Examining the Ways a Pressure Group Contributes to Representative Democracy

In a pluralist democracy like in the United States, interest groups have played a major role throughout the history through highly organized factions and are aimed at different levels of government. Lobbying is one of the tactics of the interest groups to aid their agenda through implementing new laws and regulations. "If you want to have your face in the light, you should have your back in the dark". Similarly, the influences of the interests groups and lobbyists have good and bad effects on the people and the society.

Parliament is very effective when dealing with the public and their interests and needs like when they redress public grievances to make sure they are listened too. However, parliament isn’t so effective on the representative side of things. This is because the electoral system that we use isn’t very fair and excludes smaller parties of a chance of being voted into parliament. This therefore means a large number of public votes have been

One final argument for direct democracy in the UK is that it increases the people’s political participation and engagement in current issues. When people are given the opportunity to have their say, they are more likely to get involved in the process, thus increasing the accuracy of the judgement. A successful and fully functional democracy relies on the involvement of the general public and the people it will be directly

While the United Kingdom is considered a representative democracy it is arguable to how representative it is of everyone. It is highly unlikely that you would ever find an MP is Parliament who is from a lower class background with the majority of MPs coming from the middle and upper classes. This shows a problem with the UK’s system as not everyone is getting their voices heard in this regard. While it is possible for pressure groups to get their views heard by governments, they will ensure that pressure groups do not become so powerful they steal the government's legitimacy.

The fact that, in the United Kingdom, we have multiple political parties, with a variety of view points and policies, is exemplary of the fact that political parties enhance democracy. The existence of various political parties gives the public voting options, and provides them with a choice of who governs their country, which is arguably a democratic approach, and encourages public participation. The idea that the public are not only voting for the party and its leaders, but also its policies show that they have an influence in how the country is run. For example the Conservative party (under David Cameron) believes in traditional institutions and values, protecting the rights and interests of property owners, and support the idea that the wealthy do have a responsibility to improve the conditions of the disadvantaged. However modern Labour (under Ed Miliband), emphasises that education is the main driver of social justice and social mobility, agrees that there should generally greater stress on environmental protection, and the party now favors more active state

Interest groups can be both bad and good for democracy. The interest groups are able to lobby to congress to help out different organizations. They basically work on a “you do a favor for me and I’ll do a favor for you later” basis. This gives the lobbyist an influence over congress. They can be bad for the democracy because too much influence and power can be a bad thing. The issue they are lobbying for may not be a good cause.

As exemplified above, one decision could fit the bill for one of your groups, but then completely alienate another. Two, elections have gotten to the point where they more or less can be “bought”. If a tobacco company wants a politician to convince people to buy lots of cigarettes, all they need to do is write a big enough check to the campaign. In tandem, these two points raise an important question: how good can our government really be if it cannot effectively represent all people and support of a policy can be bought by those with fat wallets? This is an important question to think about, especially as our political environment becomes more polarized by the

Two-tiered pluralism differs from pluralism because of the effect it has upon the minority groups of the nation. While there is an equal legal backing for all racial and ethnic communities, minorities are still undermined by the system thus becoming segregated. Moreover in politics, minority groups tend to be under seclusion even though the current enacted laws grant equality at all stages. The amount of resources given to minorities are very different to elites leading to the practices and outcomes to be unequal (Lecture 6). Pluralism is very different from the two-tiered pluralism framework as it focuses upon group-based competition and that everyone has equal opportunities

Ever since the advent of democratic systems of political decision-making in Ancient Greece, one of the primary concerns about democratic functioning has been the principle of majority rule. Whether a majoritarian system is divisive in its essence, paves the way for demagoguery, or obstructs minority groups from having a fair say in public affairs, criticisms of majority rule have and still persist nowadays. Indeed, notorious political figures such as Hamilton, Madison or Mill expressed concerns about the potential threat of a tyranny of the majority which would infringe on citizens’ fundamental rights. Moreover and recently, the outcome of the Brexit referendum has renewed the debate around majority rule and its flaws. However, within the context of the contemporary world in which democracy prevails, majority rule is the norm many states follow. Why is this so; how can majority rule be defended and what are its limits? In order to provide an articulate and coherent answer, it is first necessary to lay down some premises to the functioning of the democratic process. Then, after arguing for majority rule, its flaws shall be assessed before eventually drawing potential alternatives from such dysfunctions.

Moreover, different tactics are used by pressure groups, which can add to the success of the group as a whole. Paid political consultants offer to act as intermediaries between pressure groups and parliament. Lobbyists have three main functions. Firstly, to provide groups with political information and secondly to bring groups into contact with MPs or officials and vice versa. Thirdly, to persuade MPs or officials to back a particular issue or cause. For example, The ‘Snowdrop Campaign’ in 1996 used lobbying as a tactic to gain support for their ideas. This seemed to be effective, as there was a resulting gun amnesty, where 160,000 guns were handed in. Each pressure group is reliant on the public’s opinion. If the public opinion is good toward a particular issue or group, many MP’s are inclined to listen to the group with public support. For example, equal pay for women. Therefore, public opinion is one of the most important factors in why some pressure groups are more successful than others, Also, if the public widely agree with the cause of a pressure group, the bigger the possible demonstration may be.

The multigovernmental nature of the European Union and the national governments of its member states also helps to decrease the democratic deficit, not only on a supranational level, but on a national level as well (Eising 2011). Because there is a division of powers and sovereignty between these two levels of governance, citizens have the capacity, through interest group activity, to represent their interests to two different legislative bodies that could pursue legislation in their favour (Kohler-Koch 1997; Eising 2011). Similarly, due to the relatively nascent state of European Union interest group activity, many groups with similar interests are combining and coordinating efforts in order to have a bigger influence over policy decisions (Greenwood 2003, Eising 2011). Because of this unique phenomenon, smaller groups may work in tandem with

As Habermas puts it “the relationship of the individual to the state has increasingly become one of client or consumer services, rather than citizen” (Roberts & Crossley, 5). Due to the limited agency (citizens’ roles) within this sphere, we can conclude that the ongoing competition and negotiation for a role in the public sphere ends with strictly dominant views. In such a monarchy, ordinary citizens such as lower classes and women have limited input when debating politics among other things. The ideal of a place where all opinions are counted, so to speak, fails to provide a sense of individual identity. This is due to the fact that it is pre-destined by the state itself and then turned back to the people- telling them what they will think about particular issues; shown especially through the controlling lens of the media.

A weakness of democracy is the “Tyranny of the Majority”. This is an inevitable pitfall, because in a democracy, the power is vested foremost in the people the constituting the society itself. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote on this concept:

Pressure Groups Being Good for Democracy Pressure groups are organisations whose members share common interests and seek to influence governments. They can be classified in several different ways but the most important distinction is between insider and outsider groups. They are organisations that want to change policy but do not want to become the government. They focus on particular issues or areas of concern and can become involved in policy making by organising campaigns, sending letters, organising demonstrations and signing petitions. People join pressure groups to show their support for a particular issue and to join with other like-minded people in trying to influence our politicians.

By electing an individual who is free to make decisions based on his or her own morality and reason, voters would actually be compromising their freedom. Citizens would have no confidence in their representatives because the MP would be free to make decisions that are not subject to any guidelines or standards. Party discipline unites the country by having voters from various backgrounds and beliefs elect a political party into office. It is not as easy for individuals to relate to a candidate; it is much easier for individuals to relate to a political party, with a very general platform. Voters chose a political party based on how well they identify with the party's platform. Party discipline insures that this platform will be represented in parliamentary session, and thus the individual's needs, wants, and concerns are accurately represented.