of power who are seen as supporters of the group’s cause. This lobbying is done by representatives of the group through their dealings with government officials. This fundamental practice of interacting with government leaders to further the interests of the group is almost as old as contemporary interest groups themselves. In fact, its modern presence is derived from the old practice of individuals and groups seeking to influence government buttonholing Members of Parliament in the lobby of the British House of Commons. This entailed catching these MPs as they were going through the lobby, presenting them with the group’s interest, and trying to influence them to support the group’s cause.

Just as there are a variety of tactics at the disposal of interest groups, there are a variety of hindrances on their ability to represent public opinion. Naturally, these groups are not all equal in their structure or available resources. Thus, those with less organization, members, cohesion, wealth, leadership, and so on may not be able to have as strong a voice or command as much respect as other interest groups in the political system. Furthermore, even the nature of the issue of primary concern to the group is important in determining the degree of influence the group will have. After all, if the demands of the group are similar to what the government desires or is capable of providing, the group has a better chance of achieving its demands.

There are a variety of ways that one can classify interests groups. For example, there is the simple differentiation between public and private interest groups. The basic difference here is that the private groups seek only to advance the interests of their own group members and the public groups seek to promote causes that will bring benefits to all of society. An example of a private interest group would be a professional association that seeks to obtain such things as greater freedom from government regulation in the conduct of its profession or better wages for its professionals. Whereas, an example of a public interest group would be one that is concerned with broad social issues such as improving the state of the environment or the quality of consumer products. Since these groups are concerned with obtaining what is in the common good, they tend to lack the ability to bring immediate, tangible benefits to their members. There are also more complex systems of classifying these groups. For example, Professor Gabriel Almond classifies interest groups into four broad categories known as associational, non-associational, anomic, and institutional interest groups. This is the most commonly used classification system. However, no system is complete and within every category of possible classification there will always be differences among the groups that fall under its heading. For example, groups will differ in their reason for existence, in the focus of their activities, in their organizational assets, and so on.

Associational interest groups are often the political branch of a group that already exists for other reasons such as professional associations. Thus, they regard political activity as only one of their primary activities. These groups are characterized by their ongoing, formal organization which is a product of their efforts to influence public policy and articulate the interests of their members over the long term. This is the most common kind of interest group found in democratic societies and groups that fall under this category tend to have distinctive names, designated headquarters, and professional staff. For example, the NRA (National Rifle Association) in the United States.

Non-associational interest groups are in essence the complete opposite of associational interest groups. They lack any formal organization whatsoever, instead, they are composed of individuals who share some common, defining characteristic such as class, ethnicity, race, religion, culture, or gender. They seldom act as coherent political groups, but they are often treated by others as if they did. Despite their lack of political organization, the members of these groups tend to be seen as representatives of the group. These groups are of a latent nature in that although they may not currently be organized, that does not mean that they cannot become powerfully organized political forces under the right circumstances. Therefore, political leaders must take their special interests into consideration in the formation of public policy. These groups are present in every society and at times they may form temporary, loosely structured organizations to plan and coordinate political activity in an informal manner with regards to a particular issue. However, if this group becomes more formalized and enduring, it is transformed into an associational interest group.

Anomic interest groups are generally the result of turmoil and excitement. Consequently, their actions are often violent. They are characterized by their lack of formal organization, absence of obvious leaders, as well as their temporary and loose coordination of efforts. They are short lived, spontaneous aggregations of people who share a common concern over a particular issue. For instance, in the United States, the nationwide student demonstrations against the Vietnam War in the late 1960s and early 1970s stand as a primary example of this type of interest group. Despite their inherent lack of political organization, these groups can have an outstanding impact on political decisions. However, this tends to be the exception to the rule, as, for the most part, these groups are of little real importance. As a consequence, they tend to only attract minimal media attention and stand as mere indicators of public opinion.

Issue oriented groups have several characteristics in common with anomic groups but are far less volatile. For example, they share with anomic groups a lack of organization and cohesion, lack of endurance, a fluid membership, and a lack of governmental knowledge. As a consequence of their defining characteristics, they have major difficulties in forming and adhering to long term goals. Furthermore, they do not have a concern over disturbing their relationship with government as other interest groups do. The primary advantages of such groups are their great flexibility and tremendous ability to generate immediate public action on specific issues.

Institutionalized interest groups are characterized by well structured and enduring organization, stable membership, clear objectives, and exclusive knowledge of the appropriate sectors of government and their clients. They begin for purposes other than political activity and only engage in such activity in order to defend their own interests in the government’s policy decisions. They are a part of government, departments or agencies, but they are politically neutral. For example, public service unions. Like other groups in society, they have particular concerns they want to see addressed and goals they want to pursue. However, as a part of government, unlike other groups, they tend to persuade government through internal means. Consequently, their activity is largely out of public view for the most part. There are some who take this definition of interests groups further to include organizations which are closely associated with government through their receipt of government funding.

The phenomenon of interest groups seems to be exploding in democratic societies in the past few decades as a consequence of a variety of factors. For example, the rise in benefits provided for by the welfare state is leading interest groups to form to protect and extend those rights to their group members. Another reason is the decline of political parties which is leading interest groups to lobby government directly for their aspired goals. Furthermore, the growing complexity of society is giving way to a variety of single issue oriented groups. There is no one single factor for the increasing rise of interest groups. However, as they increasingly establish their role in the political system, there are some fundamental problems that need to be addressed. For instance, the leadership of these groups tends to lack democratic organization. Therefore, they may not actually present a true of picture of public opinion, but instead may demonstrate the desires of the leaders who articulate the group’s policy interests to government. Furthermore, these groups vary in their possession of resources needed to give them influence.

