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.
Monday 14 December 2015
Monday 7 December 2015
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)