by Peter Joyce
Rules governing the operations of a country’s judicial system have a major bearing on the ability or willingness of pressure groups to use the courts to further their objectives. In Australia, for example, legal procedures (termed the rules of locus standi) have made it difficult for pressure groups to initiate legal actions since it is necessary for plaintiffs to demonstrate a personal stake or material interest in a case. In America, however, interest groups are permitted to present arguments to courts directly.
The role of the courts is less prominent in countries such as Britain and New Zealand, where judicial challenge to national legislation is precluded by the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, but pressure groups may utilize the courts and launch test cases or challenge the legality of the way in which the law has been implemented.
INDIRECT PRESSURE
Pressure groups may also seek to influence the key institutions of government through indirect means. This section considers the activities of pressure groups directed at political parties and the general public, which seek to mobilize opinion to put pressure on the formal machinery of government to adopt the issue advocated by a pressure group.
POLITICAL PARTIES
Pressure groups may forge close links with political parties and use them to further their aims, for example by incorporating aspects of a group’s demands within a party’s policy statements. The American AFL-CIO is associated with the Democratic Party while the French CGT has close ties with the Communist Party. The relationship that exists between pressure groups and political parties may be organizational or financial. Traditionally social democratic parties had close relationships of this nature with trade unions. Although this link has been severed in both Germany and Sweden, leading trade unions remain affiliated to the British Labour Party (despite considerable trade union opposition to key Labour policies such as the Private Finance Initiative and the setting up of foundation hospitals) while the Conservatives receive funding and support from the business sector.
PRESSURE GROUPS AND PUBLIC OPINION
Pressure groups often take their case ‘to the streets’ and seek to mobilize public support for their objectives. Demonstrations are a frequently used tactic. In doing this they seek to influence policy makers by demonstrating the extent of public support for their views.
In the UK, for example, protests organized by animal welfare groups such as Compassion in World Farming occurred at ports and airports during 1995. These were directed against the export of British calves for the continental veal trade. Direct action is another tactic which may be used by an organization to secure the support of public opinion for its views.
Direct action
Direct action is a form of extra-parliamentary politics (a term discussed in Chapter 2) which seeks to advance a cause through some form of physical action. The tactics of direct action are varied, ranging from mainly non-violent methods, such as civil disobedience, sit-ins, blockades and occupations, to actions involving considerable use of force and violence, associated with terrorist organizations (which may arise when those who conduct activities that a group opposes are the target of a physical sanction). The objectives sought by direct action are broad and include promoting local concerns, seeking to alter the direction of government policy, and repudiating the political system.
Direct action is frequently practised by social movements and pressure groups. These may seek to remedy social problems through their own efforts or they may seek to make the general public the focus of attempts to further their cause. This may involve educating the public to support the views of the group but it may entail the use of tactics designed to inconvenience or even intimidate the public in the expectation that public opinion will exert pressure on the government to change its policy.
Direct action occurs in all liberal democracies, although the importance attached to it as a means of securing change varies and is influenced by each country’s political culture. In France, for example, direct action is frequently used as a method of first resort by groups wishing to alter government policy, whereas in the United Kingdom such methods have traditionally been used as a last resort, perhaps when other ways to influence the content of public policy have failed or have not been possible because the group does not enjoy ‘insider’ status.
* * *
Questions
What do you understand by the term ‘direct action’?
Why is this form of action sometimes used by pressure groups?
Can you provide any examples where direct action has succeeded in influencing policy making?
* * *
THE INTERNATIONAL ARENA
* * *
Insight
Globalization has affected the operations of pressure groups, many of which operate in an international arena rather than confining their activities to one country.
* * *
Pressure groups do not confine their activities to one country but increasingly operate on a world stage. They may be international organizations seeking the universal adoption of standards of behaviour throughout the world. Amnesty International (which is concerned with human rights) is an example of such a body. Alternatively groups may be formed in one country and seek influence over policy making in another.
