“Is Lobbying a beneficial part of the UK’s Pluralist democracy?”

1. Political engagement

• in the USA lobbying is seen as indivisible from healthy engagement in political life- protected by 1st amendment- Similarly In the UK the capacity to lobby the government encourages people to play an active role in the way they are governed.

• It is not lobbying that is the problem but a lake of effective legislation to root out corruption and conflicts of interests

• However- the rules on lobbying in the UK need reforming

• If the process of looting is to be seen as beneficial, many groups argue that a far longer ban on former government ministers in engaging in lobbying is required

• All lobbyists should have to join the official lobbying register

2. Lobbying allows people to have a stronger voice in government

• A basic lack of time, resources and skills prevents people from effectively representing their issues and concerns to policy makers

• organised lobbying- the gathering of like minded individuals provides an effective collective entity.

• Provides people with a stronger voice and a better chance to improve their lives

• However-

• While some pressure group activity takes the from of mass popular movements, generating substantial media coverage much of it is behind the scenes

• Professional lobbyists (some times ex-mps) are able to use privileged access to sent one sides or biased information to decision makers

3. Government Policy

• Widely accepted

• The growing complexity of government and the pace of technology change have made lobbyists vital providers of information in the processes of government policy and legislation

• enrich decision making process

• However

• Lobbying only beneficial in the UK if the body that governs is far stronger and supported by legislation

• Not widely accepted- Government “sleaze” scandal

• doesn’t enrich decision making process due to “revolving door”

Conclusion:

In order for Lobbying to become part of the UK’s pluralist democracy there must be more structure and restrictions to prevent “sleaze scandals” and to uphold democratic principles of accountability and transparency