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. Some people feel working in a
group like this means they have a louder voice in getting their
message across. There are many positive and negative factors of
pressure groups on a democracy.
Positive factors of pressure groups are they are effective channels of
communication between the people and the government, the groups
provide detailed and valuable information on areas of economic and
social activity and so help the government towards making better
decisions. They will listen to the views of different people and can
make a decision about what the general feeling is on the topic in
question. These pressure groups will then present their argument to
the government in a way that they think is suitable and which will get
the message across of the people’s feelings. An example of the
channelling of communication between the people and the government
would be the anti- war in Iraq protests. Although the government still
decided to go through ...
... middle of paper ...
... the British union leaders until the reforms of the
1980s.
Another negative factor Is not all sections of the community are
represented equally. The influence groups can exercise depends on the
resources at their disposal and the relationships they can construct
with governments. This can lead to governments only listening to
larger pressure groups in favour of the smaller groups.
Some campaigners use money and other methods to influence elected
representatives activists may turn to illegal militant direct
action to get their own way. An example is the animal rights activists
who may use violence to scare people into making a decision in their
favour.
Insider groups are too active behind the scenes and may influence
civil servants in their discussions. An example of this is the British
medical asociation.
113-117. Retrieved April 21st, 2011 from website: http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/products/physicians_payment_aib_2010_f.pdf. D. Squires, The Commonwealth Fund, and others, International Profiles of Health Care Systems, The Commonwealth Fund, June 2010. Retrieved April 20th, 2011 from website: http://www.commonwealthfund.org//media/Files/Publications/Fund%20Report/2010/Jun/1417_Squires_Intl_Profiles_622.pdf. Johns, M. L. & Co. (2010). The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'.
Essentially, interest groups use many different tactics to accomplish their central goals but this paper will detail 2 of them. The first being lobbying, which is the act of persuading businesses as well as government leaders to help a specific organization by changing laws or creating events in favor of that group. Interest groups use this technique by hiring someone to represent them and advocate their cause to on the behalf of the entire group. These hired representatives usually have more than enough experience within the political field and are able to persuade connections within the government for help with their concerns. This method gets a lot of criticism because although lobbyist offer their input to government officials on pending laws, they only look at what is favorable for their cause. When trying to make a difference you have to not only reflect on your argument but on the side affects of that argument as
Interest groups, lobbyists, large corporations, and PACs try to influence the congressional committees' bills so they can have a say in the legislative process. When an interest group hears about a bill that is being debated on in a committee, they try to influence a members vote and they try to get a part of the bill changed. For example, a lobbyist came to me on a bill I proposed on making health care plans have no minimum requirement on benefits the company gives to its patients. He told me about how he did not get the right treatments and tests done on diseases he has and now is suffering badly from them. It was because the health plan did not have to give him anything extra. He changed my mind on the bill, and I changed the bill to setting a minimum standard on benefits given to patients.
The Constitution gave our country a frame work in which we have built into a great nation. Their idea is that the purpose of our system, meaning our democracy, is to protect an individual’s liberty. William Hudson tries to convince us that there should be a connection between the government we have today and the government in other countries, Parliamentary System. In chapter 1 of the textbook, Democracy in Peril, starts off by giving the reader background knowledge of the found fathers, signers of the Declaration of Independence and the drafters of the Constitution, which reflect as “democracy models” or “protective democrats.” What the founding fathers did not want to happen is for there to be a corrupt government which ignored the rights
Political systems within the United States work together to establish laws and create boundaries for their people. Government officials work with the Senate in Congress to help establish regulations not only for the American people but also for corporations in order to not become monopolies in today’s market. This all corresponds to a legislative process in order for Congress to have a clear idea of passing effective laws that help reinforce results within our society. Members of Congress and political affiliations are impacted by representatives from large business corporations through the process of bribing these government officials into supporting the ideas and desires of these corporations. In order for this to occur, these companies engage in lobbying. Lobbying is the attempt to influence government officials in decision making processes or swaying the government by employing tactics through various agreements in the form of verbal or written statements to public officials in Congress. This usually occurs through donations of large amounts of money to members of Congress as a way of bribing them to support the representatives of these corporations. Therefore, corporations have widely influenced Congress, making it difficult to pass laws and bills that are not in favor of these corporations. Thus, lobbying is influenced by money and promotes the interests of these specific corporations.
