What are the least democratic pressure groups and why?

Pressure groups are a form of a pluralist democracy where a wide range of beliefs, ideologies and ideas is tolerated and allowed to flourish. It also implies a system where power is widely dispersed and not concentrated in a few hands. Pressure groups are mean to give minorities a say in a democratic nature, but there are a few pressure groups that suffer from a democratic deficit because of many reasons. Pressure groups are also a form of direct democracy, where the people take the power into their own hands, but what happens when pressure groups become very influential on policy making and over the government? Pressure groups do not have an electoral system, which is fine when they do not have masses of power, for example WWF have extreme amounts of power as an insider pressure group. However it could be questioned whether they are democratic any longer due to the lack of an electoral system for a powerful influential force. Moreover pressure groups cannot be held accountable when something may be their fault and is therefore undemocratic.

Moreover another example of a lack of democracy within pressure groups would be if they are supporting the minorities the majority is going to be unhappy, and democracy is all about looking after the interests of the majority. For example F4J is a sectional pressure group and therefore only fighting for one section of society, if everyone in the country was a part of a sectional or promotional pressure group then the country would be divided and fighting against each other for the ranking of importance with their issues. The government has a broad focus and looks at all types of issues occurring in society today and pressure groups place pressure on one feature only, therefore presenting a lack of democracy.

Why are some pressure groups more effective than others?

Pressure groups success rate can be dependant on numerous factors. Whether they are insider or outsider can be a huge factor on that impacts the pressure group. Insider pressure groups have special links to the government, and can sit regularly and discuss new legislation, old legislation and just general ideas with the specific minister. Insider groups are now a part of the decision making process. This can therefore be a clear reason as to why some pressure groups are more effective than others.

Additionally there are some pressure groups that were originally a insider pressure group, but move towards being an outsider pressure group. This is usually depending on the government in power, for example typically the Conservative government would not normally consult regularly with a pressure group like Liberty, the human rights pressure group whereas the Liberal Democrats would consider them as an insider pressure group. This could be a downfall for insider pressure group because of their wavering decisions, and this could therefore make outsider pressure groups more effective due to their sturdy position of staying as an outsider pressure group.

Moreover, outsider pressure groups have an advantage of not being held 'prisoner' to the government. This term is usually associated with insider pressure groups, when they are funded by the government and simply become controlled by the government. Outisder pressure groups may be more effective because they do not have to answer to the government and can delegate their money to what areas need it, they can be free and can embrace the whole point of a pressure group: influencing change.

Furthermore pressure groups effectiveness does not just depend on whether it is insider or outsider, effectiveness can be dependant on the action in which the pressure group takes in order to influence change. For example the pressure group fathers for justice, go to extreme levels and lengths in the hope of influencing change and perceptions by scaling buildings and holding extreme marches. Whereas some pressure groups take a more backseat approach and are therefore less effective due to the lack of 'pressure' they apply on the government.

Pressure Groups

Pick a pressure group, fully explain its actions, whether it is a insider, outsider, sectional or promotional and whether it is or was successful and why?

An outsider pressure group is a type of pressure group that has little or no contact with decision makers, this is usually down to ideological disagreement with the current government in power. It could also be in relation to illegal activities they sometimes participate in due to their want for taking direct action. 

An example of an outsider pressure group would be Fathers for Justice (F4J), F4J fight for the equal rights of fathers and mothers. On estimation around 200 children lose their fathers in courts everyday due to their being an injustice in the system. F4J say that:  “F4J is a lone voice swimming against a current of vested interests”. This emphasises that F4J are an outsider pressure group with little/no support from the government.

Contrasting with my previous point of outsider pressure groups having very little support from the government. “Since 2008 the group has been committed to the political process, having won the support of 104 MPs from all parties in the last Parliament.” Now on their website they have a manifesto, so are they now a political party or a high profile pressure group?

On the 29^th of November 2015, a protest occurred on the gallery roof of Buckingham Palace, staged by a copy cat group of F4J. After their protest in September 2004 when a protester dressed as Batman scaled the building. This emphasises the chain reaction one single pressure group can create, and result in a worldwide movement.  