Pressure groups have also adapted to the development of supranational governmental organizations. The policy makers of the European Union (principally the Commission and Council of Ministers) are subject to pressure group activity. In 1999 there were around 10,000 lobbyists working in Brussels on behalf of some 3,000 interest groups. Organizations within individual countries may co-ordinate their activities with similar groups in other countries in order to secure overall influence on European Union policy. For example, an umbrella body (COPA/COGECA) was established to co-ordinate farming policy at the European level to ensure that farmers and their families obtained income and living conditions which were compatible with those in other sectors of the economy. It represents all European farming unions. Similarly, UNICE was set up to provide a European business perspective by lobbying on behalf of all the national business organizations and sectoral federations. Pressure groups may also establish permanent machinery to further their interests within supranational bodies such as the European Union. An example of this is the Brussels Office of the Confederation of British Industry, which monitors developments in the European Union and seeks to influence the direction of European legislation to the benefit of its membership. The British National Farmers’ Union also has an office in Brussels (the British Agricultural Bureau) that gathers intelligence and assists the NFU in lobbying EU institutions.
International institutions, such as the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Justice, have also been used by pressure groups which seek to question the actions undertaken by individual governments. In Britain, for example, groups opposed to motorway construction have exercised their right to complain to the European Commission that the government failed adequately to implement the procedures of the 1988 Directive concerned with environmental impact assessments. If the Commission decides that there is a case to answer, the government can be taken to the European Court of Justice for contravening European law.
Pressure group influence
* * *
Insight
The extent to which pressure groups are able to influence public policy is dependent on a number of factors which include the resources they are able to muster and the sanctions they can deploy to further their cause through coercive means.
* * *
The previous section discussed various tactics a pressure group might utilize to further its aims. The extent to which these tactics succeed in influencing policy makers depends on a range of factors which we now consider.
THE ABILITY OF A GROUP TO MOBILIZE SUPPORT
The level of support enjoyed by a group may be one determinant of its strength. Successful groups need to represent all who adhere to a particular interest or a specific cause. The fragmenta
tion of French labour organizations into a number of competing federations has tended to weaken their influence over policy makers and is in contrast to the organizational unity of business interests (whose trade associations are linked by the umbrella organization, CNPF). The strength of American labour organizations is reduced by the low affiliation rate of workers to trade unions. The cause of animal welfare in Britain may be impeded by the existence of a wide range of organizations, which include the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Compassion in World Farming, the Animal Liberation Front and the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
* * *
Pressure group strength
One development designed to enhance group strength is the banding together of bodies with similar objectives under the auspices of an umbrella organization. Examples of such ‘associations of associations’ include Britain’s Trade Union Congress and Confederation of British Industry and Australia’s National Farmers’ Federation.
* * *
EXPERTISE COMMANDED BY A GROUP
A further factor that may affect the influence groups exercise over policy making is the expertise which they are able to command. Governments may be reliant upon such bodies for advice on the technical and complex issues that surround much contemporary public policy and may further be reliant on a group’s goodwill or support to implement policy. Such considerations had a major bearing on the influence possessed by the British Medical Association following the establishment of the National Health Service in 1946.
RESOURCES POSSESSED BY A GROUP
The resources which pressure groups are able to command may also determine the success or failure of a group. Economically powerful groups possess the ability to publicize their objectives and also to resist sanctions that may be deployed against them. Employer organizations are often influential for such reasons. By contrast, consumer groups have traditionally suffered from lack of resources which may help to explain their difficulties in securing influence over the actions of policy makers. Some governments, however (such as the French), and supranational bodies (such as the European Union) have contributed towards the funding of pressure groups, which offsets weaknesses that derive from lack of funds.
SANCTIONS AVAILABLE TO A GROUP
The sanctions which an organization is able to deploy may be a factor in its ability to influence policy making. Investment decisions or strikes may be used as weapons by business groups or trade unions to influence the conduct of policy makers. Consumer boycotts may influence the practices of the private sector. Groups involved in the implementation of public policy possess the ability to withhold their co-operation and thus prevent the progress of policies to which they object.
The strengths and weaknesses of pressure group activity
* * *
Insight
Pressure groups enable the public to become involved in policy making. However, their role might be harmful to the conduct of liberal democratic politics for reasons that include the use of inappropriate methods to secure influence and their potential to undermine the capacity of an elected government to govern.
* * *
To answer this question we will examine the benefits which pressure groups bring to liberal democratic political systems and then assess the disadvantages which may arise.
BENEFITS OF PRESSURE GROUPS
Below we consider the main benefits associated with the activities of pressure groups.