Factions pose a threat to democracy and its associated ideals. This notion is proven through the overpowering of the minority by the majority, in which the opinions of certain groups are silenced, while others amplified. This majority and minority also forge animosity that not only creates competition, but sways the government away from its true purpose. Therefore, since the purpose of government is swayed, leadership becomes an issue. These issues are part of a cluster of other issues that prove factions detrimental to democracy and its principles.
When we hear of the word democracy we think of a system of government where the people are in control or have most of the power. Most system of government tend to use the democratic way of leadership today around the world because of how popular it became in America. There are many influences that lead to this change in democracy that helps to shape it in the way it is used today. many social movements and interest groups has influenced and impacted a positive change in this new and reformed way of leadership. I will further elaborate and discuss what has led to this new democracy in the U.S.
In the long run, the Social movement groups are very important in the long run. They have many advantages as discussed above. They also lead to the unification of the members who have joined it in the long run. It is hence very important in every society.
In comparing the average citizen in a democratic nation, say the United States, to that of a non-democratic nation, for instance Egypt, it will be found that the citizen in the democratic nation is generally better off – free of persecution, free from fear of the authorities, and free to express his opinions on governmental matters. And while national conflicts occur everywhere, incidents like violent revolts have shown to be more prevalent in nations where citizens are not allowed to choose who governs them. It is slightly paradoxical that democracy, so inherently flawed in theory, can lead to such successful outcomes in practice. The question, then, becomes: “If democracy has so many weaknesses, why does it work?”
this cause by promoting it. These groups vary in size and aims and can. be permanent (such as friends of the earth) who continually campaign. for their particular cause or can be temporary (such as CND). campaign for nuclear disarmament) who would disperse if their cause.
Smith, P. (1999) „Political Communication in the UK: A Study of Pressure Group Behaviour‟, Politics, 19(1): 21-27
JS Mill’s argument made me realize this statement because he said that a democratic legislation is strategically, epistemically and morally better. Strategically, democracy is helps take into account the interests, rights and opinions of most people in society when decisions are being made. Much more people have to be taken into account than in a monarchy or an aristocracy because each person in society has political power at least to an extent. Epistemically, democracy is said to help participants to take the right decisions. This is because democratic decision-making tends to be better informed about the interests of its citizens and it’s the best ways of tackling down those interests. In a moral sense, democracy encourages individuals to be more autonomous, but they also have to take into account the perspectiv3s and the point of view of other people. Hence, it is evident that democracy is a good method of ruling over a country or ruling over people: however, like any method, it also has its
Governments should be afraid of their people.”3( Quoted by Alan Moore, V for Vendetta) .In contrasts to the definition of authoritarianism, power is no longer in the hands of one ruler; but it now rests in the hands of the citizens of the state. According to Robert Dahl; “democratic theory is concerned with processes by which ordinary citizens exert a relatively high degree of control over leaders;”4 ( Quoted by Robert A. Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory, expanded edition). Dahl expressed that citizens are a definite factor for this political system to further define the system of democracy in a state. In one of Dahl’s work; “On Democracy”, he made a criteria on how Democracy works. In this criterion he expressed that this system does not give you what you want but gives you the chance to fight for what you want. The citizens are highly active in this system, because they get to address the needs of the community as a whole and not as individuals, and if it represents the majority, then the leader will grant this request for the citizens. The beauty of this system is that it represents all types of non-violent movements without absolute freedom. It even highlights the term “Public Servants” to the state. It bonds the representatives and constituents. When it comes to weighing in the cons, I believe that the only downfall for this system is that, because it is somewhat transparent, citizens can figure out the leader’s next move and they can easily take advantage of this. With that being said, people might think they have absolute freedom, and instead of asking for what they need, they might just start asking for what they
Democracy, in its truest sense, does not exist. There is no political authority currently existing where every person contributes an equal amount to the decision-making process of the authority’s directives. The election of officials and representatives by the populace does not, in itself, automatically result in the most democratic and widely accepted directives being enacted. However, this does not decrease the political power of the authorities, nor does it limit their practical power over their jurisdictions.
A democracy could only survive if people voice their opinions, ask questions, and if the society is educated. Disobedience leads to some of the most unfortunate of things, such as death. People either believe that the above information is 100 % spot on, while others believe none of it is true. Part of this is because people come from different places in the world and have many different opinions. The opinions may be about what allows a democracy to survive and why some of the most terrible things happen. A democracy is only one of the forms of government that allow a society to survive, whether or not it is the best one.