One of the fundamental features of the political system is the pressure groups. Pressure groups represent organized groups that do not have their representative candidates for elections. However, the main aim of these groups is to influence government legislation or policy. They can also be referred as cause groups, interest groups, or protest groups. These groups ensure that the people in power make effective decisions that positively affects the subjects in that specific political system. The pressure groups play a significant role in political and social life and are considered as the fundamental foundation of the modern democracy. According to Newton and Deth, pressure groups are defined as "Private and voluntary organizations that try to influence or control government policies but do not want to become the government" (200). This paper aims to demonstrate the determinants that enhance pressure groups' effectiveness and determine whether they are a sign of democratic nature or obstacle against meaningful mass participation in politics.
Determinants of effectiveness of the pressure groups
Although measuring the effectiveness of groups is extremely difficult, several determinants are identified to illustrate the power of pressure groups in influencing the government. One of these determinants is the political culture of the environment. In the political environment, various factors determine the success of the pressure groups. For instance, the ‘insider' groups are considered more powerful than ‘outside' groups because they have access to the top decision-makers. In addition, public opinion or attitude is another factor in the political culture that affects the effectiveness of the pressure groups (University of Warwick, Sec. 1). In most cases, the government usually pay attention to the groups that have great influence on the public opinion (Newton and Deth 212).
Other factors of political environment that affect the effectiveness or the power of the pressure groups includes legitimacy and political parties. Legitimacy implies that groups with legitimate interests in the community such as teachers, doctors, and businesspersons have more influence than marginal groups such as prostitutes and drug addicts among others. Groups that have a positive association with the political parties access the inside influence and hence become more powerful than otherwise. In addition, Watts also argues that the nature of the party system also influence the power of the pressure groups. In a political system with a multi-party system, the influence of the pressure group is high as several parties may be involved in the coalition government (Watts 68). In a one-party political system like Japan, the pressure groups have a narrow influence on the ruling party.
Another determinant of the effectiveness of pressure groups on influence to the government is the proximate environment or the nature of the pressure groups. According to Newton and Deth, eight ways influence how pressure group attains power through the proximate environment. These ways include income, membership size, organizational advantage, membership density and recruitment, divided groups, sanctions, leadership, and the Issue. For a pressure group to be powerful, it needs to have substantial income to facilitate its operations. In this case, interest groups are considered more powerful than the cause groups because they are wealthier since they represent the economic interest of the society. A pressure group with large membership size collects more revenue from the membership subscription and hence gain a substantial influence.
Other group features such as organization advantage are derived from the composition of the pressure groups. Some social groups such as adult groups are easier to organize compared to children groups. In addition, Newton and Deth argue that a group that represents almost all of their potential members can have more influence than the group representing a small portion of its members (245). Groups that are united with a common interest have more influence than the divided groups. Such groups are coordinated by single organizations such as ‘peak association' or ‘umbrella' organizations. Watts asserts, "Peak associations are essential partners and play in integral role in the public system" (68). Groups that have powerful sanctions such as ones with public sympathy and cooperation with the government have more influence on voters than groups with weak sanctions. For instance, children and patients cannot go on strike or refuse the treatment respectively. Leadership is another significant determinant of the group's power. For instance, groups with charismatic leaders have a great influence. Finally, the effectiveness of the group is determined by the ability of the group to work on the public technicalities and details.
Is the pressure groups' presence a sign of democratic nature in the political system?
Newton and Deth argue that the pressure groups act as a sign of democracy in a country because they enhance the pluralist democracy. A pluralist democracy is defined a democratic system where the political system achieves political decisions through competition and conflict among various groups such as pressure groups and social groups. The presence of pressure groups also indicates the presence of freedom of association and assembly, which are crucial parts of the democratic system. In addition, pressure groups provide "indispensable ways of organizing minority interests, and most groups are minority groups" (Newton and Deth 218). They also give people a sense of community, belonging, and purpose. Although various factors show how pressure groups sustain democracy, several factors indicate that pressure groups are two-sided swords.
Various scholars provide a substantial evidence that pressure groups also undermines democracy. For instance, Coxall reveals, "pressure groups thwart the implementation by governments of policies for which the electorate has voted at the general election by lobbying in favor of sectional, or partial interest" (13). Newton and Deth also support this argument by illustrating that pressure groups may focus on the sectional interests and consequently damage the public interest. When many powerful groups make powerful influences on the government, it may result in hyper-pluralism and government overload. Therefore, these factors illustrate that the pressure groups have two sides in which they can sustain and undermine democracy, especially when they are too strong.
Conditions where pressure groups become obstacle to mass participation in politics
One of the conditions where pressure groups hinder the mass participation in politics is when the groups are exclusive in a way that they do not consider a proportion of society and does not represent their opinions. Such cases include policy and corporatism communities, which work with a specific number of groups. Another condition is in the case of the private organization that practices oligarchical. In this case, the groups represent only the views of the few leaders rather than those of the members. Similarly, when the pressure groups have too much power they produce hyper-pluralism and government over-load. As a result, the government gains little power. In this case, pressure groups only represent a small portion of the population while the government represents the entire population. Therefore, then the pressure groups are too powerful, they hinder the mass participation in the politics (Newton and Deth 218).
Works Cited
Coxall, W N. Pressure Groups in British Politics. Harlow: Routledge, 2014. Print.
Newton, Kenneth, and Jan W. Deth. Foundations of Comparative Politics: Democracies of the Modern World. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2010. Print.
Watts, Duncan. Pressure Groups. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2007. Print.
