Evaluate the view that pressure groups enhance democracy
Pressure groups are groups that seek to influence politics in order to achieve particular goals, sometimes in their own interests or that of minority groups within the population. However, this essay will reject the view that pressure groups enhance democracy.
Some argue that PGs have proven to disperse power, representing minority groups in particular. They ensure that minority voices, interests that are largely ignored in the electoral process, are heard and responded to by policy makers. Furthermore, disillusioned people who are unable to vote are represented through pressure groups, this increases the legitimacy of the government in power and allows for some level of participation. For example, the Muslim Council of Britain saw that members of the religion were being poorly represented in the British Armed Forces. They proved this to the defence minister and subsequently achieved the first Muslim Chaplain in 2005. Although some groups are more influential than others, they all offer outer-parliamentary representation and ensure that even minority viewpoints are amplified- thus counteracting elitism. This shows that pressure groups are much more effective than political parties in addressing the needs and preferences of minority groups because of their single-issue focus. Pressure groups enhance democracy by enhancing political pluralism, granting agency to a greater number of people and causes; this encourages unorthodox participation.
However, this argument is weak as rather than spreading power in society, PGs undermine pluralist democracy by concentrating influence in the hands of the already privileged. Wealthy interests and individual corporations are disproportionately influential on the decision-making process; they can push for their own ideologies and interests to be pursued. Often, PGs with access to lobbyists will utilise their power to hire services of professional lobbies and PR companies that facilitate access to the government/civil servants. For example, Liz Truss’ government moved to remove all caps on bankers’ bonuses in 2022, whereas she failed to increase ordinary people’s wages in line with inflation. This is due to the IoD and BBA forcing Truss to act on their behalf. This demonstrates that pressure groups narrow, not widen, political access to government and power the already unfairly powerful. It is only the wealthy or elite pressure groups who prosper.
Therefore, it is clear that pressure groups fail to enhance democracy due to the unbalanced influence between different groups. Financial resources are detrimental to a group’s success, which is evidently undemocratic.
Pluralists insist that all pressure groups, even small or non-wealthy, have some power and influence. They create healthy competition in the UK political system, a democratic government must consider the demands of different groups and arbitrate to produce the outcome for the common good- they’re neutral and attentive to all wishes of the public. Competition between groups disperses power effectively, different groups will counter interests to give everyone a voice. For example, the conservative government responded to the expectations of business PGs by restricting the rights of trade unions to call strike action. However, this same gov sided with workers and agreed to raise the minimum wage, despite protest from the CBI and IoD. This shows that all pressure groups are included in the political process; very few are completely ignored or marginalised. They hold the government accountable in between elections, whilst ensuring political knowledge is dispersed and that the government is always acting in the interests of the governed. In doing so, pressure groups strengthen the social contract that a democracy desires.
However, this argument is weak as there is actually no fair competition between groups since governments are not neutral arbiters who listen to all, but rather selective bodies who have an agenda of their own. They favour certain insider groups who share their views or are ‘electorally beneficial’ to their cause; allowing them to exercise selfish and unfair influence. For example, powerful manufacturing businesses were able to water down EU air pollution regulations. The government was influenced by secretive but heavily organised industry lobbying. These businesses spend millions a year in attempt to influence ministers and avoid reforms. Therefore, many powerful pressure groups can distort the democratic process by bypassing parliament. Lobby groups have direct access to ministers, so decisions are made ‘behind closed doors’, thus undermining fair competition. Some ‘ultra-insiders’ have disproportionate influence on the government, with well-financed pressure groups invariably exert greater influence.
Overall therefore, it is clear that pressure groups do not enhance democracy as their influence is always secondary to the priorities of an elected government.
Pressure groups support democracy as they provide information and education to the public. They promote political debate and, in the process, inform the electorate of secretive policies- thus, ensuring a healthy political culture. Furthermore, think tanks conduct thorough research on niche issues, exposing government policies and their deficiencies whilst offering alternative viewpoints. For example, It is thanks to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch that people know about human rights violations across the world. They aided the campaign for the equality act and successfully passed the bill in 2010. Education can lead to further active participation, ensuring the public have a say in the policy-making process. A highly educated electorate creates an ‘active dialogue’ that enhances representative democracy by ensuring the actions of the government reflect the needs of society.
However, this argument is weak as many pressure groups tend to spin the truth and purposefully exaggerate their findings; this is due to the innate desire to act in their self-interest. Due to this, democracy is damaged and legitimate participation stifled. For example, CBI lobbied and campaigned to the government against the introduction of the minimum wage by arguing it will lead to unemployment and a lack of competition. By contrast, the economy grew significantly after it was introduced in 1998.By their very nature pressure groups are biased and favour one side of a debate. They can adopt more extreme views where compromise is not possible, stifling pragmatic debate. Furthermore, pressure groups can equally elevate the influence of other insider minority groups that share their beliefs, allowing them to wield overbearing influence over a majority. The fact that these groups are not held accountable for the lies spread proves that the influence exerted is not democratically legitimate.
By the way of evaluation, pressure groups do not enhance democracy due to the likelihood of following their own selfish interests instead of the needs of the electorate.
In conclusion, we can clearly argue that pressure groups do not enhance democracy due to certain groups with insider influence or ones who have a greater hold on the government often do not show deference to the democratic processes and rely on bargaining and lying to push legislation. Although they do act as a form of political participation, over representation can lead to voter apathy and an unfair advantage respectively which takes away from their democratic agenda.
Nora