Methods

Pressure groups have an enormous range of tactics and strategies at their disposal which vary in their effectiveness. One way to examine these methods would be to look at the different classifications of pressure groups and see which tactics they have in common and which are distinct to each type of pressure group.

Insider Pressure groups	Outsider Pressure groups
Remember first of all that there are three different categories of Insider Group. Wyn Grant, Politics Review, 1999 distinguished between: The Core Insider Group The Specialist Insider Group The Peripheral Insider Group	Remember first of all that there are three different categories of Outsider Group. Wyn Grant, Politics Review, 1999 distinguished between: The Potential Insider Group The Outsider By Necessity Group The Ideological Outsider Group Many of the tactics used by Insider Groups are also shared by outsider groups. However there are some forms of pressure group activity that are beyond the scope of Insiders if they wish to retain their insider status! We cannot imagine the BMA dressing up as Batman and Robin and trespassing on Crown property in order to get a point across!
The Insider Group is, of course, characterised as having a closer set of relationships with policy and decision makers.They have:Frequent CONTACTwith Government Ministers, Departments, The Civil Service, Policy Advisors to Senior Cabinet Members, Parliament and even the Prime Minister.	The following Is a list of tactics that BOTH Insiders and Outsiders might adopt.Some Outsider Groups, will sometimes make use of the services ofprofessional lobbyists, where they cannot hope to meet with ministers themselves
CONSULTATION with Government Ministers, Departments, The CivilService, Policy Advisors to Senior Cabinet Members, Parliament and even the Prime Minister.	Some Outsider Pressure Groups are likely to be involved in Green Paperconsultations
NEGOTIATIONS Government Ministers, Departments, The Civil Service, Policy Advisors to Senior Cabinet Members, Parliament and even the Prime Minister.	Some Outsider Groups will make use ofpolitical advertising in order to promote their cause or defend their members’ interests. However, because advertising is expensive this tactic is heavily resource dependent.
Particular Pressure Groups will havePRIVILEGED ACCESS to particular departments. For example the British Medical Association will have access to Heath Department officials and Ministers and the Prison Officers Association, the Home Office.	Occasionally the Pressure group will send an open letter to the newspapers in the hope of influencing both the public and the government. They may also seek to place an issue high up the political agenda through these means.
Some Insider Groups, with the exception of CORE Insider groups, will sometimes make use of the services of professional lobbyists	With the same aims in mind they may arrange interviews with the broadcast media (radio and television). Though they are less likely to obtain access to the media they may still occasionally be granted an interview.
Insider Pressure Groups are likely to be involved in Green Paper consultations	Potential insiders may have liaisons with Local Authorities devolved parliaments and assemblies and even the EU
Insider Groups will make frequent use ofpolitical advertising in order to promote their cause or defend their members’ interests. This may be done through newspapers or specialist magazines	The following are methods used almost exclusively by Outsider Pressure Groups Leafleting Street Stalls and Petitions Public Fund Raising and Donation Campaigns
Insider Pressure Groups will seek to influence the public and the public policy agenda through press releases.	Outsiders are often frustrated at the lack of government attention to their concerns. This may manifest itself in the form of demonstrations and marches as with the Stop the War coalition and the Countryside Alliance
Occasionally senior members of the Pressure group will send an open letter to the newspapers in the hope of influencing both the public and the government. They may also seek to place an issue high up the political agenda through these means.	In 1983, at Greenham Common RAF base, women’s groups organized a peace camp to protest against  the arrival and stationing of cruise missiles.
With the same aims in mind they may arrange interviews with the broadcast media (radio and television).	Groups wishing to exercise the right to roam have often used mass trespass on private property as a means of drawing attention to their cause.
Insider Pressure groups also have frequent contact and liaison with Quangos and Next Steps Agencies, the providers of public services. These also implement public policy. Decisions may not be influenced (though they nearly always are to some degree) but theimplementation of these policies can still be influenced.Similarly Insider Pressure Groups will also liaise with Local Authorities, where there is a reason for doing so.	The Fuel Protesters successfully used the tactic of blockading fuel depots, forcing the government into a review of the ‘fuel duty escalator’
Similarly Insider Pressure Groups will also liaise with the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London, where there is a reason for doing so.	Some groups such as the anti globalization protesters, Reclaim the Streets and the WOMBLES, have often used violent protest as a tactic in order to achieve maximum publicity.
Many Insider Pressure Groups are now increasingly aware that a large amount of directives emanate from the European Commission and have therefore established offices in Brussels.	WOMBLES: the White Overall Movement Building Effective Libertarian Struggles. Use of Protest and disruption tactics with a wide variety of aims, but essentially to disrupt and (eventually!) bring down capitalism.

In all cases pressure groups will use a variety of methods, dependant upon their status, in order to influence public opinion, policy decisions and the decision makers themselves.

PRESSURE GROUPS -JANUARY 2009

a) Using examples, distinguish between a sectional and promotional pressure groups.

Pressure groups are common features of a pluralist democracy. They may be divided into sectional and promotional/cause groups.

A sectional pressure group can be defined as:

• Promoting the interest of one element or ‘section’ of society.
• These sectional groups can be economic or social sections.
• They tend to be exclusive and have restricted rather than open
membership.

• Examples include professional bodies, trade unions etc.