F4J is a very successful pressure group gaining support from thousands of people, F4J was initially funded by money from it’s founder Matt O’Connor when it was established in 2001. Since then it has become a successful self-funding model generating income from registrations and merchandise sales. The organisation refuses to take money from government, solicitors or other organisations that might compromise the integrity of its campaign. Therefore confirming it’s status as a pressure group still.

F4J say that “when democracy fails, by breaking old laws you make new ones” in an attempt to explain their illegal demonstrations, in order to “restore and balance justice in society”, using the Suffragettes and Tolpuddle Martys as a example to follow by. 

Does Corbyn align himself with more traditional socialist views or is he a social democrat and why?

Jeremy Corbyn is known to be a hard core left winger of the labour party, and people associate Corbyn to be a traditional 'old fashioned' socialist. But there are many reasons as to why Corbyn may fall under the social democrat title.

The Labour party used to be a social democratic party, before 1997 when it was transformed to follow neoliberalist ideas, which is comparable to 'new labour', but now 2015 Jeremy Corbyn is now the new leader of the Labour party and in his movement he is gaining support from all different types of people. He is for benefits and a welfare state that benefits anyone and everyone, he believes that the state should assist and aid the country in times of need. For example he is extremely backing the NHS and aiming to stop the privatisation of health care in the UK. He follows the very socialist idea of 'people are social creatures that are bound together by a common humanity'. 

Shown where he wants to protect people at work by ending zero hour contracts and increasing the minimum wage, he is extremely for the working class and aims to achieve equality for all - "a society that accepts no barriers to everyone's talent and contribution. These ideas are very socialist, but Corbyn does show his social democratic stance when discussing that he wants to achieve a mixed economy.

 A mixed economy is where society is made up of a mix between private and public industry, this is stemmed from an ideology of nationalism. This is seen when Jeremy Corbyn discusses that he aims to "re-nationalise' the Royal Bank Of Scotland" and other public sectors. This is also shown when he says "Privatisation over the last four decades has been a history of the British people being robbed and the spivs snatching up the public assets being given the licence to print money. From the earliest privatisations of water, energy and rail to the PFI schemes from the last decade, it has been one long confidence trick." This here emphasises what Corbyn is striving for, a mixture between capitalism and state intervention where he aims to renationalise common, every day utilities.

To conclude, Corbyn's ideas can easily be mistaken for 'old labour' and traditional. But really he is trying to aid the growth of the country with a mixture of capitalism and state intervention: a social democracy. 

Does the UK suffer from a democratic deficit?

A democratic deficit in layman's terms simply means that there is a lack of democracy in a organisation/institution which claims to have one.

There are many examples which aid my point of the UK suffering from a democratic deficit, one of them being the European parliament. This is a clear example in order to show that we are suffering from a democratic deficit. Due to the pooled sovereignty, because citizens of Europe are actually unsure as to where the power lies, the fact that three countries aren't apart of the EU but fund it and are involved in decisions is a massive factor as to why the European parliament is so confusing.  It is too complicated for citizens to be involved in decision making.

This shows clear democratic deficit because democracy is meant to be 'for the people' which is clearly  contradicted because it is too confusing for citizens to even comprehend voting. This is demonstrated in the last voter turn out statistics being only 34%.

Furthermore the electoral system supports the argument of the UK suffering from a democratic deficit. The First Past The Post system is also referred to as 'the winner takes all', this voting system lacks democracy because the results are not truly representative of the nations voice. For example 80% of the people's votes will be dispersed amongst say 6 different parties, but the other 20%'s votes will be dedicated to one party's. The party with the 'majority' of 20% will win the vote, this is also referred to as the 'minority rule'.  This shows clear democratic deficit because the real majority of people's voices are being restricted again.

Another example of where a democratic deficit is shown is within the House of lords, they are unelected which is very undemocratic because the nation have no say once again. Them being unelected presents the idea that we are in a country that likes us to believe we are in a 100% democratic country through their emphasis on the general election and referendums, but their failure to emphasise the undemocratic features will be overlooked by the average person.

