DEMOCRACY & PARTICIPATION

Evaluate the view that Pressure Groups enhance democracy

INTRO

  • pressure groups = groups that seek to influence politics in order to acheive particular goals. sometimes in their own intrests or that of minority groups within population. The view that pressures groups enhance democracy is flawed and shall be reflected throhgout this essay.

PARA 1

  • +ve] disperse power - represent minorities

    • ensure minority voices + intrests that are largely ignored in electroal process are heard and responded to by policy makers

    • disillusioned ppl = represented through PG ==> increases legitimacy of gvt and allows for increased participation

    • EG] Muslim Council of Britain saw memebers of religion being poorly represented in Briish Armed forces which they prooved to the defence minister and subsequently attained first muslim chaplin in 2005

  • Although some groups = more influential > others —> they all offer outer parliamentray representation + ensure even minorty viewpoints = amplified thus counteracting elitism

    • shows PGs = more effective > political parties in addressing needs and preferences of minorty groups due to their single issue focus

    • PGs enghance democracy by enhancing political pluralism - granting agency to greater no. of ppl and ergo encouraging unorthodox participation.

  • -ve] weak argument as PGs rather than spreading power undermien pluraist democracy by concentrating infleucne in hands of already privilleged

    • wealthy cooperations = disproportionately infleuntial on decision making as they can push for their own ideologies + interests to be persued.

    • PGs w/ access to lobbyists will utiliuse power to hire services of professional lobbies + PR companies that facilitate accesss to civil servants

    • EG] Liz Truss gvt moved to reomove all caps on bankers’ bonuses in 2022, wheras she failed to increase ordinary ppls wages in line w/ inflation

      • due to BBA forcing Truss to act on their behalf

  • shows PGs narrow NOT widen political access - it = only wealthy/ elite PG who propser

  • THEREFORE: clear that PGs fail to enhance. democracy due to unbalanced influence betwee groups. Finnancial resources of PGs are impertaitice to success of PGs meaning the wealther ones directed by the those in power = seemingly the only ones that propser.

PARA 2

  • +ve] pluarilists beelviue that all PGs even small/non wealthy have some power. and infleunce and create for healthy competition in UK political system as a democratic gvt must consider demands of different groups + arbitrate to produce outcomes for the common good —> they are nutrual + attentive to all wishes of the public

  • competition betwen groups disperse power effectively —> different groups will coutner intrests to give everyone a voice

  • EG] the conservative gvt responded to expecatiions of business PGs by restricting rights of trade unions to call strike action. However same gvt sided w/ workers and agreed to raise minimum wage despite protests from the CBI

    • shows that all PGs are included in political process w/ very few being ingored or margianlised

    • hold gvt accountable inbetween electio whilst ensuroing political knowledge = fispered and that gvt - always acting in the interests of the governed. ==> in doing so, PGs strenthen the social cntract that a democracy desires

  • -ve] arguement is weak as there is actally NO fair competition between groups since gvts = not neutral arbiters who listen to all but rather selective bodies who have agenda of their own

    • favour certain insider groups that share views or are electorally beneficial to their cause allowing them to exercise selfish + unfair infleucne

  • EG] poweful manufacting businesses were able to water down EU air polltion reguaatons. gvt waas infleucned by secretive but heavily organised industry lobbying. These businesses spend millions a year in attempt to infleucne ministers + avoid reforms

    • therefore many powerful PGs can distort demorctic process by bypassing parliament

  • Lobby groups have direct acces to ministers so descions are made behind closed dorrs thus udermining fair competition

    • some ‘ultra insiders’ have disproportinate infleucne on gvt w/ well financed PGs invariabily exering greater infleuncce

  • THEREFORE clear overall that pressure gropups to do NOT enhance democracy as their influence = always secondary to the priorities of an elected gvt

Para 3

  • +ve support democracy as provide information and education to public

  • promote political debate and in the process inform electorate of secretive politices —> thus ensuring healthb political culture

  • Think tanks conduct thorough research on niche issues —> exposing gvt policies and their deficiencies whilst offering alternative viewpoints

  • EG] Aided campaign for the equality act + succesfully passed bill in 2010

  • Education cn lead to further active participation ensuring public have say in the policy-making process

    • highly educated electorate creates an active dialogue that enhances respresentative democravy by ensuring the action of the government reflect the needs of society

  • -ve] arugemnt is weak however as many pressure groups tend to spin truth and purupsoefully exaggerate findings —> due to innate desire to act in their self interests

    • due to this —> democracy = damaged and legimiate particiaption stifled

  • EG] CBI lobbied + campaigned to the gvt against introduction of minimum wage by arguing it will lead to unemployment + lack of competition —> by contrast: economy grew signiciantly after intorduction in 1998

    • by their very nature: PGs biased + favopur one side of debate

    • can adopt more extreme views where comprisimise is not popssible, stiffling pragmatic debate

  • PGs can equally elevate influence of other insider minority groups that share their beleifs allowing them to wield overbearing influence over majority

    • fact that PGs = not held accountable for lies spread proves infleunce exerted is not demorcatically legitimate

  • THEREFORE: by the way of evaluation —> PGs do NOT enhance democracy due to the the likelehood of following their own selfish interstes rather than the needs of the electorate.

Conclusion

  • we can clearly argue that PGs do not enhance democracy due to certain groups w/ insider influence or ones who have greater hold on gvt often do not show deference to the democratic processes and rely on bargaining + lying to push legislation

  • Althogh they do not act as form of political participation over representattion can lead to voter apahty and an unair advantage respectively which takes away from their democratic agenda.