A promotional or cause group can be defined as:

• Having open membership.
• Motivated not only by self interest but could be driven by altruistic aims.
• Perhaps more numerous than sectional groups.
• Examples include environmental groups and animal welfare groups.

b) Explain the methods used by pressure groups to influence government.

They may protest and demonstrate in high profile venues such as Governmental offices and parliament.

Insider groups can be said to have ease of access in directly contacting both ministers and civil servants.

Sectional groups may strike to disrupt economic activity to move the government.

Pressure groups may hand in petitions to the PM and Ministers.

Pressure groups may use e-petitions and the Internet to voice their concerns.

Some pressure groups contribute to political party funds and are said to gain privileged access via this method if that party goes on to form a government.

Some pressure groups may provide an essential linkage for government whenthe government is considering new legislation or policy changes and this provides pressure groups with access to influence governments.

c) To what extent do pressure groups promote pluralist democracy?

Pluralist democracy is a particular type of democracy, which operates with numerous organised groups who all have some political leverage in the decision- making forum.

It assumes the absence of elite groups who would dominate the political forum with their demands.

Finally, it assumes a ‘neutral’ government who listens to, and acts on the outcomes of these competing interests.Thus the multiplicity and operation of pressure groups are considered to be an essential component in the promotion of pluralist democracy.

Consideration that pressure groups promote pluralist democracy could encompass the following:

The existence of varied and numerous pressure groups support the theory of pluralism.

Opposing pressure groups compete in open forum for public and governmental attention.

The government openly accept the existence of pressure groups and involve them in decision making.

There are no legal restrictions upon pressure group formation and the more recent media and internet developments only serves to enhance pluralist democracy .

Pressure group activity in itself serves to enhance pluralist democracy by providing information and education to the public.

Pressure groups can be considered to widen the access to power and decision making for the mass of the citizens.

Governments take into account the claims of pressure groups when making decisions.

However there are arguments that pressure groups do not promote pluralist democracy such as:

Pressure group activity can be viewed as elitist from several perspectives.

Governments favour certain groups who share their views or are at the time‘electorally’ beneficial to their cause.

This can be related to outsider or insider status.

Some groups because of their economic power have more influence than othersand this causes a disruption of the pluralist democratic position.

Building on from the above it may be said that pressure groups can be considered to narrow not widen political access to government and in some senses empower the already powerful.

This economic power will take several guises; it may be that some can exert influence for their strategic position in society.

Some groups can afford advertising to get their message across and thus they‘buy’ their power.

PRESSURE GROUPS – JUNE 2009

a) What is meant by pluralism?

Pluralism relates to the diversification and distribution of power within the political system. It can be said to have the following features:

It supposes a wide dispersal of power along various avenues and channels.

There is no concentration of power in narrow sectional elites. Pluralism can be seen as the opposite of elitism.

Pluralism in a political sense encourages and welcomes open debate between competing groups in society.

Citizens can be represented not via a single representative but through group membership, this can be multiple membership of differing groups.

Many pressure groups will have opposing and competing groups.

All the above groups have power and equal access to the political process.

Pluralism allows minorities to have political power and this can be associated with a multicultural society.

b) Why is it sometimes difficult to distinguish between pressure groups and political parties?

Pressure groups and political parties share some similarities which may at times render a distinction difficult, this may occur as a result of the fact that:

some pressure groups like political parties have developed ideas and policies on a wide range of issues and thus may be seen as a ‘one-stop shop’ for political participation, a role normally associated with political parties

some pressure groups become so closely associated with governmental policy and discussion that this raises or changes their perceived status. A good example would be the NFU

often political parties with narrow and distinctive policy ranges resemble pressure groups. UKIP and the BNP are seen as typical of this category

pressure groups can and do contest elections. This can be at by-elections or in a general or local election. Although not serious contenders for governmental office, the election is used more as a means to gain publicity

political parties can and do emerge from wider social movements: the Labour Party emerged from the Trade Union Movement, the Green Party from within the environmental movement

popularity and prestige of both pressure groups and parties are dependent on public approval; success for both depends on both articulating and responding to the mood of the nation.

c) To what extent have pressure groups become more important in recent years?

Pressure groups have been part of the political scene for decades. Without doubt they play an important role in the political process. There is evidence that they have become more important, but also that they have declined in importance. Some may also consider that that their importance has been constant.

Evidence that pressure groups are more important could begin with their growth in number and diversity. Pressure groups have easier means of forming and then communicating their message. The internet has facilitated this. It has become easier to alert the public and pressure group members. One example of this was the encouragement by the Automobile Association and RAC to petition on the Government web site against the introduction of road pricing. This swift action served to show to the government that it had to re-think plans in that area. Hence on this basis communication improvement may have made pressure groups more important.

Linked to this is the increased profile which the media may give to some pressure groups, an increased profile which makes the groups more important. Popular issues catch and make the headlines. ‘Make Poverty History’ was one such example.

It may also be argued that the growth of government activity covering more aspects of citizens’ lives has made pressure group activity more important. When in difficulty or need the government seeks the specialist advice only available through pressure groups.

Others point out the fact that a more educated multi-cultural Britain turns to pressure groups rather than political parties to find a voice; ethnic minority pressure groups speak for a number of racial groups.

It may also be noted that the importance of certain groups reflects the age in which we live. Issues which were not on the agenda years ago are now at the forefront of politics. Issues such as the environment, gender issues and fuel costs to name but three. In these areas pressure groups, not political parties, make the running and lead in importance.