Although most of us are given the right the vote in elections and referendums, homeless people and prisoners are not, which could be argued as undemocratic. But however the majority are given that privilege but is voting every 5 years worth suffering with a democratic deficit every day?

Would a change in our voting system enhance our democracy?

Currently our voting system in the UK is the ‘First Past The Post’ system. The definition of the FPTP system: “First Past the Post is the electoral system used to elect the UK parliament. Under First Past The Post voting takes place in constituencies that elect a single MP each. Voters put a cross on a ballot paper next to their favoured candidate and the candidate with the most votes in the constituency wins.” But is it really that simple, is it fair and democratic?     

                                                                                           

Democracy is challenged within this system, the main factor being that the number of votes cast for a party in the general election is not reflected in the number of seats that are won. For example 1997 election when the Conservatives gained 18% of the vote in Scotland but not one seat. This issue does not just occur at general election level, it is also an issue at constituency level. It is not truly representative or democratic, furthermore smaller parties are not fairly treated underneath the FPTP system. They may have a large number of votes nationally but they do not get a proportional amount of MP’s because there are not enough votes concentrated within one constituency.

Moreover, the FPTP system encourages tactical voting, this means that you would vote for another party rather than your preferred party just to prevent another party from being elected into power. This also is linked to the issue of smaller parties not having a chance of gaining complete supremacy. People believe that smaller parties are a ‘wasted vote’ due to the larger parties having a strong mandate and the perception of only the two major parties forever being the two major parties. An example of this would be the Green party VS Conservatives and Labour.

But there are some advantages of the FPTP system; there is very little chance of extremist parties being placed into power due to the fact that they are unlikely to gain enough votes in any one constituency in order to gain power.

Another advantage of the FPTP system would be that the results can be counted quickly and efficiently meaning that the transfer of power is quick and easy.

A change in the voting system in my opinion would enhance our democracy massively, depending if it is the right change and the new system is more representative of all voices and is more representative of the nation as a whole.

The disadvantages of the current electoral system definitely and unfortunately outweigh the advantages. 

Should the UK use more referendums?

A referendum is essentially a 'yes or no' question, this is a form of direct democracy, it gives people the power. But is it truly democratic, and is it really giving the people ALL the power? Of course it doesn't give the people ALL the power, it just makes them believe they have all of the power, to keep peace and order. The democratic nature of referendums is questioned due to the fact it can be overruled by the government if they aren't happy with the outcome. This poses the question: should the uk use more referendums? 

If we use more referendums, doesn't it give the government more chance to overrule us, therefore leading to a higher possibility of riots and an unhappy population? Although this is a rare occasion the UK hardly ever see a referendum, would increasing the number of them just lead to an increase of partisan dealignment? If the government was to reverse the vote of the referendum, the party in power probably wouldn't be for much longer, I believe that many people would be signing a vote of no confidence petition if this was to happen.

Juxtaposing with the negative points of increasing the amount of referendums, they do give the population more of a voice than we usually receive, due to the fact it would be extremely controversial if the government reversed the results of a referendum, I believe that the populations outcome is pretty secure and binding. So therefore maybe more referendums would be a good thing for the UK? 16 and 17 year olds have recently been allowed to vote in some current referendums, this therefore increases the voting turnout because 16 and 17 year olds are generally keen to get involved, therefore increasing political participation. The most recent referendum was the Scottish referendum, about the independence of Scotland, here are some figures I got from an article: "75% of 16 and 17 year olds voted, compared with 54% of 18-24 year olds and 72% of 25-34 year olds". This clearly shows how referendums are beneficial, it clearly increases political participation. 

There are many other ways of getting our voice heard as civilians of the UK, such petitions, marches etc. But a referendum gives us a louder and clearer voice, whether they listen to us or not it becomes clear with what we want and what we don't. 

In conclusion, personally I believe that the UK should use more referendums. It allows our voices to be heard, and presents the population with a large amount of power. 

Is the United Kingdom truly democratic?

In the UK, we belong to a political system called a democracy. But to what extent is the UK truly democratic? The definition of the word democracy is: "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." 