Popular involvement in policy making
Pressure groups ensure that the policy-making process is not monopolized by politicians or senior civil servants. The control which they are able to exercise is to some extent offset by the operations of pressure groups. Additionally, these organizations aid the participation of members of the general public in policy making, whose role in political affairs is thus not merely confined to casting a vote in elections.
Political education
The need for pressure groups to ‘sell’ their case to secure influence may aid the process of public education in political affairs. Groups may need to explain what they believe in and why they endorse the views that they hold. Groups that oppose government policy may engage in activities such as investigative journalism, which results in enhanced scrutiny and popular awareness of government activity.
Promote reform
Pressure groups may raise matters which the major political parties would prefer to ignore either because they do not consider them to be mainstream political issues, which generally dominate election campaigns (such as the economy or law and order), or because they are internally divisive to the parties. The emergence of women’s issues and environmental concerns onto the political agenda owed much to the activities of pressure groups.
However, pressure groups do not always perform such a progressive role. The stance taken by the American National Rifle Association towards gun control in the 1990s demonstrated the negative role which groups sometimes perform in resisting reform proposals which they view as contrary to the interests of their members.
Put forward minority interests
The workings of liberal democratic political systems may also benefit from the ability of pressure groups to advocate minority opinions or concerns. Liberal democracies tend to pay most heed to majority opinion. There is thus a risk that minorities get ignored. Pressure groups provide a vehicle whereby minorities can articulate their needs and encourage policy makers to pay heed to them.
DISADVANTAGES OF PRESSURE GROUPS
Let us now consider the main problems associated with the operations of pressure groups.
Inequality
One problem associated with pressure groups is that all are not given the same degree of attention by policy makers. The influence they are able to command is considerably influenced by factors including the resources at the group’s disposal and the relationships they have constructed with government departments. There are two diametrically opposed problems that arise from the inequality which exists between groups.
First, this situation may result in worthy minority causes making little impact on public policy as they are relatively ignored by bureaucrats, ministers, political parties, the media and public opinion. Members of groups in such a position may become frustrated and resort to violence, seeking to coerce when they are denied opportunities to persuade.
Second, factors such as resources and sanctions may result in some groups occupying a powerful position within the policy-making process. The ability of some groups to command considerable economic resources and be in possession of powerful sanctions which they can deploy to further their interests may result in them being in a position not merely to influence but to dominate the policy-making process. The power of large American corporations has for a long time provided them with a wide degree of autonomy in their dealings with government. In its most extreme form confrontation may result between the group and the government when the issue is, effectively, one of ‘who governs?’
Internal democracy
A further difficulty which we encounter with the workings of pressure groups is the extent to which the opinions or actions of the leadership faithfully reflect the views of the membership. The belief by UK Conservative governments that trade unions, for example, sometimes endorsed political activity which was not genuinely supported by the rank-and-file resulted in a number of pieces of legislation being enacted during the 1980s designed to ensure that such organizations were responsive to their members’ opinions. These measures included requirements for compulsory secret ballots to be held before the commencement of strike action and the periodic election of union leaders. However, most pressure groups are not subject to such internal regulation and are thus susceptible to domination by their leaders. In this situation pressure groups fail greatly to extend the degree of popular involvement in policy making.
Methods used to secure influence
Concern has been expressed within liberal democracies regarding the expenditure of money by pressure
groups in order to achieve influence. The purposes of such spending may go beyond political education and extend into activities which are perceived to approximate bribery or corruption. Lobbying has been a particular cause of concern and has led some countries to introduce measures to regulate these activities. In America, for example, lobbying activities directed at the federal government are regulated by the 1995 Lobby Disclosure Act (which replaced the 1946 Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act and was in part amended by the 2007 Honest Leadership and Open Government Act). This legislation requires lobbyists to register with the clerk of the House of Representatives and the secretary of the Senate within 45 days of having been hired. Lobbyists are required to file quarterly reports and list the issues on which they have lobbied and the institutions which they have contacted. An early reform of President Obama’s administration was to bar government officials from taking jobs in lobbying firms while the administration that had appointed them remained in office.
In Germany, lobbying is regulated by the 1977 Members of Parliament Law and in Canada by the 1988 Lobbyists Registration Act. In the United Kingdom, however, the lobbying industry is self-regulating by the Association of Professional Political Consultants. The relationship between lobbyists and members of parliament is controlled by rules drawn up by the House of Commons.