The opposite view may argue that pressure groups are less important.
The ability to form and communicate may help but it may also hinder. As groups may form others may form in opposition, and thus negate any rising importance.

A lack of success may be apparent. The Countryside Alliance has not revoked or stopped the ban on hunting, the Stop the War Coalition did not prevent or end the Iraq war, the fuel protestors have not reduced the cost of fuel, Make Poverty History has not prevented world poverty etc.

Trade Union power has diminished and the numbers in them have fallen. It is argued that the ‘star’ of all pressure groups have fallen since the 1980s and the Conservative government and all governments since. Power has fallen more to the executive on one level and the global economy / events on the other.

A contrasting position may be that pressure group importance is constant and relative to the time and events which unfold. The political market place can only take a certain amount of pressure group politics and the more articulate and imaginative are the ones that capture the headlines and thus the news and success. The environmental disasters of the 80s were the reason for the rise in pressure groups, a situation continued by the rise in reported natural disasters. The rising cost of fuel is the momentum behind the fuel lobby. The removal of the ban on whaling is the cause in the rising importance of associated pressure groups. Events themselves dictate a rise or fall in importance.

PRESSURE GROUPS – JANUARY 2010

a) Using examples distinguish between insider and outsider pressure groups.

Wyn Grant developed the classification of pressure groups to have insider and outsider status, they can be distinguished as follows:

An insider pressure group has a close and productive relationship with the government whereas an outsider has little or no government contact.

This relationship may mean that insiders will be consulted before and during policy implementation whereas outsiders do not enjoy this favour.

Insider groups will be highly unlikely to use direct action or break the law whereas outsider groups may under certain circumstances be attracted to law breaking

Examples of insider groups include the NFU and the BMA

Examples of outsider groups include Earth First and the Animal Liberation Front.

b) Pressure group success may be limited by a range of factors.

Finance/wealth may be a feature which limits success.

Size may be a limiting factor; a lack of numbers to gain a critical mass may be relevant.

Adverse publicity may again be a restrictor if the aims of the pressure groups receive a poor press then this can spell disaster.

The fact that a pressure group may have an opposing group(s) set against its aims can be relevant an example of this is the pro and anti abortion groups.

The leadership and management of the pressure group may also be a restriction on success.

The pressure group may be limited by the government who may view the pressure groups aims as being opposed to its ideas.

Insider or outsider status may affect a pressure group’s success.

c) To what extent do pressure groups promote political participation in the UK?

The numbers joining pressure groups has vastly increased.

They supplement elections as an avenue of participation by providing a channel of communication.

Pressure groups can act as a point of political information and education. They can thus inform the public about events and aid understanding which then encourages participation.

Pressure groups can participate in policy formulation as some may be consulted before and during this process.

Furthermore some pressure groups actually put political theory into practice as they implement political directives; the best example of this is the NFU. Pressure groups can serve to represent the interests of specialist sections of society and minorities, who can via group formation meaningfully, participate in politics whereas as individuals the process may be cumbersome and overpowering.

There has been a huge growth in the number of and the scope of cause groups which have been vital in promoting more active political participation.

However there are arguments that pressure groups may damage or restrict political participation in the UK.

It is argued that pressure groups may concentrate power to their particular advantage and pursue narrow self interest and the wider body politic suffers. Pressure groups are not accountable and thus they can act without constraints. Some pressure groups ignore the democratic mechanism and instead subvert the political process. This could be via various law breaking activities.

It is suggested that pressure groups undermine the process of parliamentary participation where elected officials are the voice of the people.

In a wide sense pressure groups can be said to lack full legitimacy and thus undermine participation.

It is suggested that pressure groups can bring about elite decision-making. Despite the growth of pressure groups (in membership number and type) participation in elections has fallen.

Some pressure groups have seen a decline in membership which has resulted in restricted political participation an example are the trade unions.

It has been stated that pressure groups create ‘chequebook participation’ in that although membership and funds of a pressure group may be high political participation moves little beyond subscription with no meaningful political action.

PRESSURE GROUPS JUNE 2010

a) Distinguish between pluralism and elitism

Pluralism and elitism are terms which make reference to the distribution of political power.

Pluralism is a theory which believes that power is to an extent evenly distributed and that it is not concentrated.

Pluralism has a positive view of pressure groups and considers a multiplicity of then to be good for the body politic.

Elitism by contrast implies that there is a concentration of power in a narrow and exclusive grouping.

Elitism implies that this alleged unequal and unfair distribution of political power in the system may posit problems for the body politic

b) Explain three political functions of pressure groups

They perform an educative function. Here pressure groups can provide information and education to the general public, making them aware of political events and facts. For instance pressure groups who campaign against pollution and aim to protect the environment may inform the public of pollution levels.

They perform a representative function. Pressure groups can speak up for sections of society who are not adequately represented through the existing electoral system. For example the Gurkha Justice Campaign is an example of a pressure group that was represented by a pressure group as opposed to a political party.

They perform a participative function. We have seen the falling membership rolls of political parties over the last 25 years but have witnessed the growing membership of pressure groups. It is through pressure groups that the public can be participative citizens. For example citizens may go on marches organised by pressure groups such as those held by the Countryside Alliance, or they may sign petitions created by pressure groups.

They perform a role in policy formulation. Here pressure groups can be credited with developing and creating policy which governments and political parties may take up. For instance economic groups such as the CBI and Trade Unions have influenced both Labour and Conservative governments and parties.