Democracy essentially means power to the people, and the people having power should mean that there is no room for a dictatorship right? Wrong. We have a representative democracy, which means that in different constituencies we vote for someone to represent our area, we also vote for a representitive to be in complete power of the country this creates an illusion that we are living in a democratic country when really we are not. Why is this an illusion? It is an illusion because political leaders and parties read off their manifesto promising us as a country numerous things, but it means absolutely nothing! As soon as they are in power, they are in power for 5 years, and they are well aware of the fact that anything they had promised can be thrown out of the window and disregarded. This leaves us with the issue of an elected dictatorship, which we can do nothing about for another 5 years. Unless enough people come together in the country and sign a vote of no confidence, to vote in another party which could essentially do the same thing. 

Democracy in the UK is a vicious cycle, the people never truly do have the power. But our democracy used to be better... or was it perceived as better because people weren't as politically aware as they are in todays society? The participation in politics has dwindled over the past 30 years massively. In 1987  when Margaret Thatcher was prime minister, the election turn out was 75.3%, then the following election in 1992 John Major, the election turn out was 77.7%. Now in 2015, the election turn out was 66.1%, a massive drop of 11.6% which is a huge increase. My personal explanation for this is I believe that as a nation social media is a massive platform for politically aware people to get their voice heard, and the understanding of what a true democracy does not correlate with the 'democratic' system we are experiencing in todays society.

My argument is further supported with our voting system, we vote for policies not people, parties not political leaders, we vote in people to the house of commons, but not the house of lords. We can vote people in power but its hard to vote them out of power. We are given restrictions on our voice, that surely is infringement of a true democracy? Once it was said that democracy "will be successful in a classless society, with censorship and civil religion." Others argue that we should change our electoral system to proportional representation, maybe this would be more of an exact representation of the countries views. 

How can we make the country more democratic? By making voting compulsory? No, because we are then faced with politically unaware people voting, and therefore the outcome will not be an exact representation of what the population wants, due to carless uneducated votes. What if we change our democratic system to a direct one? Or would that just cause more chaos and confusion? In my eyes, the small amount of confusion for a while would be worth it in the long run. It would benefit the United Kingdom in the future, I think in order for the UK to be truly democratic that is a process that would take years, and may be intangible. But a direct democracy now would be a 'quick fix' in the grand scheme of things.

In conclusion the UK withholds a sense and illusion of democracy through brainwashing propaganda and jargon filled politicians, we are far off of being a truly democratic country.

What happened in the most recent UK election?

In the most recent general election which took place on the 7th of May 2015, it was not as straight forward as previous years may have arguably been. On the same day many local elections also took place. There were two stand out parties that were neck and neck before voting even took place: Labour led by Ed Miliband and the Conservatives led by David Cameron. This gave Labour confidence as expected, but their arrogance may have been what lost them their opportunity to govern the UK. Conservatives won the election after having been apart of a coalition government since 2010 with the Liberal Democrats. Winning 331 seats by the skin of their teeth, made a extremely smug Cameron and a resigning Miliband. The resignation of leaders in the general election seemed to be a common theme in the most recent UK election, with the resignation of Ed Miliband leader of Labour, Nick Clegg leader of the Liberal Democrats and Nigel Farage leader of UKIP.

The biggest shock of the most recent election was the SNP and the masses of seats they had won, the reason as to why this was such a shock was because of the result of the referendum. The outcome of the referendum was for Scotland to remain apart of the UK, even after all of the upheaval of them wanting to no longer be part of the UK they won many seats in the general election. They were definitely the underdogs of the general election this year.

Furthermore the Liberal democrats crashed and burned this year, due to their broken promise from their previous time in power, of the tuition fees being scrapped and then them increasing them almost 3 times as much. Arguably this is not their fault and circumstances were tough, but this definitely was one of the main reasons as to why they was not voted into power this time around.

UKIP. The panic this party caused when waves of support suddenly emerged made everybody believe that UKIP may have a chance at winning, but no, their pro-british, racist policies only gained them one seat this year.

In conclusion the general election this year was definitely one to remember and full of resignations.