They have a function in implementing policy. Occasionally pressure groups implement policy. A good example of this is the National Farmers Union (NFU) who works alongside the government in policy implementation. Another example is the RSPCA who will carry out prosecutions where it considers animal welfare has been severely violated

They have a scrutiny function where pressure groups hold those in power accountable. For example, Greenpeace emails its members regarding Government progress/achievements on climate change targets.

c) To what extent do pressure groups undermine democracy?

Pressure groups can be said to undermine democracy by several means:

They can concentrate power. This may mean that a restricted section of society have an unfair advantage in a democracy. For example wealthy pressure groups may have an unfair advantage with the government.

They may force governments into acting on behalf of a minority and as a result the government may ignore the wider needs of society. For example pressure groups with powerful economic leverage such as the Trade Unions or CBI may force governments to act on their behalf.

They can contribute to the country being difficult to manage and govern. For instance ‘hyperpluralism’ depicts the difficulty a government may encounter when it is perplexed by a multitude of pressure groups blocking their legitimate actions.

Insider pressure groups can be considered to have an unfair amount of power within governments. For example the NFU and the BMA are alleged to at times have used their insider status in an undemocratic fashion.

Pressure groups can be accused of undermining Parliament the democratically elected legislature. They may influence the government more than democratically elected representatives.

However there are arguments that pressure groups do not undermine democracy, it is suggested that:

They actually widen the power base in society and advance the interests of all citizens. For instance they may make minorities conform to the democratic prose as opposed to being isolated.

They advance political participation. Participation is crucial to democracy and pressure groups acts to extend and improve this. For example with general elections held infrequently pressure groups maintain political connectivity for a government.

Citizens may act to restrict government and prevent authoritarian action. For instance many pressure groups campaigned against the abolition of the 10p rate of tax under Gordon Brown.

They are a gauge of public opinion for the government as such they maintain stability.

Pressure groups promote political debate and in the process educate and inform the electorate. They thus ensure healthy debate and competition in the political marketplace

PRESSURE GROUPS – JANUARY 2011

a) Outline two differences between pressure groups and political parties.

Pressure groups do not normally seek governmental office and to hold power, they seek to influence power holders.

Pressure groups often have less internal democratic structures than political parties.

Some pressure groups will resort to illegal action to achieve their aims, whereas political parties are highly unlikely to endorse law breaking

Political parties as a result of their nature hold views and ideas across a range of topics, pressure groups by contrast are more specific and may have more circumscribed aims.

Pressure groups have enjoyed in recent years a growing membership whereas political parties have experienced a declining roll.

Pressure groups have fewer restraints on funding and finance than political parties who are closely audited.

b) How and why do some pressure groups use direct action?

Direct action is where the public actively become involved in politics as opposed to dealing through a representative or simply just voting in elections How is direct action used?

Direct action takes may forms, it need not be considered to be solely illegal in nature.

Some pressure groups will go on marches and demonstrations to show their views on a topic or issue as with the Stop the War marches against the Iraq war and the more recent marches against the rise in student tuition fees.

Some trade union pressure groups may go on strike (official & unofficial) or break their contract of employment.

Civil disobedience can be considered to be direct action

Some pressure groups carry out ‘sit ins’ where they occupy public buildings often used in the 1960’s and now employed recently as a protest against the rise in student tuition fees.

Occasionally pressure groups may cause an illegal obstruction by blocking the highway. Fathers4justice often brought traffic to a halt illegally.

Some pressure groups aligned with campaigns against animal testing have carried out a number of illegal acts from grave violation to harassing animal laboratories. Why do pressure groups use direct action?

Pressure groups turn to direct action to advance their cause as other non-direct methods having failed or not being available.

At times pressure groups need the media spotlight and direct action is a method of achieving this

Often outsider groups turn to direct action as they do not have the privileged enjoyed by insider groups

The failure or exhaustion of conventional or legal routes may cause direct action (illegal action) as a last resort, the illegal activity of the protestors against the hunting ban broke the law in frustration

c) To what extent are the largest pressure groups the most successful ones?

There are many reasons why pressure groups enjoy and achieve success, the notion that size is crucial for success cite the following evidence:

Numerical strength brings political leverage. For example often the numbers who are members of the RSPB mean that legislators listen to their voice.

Numerical advantage often brings financial leverage. For example the numbers who are members of the RSPCA allow the organisation to take our nationwide advertisements to advance their cause and achieve success.

The momentum achieved by a large well organised pressure group often means that a government has to listen and take action, it may not reverse its decision but it may deviate some aspect of its policy. The Labour and the current Coalition government has modified policies as a result of large protest.

A large pressure group with no political counterweight may make it hard for a government to ignore, for instance the Snowdrop campaign and the campaign to ban firearms was a success.

However there are numerous reasons and ample evidence to disprove the notion that size is the sole determinant of success, for example:

Despite huge numerical strength some pressure groups have failed: the Stop the War campaign did not prevent the Iraq War, there is no evidence that the student protest will stop the increase in student tuition fees.

Pressure group success may arise out of its status, insider groups with direct access to those who have power may be more effective.

Some pressure groups are small, but if they speak for a significant minority and represent the bulk of a specialism then their small number is not ignored, the BMA is a good example of a numerically small organisation but the fact that it speaks for a vast section of doctors means it ‘punches above its weight’ in numerical terms.

Often having a celebrity backing the cause may make up for small membership. The fact that Jamie Oliver led the ‘Feed Me better’ compensated in success terms for its small following. The campaign to secure citizen rights for Ghurkhas benefited from Joanna Lumley’s contribution.

Evidence may be cited that events, skill, expertise, a party in office and a host of other factors can be more important than size can be advanced.

PRESSURE GROUPS JUNE 2011

a) Using examples, distinguish between promotional and sectional pressure groups.

The differences between promotional groups (PGs) and sectional groups (SGs) include the following:

PGs seek to advance ideas, ideals or political causes, whereas SGs aim to advance or defend interests

PGs are concerned with the well being of others or society in general whereas SGs are concerned with the well being of their own members.

PGs have an open membership, whereas SG membership is restricted to people in particular occupations, professions or positions.

Examples of SGs include the National Union of Teachers, the Law Society and the Confederation of British Industry, whereas examples of PGs include Greenpeace, Shelter and Oxfam.

b) Pressure groups influence public opinion by a range of methods including the following:

Protests and demonstrations

Petitions and internet websites

Use of experts and specialists and educational material

They use these methods for a variety of reasons, including the following:

To educate the public and build popular support for their cause or goals

To influence government policy indirectly through popular, and therefore electoral, pressure.

c) Is pressure group politics in the UK better described as pluralist or elitist?

Pluralism is a theory that political power is widely distributed in society.

Pressure groups thus act as agents to assist this distribution and government is responsive to a wide range of causes and interests.

All citizens have open access to membership of pressure groups. Elitism is the theory that power is concentrated and not evenly distributed.

Some pressure groups have more power and influence than others.

Economic groups are commonly seen as more powerful than other groups, especially business groups.

It may be that some pressure groups have insufficient power as a result of finance or poor leadership.

Governments are not neutral arbiters who listen to all pressure groups but rather selective bodies

PRESSURE GROUPS – JANUARY 2012

a) How do pressure groups promote functional representation?

Functional representation is where pressure groups supplement or add to the democratic process in society. Pressure groups are said to promote functional representation in several ways:

It is alleged that in a representative democracy where political parties aggregate their polices and water down their creeds it is beneficial that pressure groups can speak on behalf of the specific and the unique. Thus promoting functional representation

It is therefore operatively beneficial that pressure groups break out (or supplement) the constraints of representative democracy and function to articulate the needs of the minority.

Building on the above they widen the democratic framework and air specialised needs.

These minorities may be linked to economic interests, hence business pressure groups speak on behalf of employers and owners and trade unions on behalf of workers. Again this is beneficial for functional representation

Functional representation can be promoted by representation of demographic groups and also minority opinion.

These minorities may speak for a particular or distinct group; this may be based on ethnic or religious lines.

b) Explain three factors which may restrict the influence of a pressure group.

There are several factors which may restrict pressure group power, these include:

A Government in power which is hostile to the pressure groups aims, an example would be the current governments stance to student groups upon the raising of student fees

Hostile public opinion can restrict pressure group power, Muslim groups who sought to protest at the Afghan War at Wotton Basset met with widespread public hostility.

A lack of finance may restrict power or curtail the pressure groups cause. In recent years some environmental groups have seen their income fall as the recession has caused their funds to decrease.

A lack of experts and efficient leaders may stall the power base of a pressure group.

Similarly a lack of recruited members can stall a pressure groups as it fails to get recruits to volunteer and publicise its message to a wider audience.

A restrictive factor may be the strength of opposition groups, for example the Countryside Alliance versus the League Against Cruel Sports.

c) Are pressure groups becoming more powerful, or less powerful?

In recent years there is evidence that pressure groups have become more powerful:

Turnout in all types of election continue to fall as citizens turn away from elections as a means of participation instead they turn to pressure groups to articulate their demands.

Associated with this is the fall in popularity of political parties whose membership has plummeted: the public are instead joining pressure groups and this numerical increase adds weight and salience to their causes

As the complexities of modern society increases governments and individuals turn to pressure groups for expertise and answers

Improved communications have allowed pressure groups to advertise their cause via avenues such as the internet this raises the profile of certain groups and their message

Improved openings or access points at various tiers of government open opportunities, here we can consider routes as power has devolved to areas where power has been transferred the EU and G20

If we consider global movements we can see a raised profile for NGO’s here at a corporate level the leverage of certain pressure groups is significant.

However not all agree that pressure groups have become more powerful: o Turnout is not necessarily an indicator of dissatisfaction with the public more a sign of contentment.

Political parties still marshal the vote at elections pressure groups influence but do not control this vital arena

Governments hold power and are the ultimate decision maker, they may listen to pressure groups but in the end governments decide

The above can be linked to the fall in corporatism with the Thatcher government since 1979

Hence we all too often see pressure groups fail in their attempts to change or block governments, the Hunting Ban, the War in Iraq, the introduction of (and the rise) in Student Tuition fees, the continuance of animal experimentation etc.

Some argue that the multiplicity of pressure groups brings further problems for the importance of pressure groups, competing factions thwart impact, also confuse the population. For instance although the ‘green movement’ shows a spectrum of environmental concerns the groups do not speak with one authoritative voice, hence numerical increase does not lead to improved strength.

PRESSURE GROUPS JUNE 2012

a) What is the link between pluralism and pressure groups?

Pluralism and pressure groups have a close and meaningful link, some of these include:

Pluralism considers how power is distributed in society. Pluralism views that it is healthy to have multiple sources of power. Pressure groups are an integral part of this possible dispersal.

Pluralism requires minority representation which is facilitated by pressure groups.

Pluralism is linked to diversity and choice: pressure groups again facilitate this with their diversity and proliferation.

Pluralism theory considers governments listening to a range of pressure groups and deciding policy through consultation, a vast range of pressure groups create this and support pluralist theory. Pluralism accepts that some pressure groups will succeed and others fail, this is an accurate reflection of pressure group activity.

b) Explain why different pressure groups use different methods to achieve their aims.

Pressure groups resort to a vast range of methods to achieve their aims, quite often changing and amending these methods dependent on the results which they obtain.

To reach a wide audience. Wealthy pressure groups will use and pay for advertisement to advance their cause. The National Trust regularly uses the press to promote its causes. Other groups may use celebrities to gain media attention.

To make best use of their resources. Many pressure groups will collect and arrange for petitions by holding events in town centres to attract members of the public. This is an affordable option for some pressure groups that have less finance. It may be especially relevant to serve local causes for some pressure groups.

To make use of their insider status. Insider pressure groups may simply make contact with the relevant government minister or senior civil servant to advance their cause. The NFU has close contact with the relevant Government department.

To reflect their outsider status. Outsider pressure groups who know that the government will not take notice carry out high profile stunts (at times illegal) to capture the public attention. Fathers4justice often used this as a device.

To fit in with and reflect the pressure groups membership and their level of radicalism. Groups such as the RSPCA will not resort to direct action whereas groups such as the ALF will naturally resort to direct action.

c) To what extent do pressure groups strengthen pluralist democracy?

There is evidence that pressure group politics can both strengthen and weaken pluralist democracy.

Pluralist democracy is the theory that the democratic system works with numerous power outlets with a neutral government who arbitrates between competing interests.Evidence that pressure groups strengthen pluralist democracy posits the following points:

Pluralist democracy represents numerous and different groups in a pluralist democracy

Pluralist democracy is a theory that political power is widely distributed in society as such numerous pressure groups facilitate this process

Numerous pressure groups are free to form and there are no restrictions on their activity as long as they keep within the law. Pressure groups in open competition serve to advance pluralist democracy. In an open liberal democracy such as the UK this occurs

Governments take heed and consider pressure group demands and arbitrate to produce the outcome for the common good.

However there is evidence that pressure groups weaken pluralist democracy

Governments do not act as neutral arbiters, instead they exercise their own agenda which ignores if necessary pressure groups.

It is alleged that far from being pluralist pressure group resources are unevenly distributed and imbalanced. As such there are dominant pressure groups that benefit in a certain way from this uneven resource base.

Some sections of society are not represented by pressure groups or are inadequately represented. Housewives and pedestrians are examples respectively.

The existence of powerful insider groups with direct and influential access to the government undermines pluralist democracy.

The above posits the notion of elitism where pressure group power is uneven and possibly imbalanced which makes pluralist democracy impossible

PRESSURE GROUPS JANUARY 2013

a) Describe two ways in which pressure groups promote political participation.

Pressure groups promote political participation in some of the following ways:

Pressure groups aim to circulate information which will educate and inform the public which will make them inclined to participate

They encourage members of the public to vote in elections to support a political party which may endorse the pressure group’s views

They organise protest to raise awareness and secure participation to make the public aware of political issues and make them inclined to be involved in a cause

They actively campaign to raise funds and secure financial participation from the public.

They can use direct action to raise awareness and secure political participation.

b) Explain three reasons why pressure group activity may undermine democracy.

There have been many suggestions by which pressure groups may undermine democracy these include:

Pressure groups themselves have very undemocratic process for policy formulation and office selection

They may take direct action which harms people’s lives

They may take illegal action against democratic principles

Some pressure groups on account of their wealth or status may secure an undemocratic advantage over other groups

They may make material mistakes and prevent a government from carrying out its legitimate actions to secure the wider public well being.

Their activity may create hyper – pluralism which may frustrate democratic decision making.

c) To what extent is the success of pressure groups a reflection of their level of public support?

The case that pressure group success is a reflection of their level of public support cite the following:

Pressure groups are successful largely when the public support the cause and endorse support such as the campaign to secure settlement for the Ghurkhas

Governments often act when public support is on the side of the pressure group such as the campaign to prevent the selloff of the Forestry Commission

Certain causes such as the environment, animal and child welfare enjoy success as their causes motivate public support on a large scale.

However not all agree that that pressure group success is a reflection of the level of public support alone and cite the following:

Governments have ignored large campaigns such as the Stop the War campaign and the campaigns to prevent the increase in Student tuition fees

Governments such as the coalition have ignored huge protests over the cuts in public expenditure

Pressure group success is built on a variety of factors and levels of public support is one of many

The above could include organisation, insider status, good leader, finance etc.

Pressure Groups – Undermining or Enhancing Democracy?

The very term pressure group conjures up images of a group of hardened activists, sat in a small room all wearing the same t-shirt with the group slogan emblazoned across it, they sit in the dim light discussing plans of protest and direct action. We think of a highly active, small group, who, in the eyes of many, are attempting to make a change for a very specific cause.

What we perhaps don’t think of are the national and international NGOs who have specific policy and parliamentary lobbyists who have a constant dialogue with the British Government. They push their objectives forward in the best way they can, they secure funding, and they provide a vast wealth of expertise and knowledge to government. In an atmosphere where there is active give and take between government and pressure groups – is this enhancing democracy, because it gives voice to a particular issue or undermining democracy because a small, unelected group has achieved a higher level of influence than perhaps they should have?

But who exactly are we dealing with when discussing pressure group politics? In the first instance we have causal groups who are actively promoting a particular cause – here think of Human Rights groups (such as Amnesty International), animal welfare groups (e.g. RSPCA), food (e.g. Campaign for Real Ale) and Constitutional Reform (e.g. British Humanist Association). On the flip side of that coin we have interest groups – groups that actively represent the interests of a particular group of people – think of trade unions, private corporations, professional organisations (e.g. British Medical Association), international aid & development and lifestyle groups.  There are, of course, crossover groups which promote a cause and represent a group of people – here we must include religious groups (e.g. The Christian Institute), cultural groups (e.g. The Countryside Alliance) and political parties.

The question we must immediately ask is which groups could represent the greatest threat to democracy? There is no simple answer to that question. On the one hand we have insider groups that are ‘closer’ to government; they may be party affiliated and are therefore inherently closer to policy-making. On the other, external groups have the ability and leverage to openly attack government, often made all the more effective if they can mobilize the mass media behind their particular cause.

It has been estimated that there are no more than 100,000 truly committed activists in Britain. With this being, relatively, such a small percentage of the population (approximately 0.2%) we must wonder whether having such a small number of people influencing policy from an unaccountable position is good for democracy. In an era where political party membership has reached an all time low, but in an atmosphere where party politics completely dominates the political landscape, there is a parallel issue which becomes apparent – the vast majority of our politicians are, although ultimately voted for by the public to get them into office, sourced from a rather small pool of individuals.

To diversify for a moment – if we broadly estimate that The Labour Party have 200,000 members and 8700 elected politicians in the UK, then about 4% of the total membership are elected politicians. If we broadly say that the Conservative Party have 100,000 members and about 9000 elected politicians, then a staggering 9% of the party membership are actually elected officials. To draw a parallel – estimating the number of electable offices in the UK at about 23,500 with a population of roughly 60 million, as a percentage, only 0.04% of the population is in elected office, a number which is 225 times lower than the weighting within the Conservative Party and 100 times lower than the weighting within The Labour Party. The saving grace of the party political system is that politicians are accountable and the public have the ability to throw the rascals out at the next available election should they so wish. With pressure groups, if we accept that there are only 100,000 truly committed activists, then it becomes increasingly clear that, from a statistical point of view, this could be an issue for democracy as it is extremely unrepresentative.

But let us look for a moment at how pressure groups can actually enhance democracy. Underrepresented groups can be given a voice – for example, The Gurkha Justice Campaign. Pressure groups can raise awareness of certain issues that otherwise may go unnoticed and they provide government with a vast pool of expertise and knowledge. Some pressure groups, such as trade unions, hold internal elections amongst members to make sure they are representative within themselves. Pressure groups are thought to hold government to account through scrutiny. Pressure groups are also often seen as a ‘way in’ to civic participation for citizens. Tripartite transparent consultation allows for an inclusive, consultative process for decisions that are deemed simply too important to be made by government alone. And finally – pressure groups are always striving towards policy and actually making the government respond actively to an issue – it forces the wheels of government to turn, which surely can only be a positive thing.

There are just as many arguments that highlight how pressure groups can undermine democracy, however. There are concerns over membership – many members of pressure groups are largely thought to be ‘cheque-book’ activists and contributing little above and beyond their monthly donation, with the direction and policy stance of the group being formed by a very small group of individuals at the top of the organisation. In an effort to build effective campaigns, pressure groups can often resort to scathing attacks on government through the media, which may continue to erode (the already rather low) public confidence and trust in government.  The incumbent government will naturally ‘cosy up’ to organisations that support their stance and shun others that do not, leaving some groups ‘out in the cold’. There can be a nature of ‘clientelism’ that may occur when particular sectors are dominated by a few key actors – think of how much influence the big six energy companies must have over energy policy, given that they have a 98% market share over the UK energy market. Some pressure groups with, arguably, small and largely insignificant but media-grabbing issues can dominate a lot of government time and resources (you can think of your own example for this one). Pressure groups now have vastly more members than political parties, which creates an issue around representation.

It is accepted that pressure groups have a large degree of influence over low profile policy as a part of the extensive consultation processes undertaken by local and national government. Consultation enhances democracy throughinclusion by bringing in many groups during the consultation period, but this inevitably leads to exclusion because, for all the best will in the world, not every group can always be consulted.

There is a vicious circle at work between pressure groups and government, especially with media grabbing campaigns. No matter how far government responds to a particular pressure group, it is never perceived as being enough because the group must be seen to be continuing ‘the cause’. This leads to an impression of non-delivery of politics, government failure and negative public feeling.

If we accept the concerns surrounding pressure groups, we must ask do pressure groups need regulation? Some manner of regulation would certainly increase the transparency and the groups place within the policy process. Amnesty International, Greenpeace and Oxfam are already more transparent and have signed up to accountability charters, code of conducts and commitments to standards of internal governance.

And finally – do pressure groups, activism, protests and direct action lead us to a place where we become post-parliamentary? In an atmosphere where a public movement is so strong as to cause government to retreat from a policy completely; do we enter an atmosphere where the role of parliament is seen as one where politicians are not elected just to make ‘executive’ style decisions, but to make informed, real-time decisions based on the public mood. If we think back two years to when the government retreated from a plan to sell off public forests in the UK, public reaction was so strong, the plan was dropped fairly quickly. But how can politicians gauge when public feeling is something to be followed and when is it something to be ignored? It is a murky question with no concrete answer – leaving us straddled somewhere between representative and direct democracy. The sad fact is that if selling off of the public forests hadn’t been such an obvious vote-losing policy, and not as terrifically unpopular as it was, it probably would have gone ahead.