by Peter Joyce
* * *
Political action committees (PACs)
In America, political action committees were defined by the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act as organizations that received or made expenditure of more than $1,000 to influence a federal election. They are registered with the Federal Election Commission and act as a mechanism through which corporations and unions can direct funds into the individual campaign funds of candidates for public office who support their aims.
There are two types of PAC – connected, which raise money from people employed by corporations or who are members of unions, and non-connected (or independent), which raise money by targeting selected groups in society in support of a specific cause or policy. The number of these bodies has risen dramatically – from about 600 in 1974 to over 4,500 in 2010.
The support that can be given to individual candidates has been limited by subsequent amendments to the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act, but there is no limit on their spending on behalf of a candidate provided that there is no collaboration with the office seeker. This means that PACs frequently engage in negative political action in which they campaign against candidates whose policies they oppose. One example of this was the opposition mounted by the National Security PAC in the 1988 presidential election against Michael Dukakis. PACs have also been accused of weakening the role of local party organization by reducing the importance of its fundraising activities and thereby reducing the level of public participation in election campaigns. In an attempt to combat this problem, new legislation enacted in 1979 allowed state and local parties to raise and spend money for ‘party-building’ activities.
* * *
Undermine the capacity of a government to govern
Pressure groups may embark on activities that disrupt the conduct of civil affairs and make it impossible for the government to govern. An example of this occurred in the UK in 2000 when protesters who objected to the high cost of fuel blockaded oil refineries and stopped the movement of fuel. This action brought the country to a standstill with fuel being moved only to those locations approved by the protesters.
The corporate state
A final problem which is associated with pressure groups arises when a relatively small number become incorporated into a state’s decision-making machinery. The content of public policy may be heavily influenced by leaders of key pressure groups (especially employer and labour organizations) if they are accorded privileged access to ministers and civil servants through formal institutionalized arrangements. The term ‘corporate state’ is applied to such political arrangements.
Policy makers frequently consult with pressure groups in liberal democracies. In France, the constitution requires the government to consult with the Economic and Social Council on socio-economic legislation. This body contains civil servants, trade unions, farmers’ organizations, business associations and professional groups. The nature of the political system changes, however, if these consultations preclude the involvement of other parties and lead to consensual decisions being taken which cannot be meaningfully discussed in other forums. Elections cease to enable the public to exert influence over the content of policy while legislatures may be relegated to bodies which rubber stamp decisions taken elsewhere but over which they possess little or no control. An additional concern is the lack of accountability of policy makers in such corporate structures. Meetings involving pressure groups, ministers and civil servants are conducted in secret, away from the public gaze. It is difficult to ascertain precisely where power resides and who can be held responsible for particular decisions.
* * *
Pluralism and hyper-pluralism
Power in a pluralist society is dispersed. Policy emerges as the result of competition, consultation, bargaining and conciliation conducted between groups who are accorded relatively equal access to the policy-making arena. This process is overseen by the government, which is viewed as a neutral arbitrator. Pressure groups thus perform a crucial role in policy making.
A problem may arise, however, in a society in which a very wide range of groups emerges, some of which hold diametrically opposing views. The processes of consultation, bargaining and conciliation may be long and drawn out. The decision-making process may stagnate and governments find it difficult, or impossible, to take any decisions. This situation (which regards all interests as being on an equal footing) is known as ‘hyper-pluralism’. However, the tendency for powerful groups (including the government) to dominate the policy-making process serves to reduce the likelihood of such stagnation occurring in many liberal democracies.
* * *
Question
Based on your reading of this chapter, do you think that the disadvantages of pressure groups outweigh the advantages they bring to the operations of liberal democratic systems of government?
* * *
THINGS TO REMEMBER
Pressure groups seek to influence specific items of public policy (and sometimes the policies of the commercial sector). Unlike political parties, they do not seek to control all aspects of policy making in a state.
Pressure groups may be differentiated in a number of ways. A key distinction is between sectional and promotional groups.
Pressure groups may either directly seek to influence decisions taken by the formal machinery of government or attempt to exert indirect pressure by focusing their activities on political parties or the general public.
Direct action is an important method through which pressure groups may seek to mobilize public opinion to put pressure on the formal machinery of government.
Many pressure groups operate in an international arena, seeking to influence the policy making of supranational bodies such as the European Union.
Pressure groups do not enjoy equality of influence. Some (especially ‘insider’ groups) tend to be more successful than others in achieving their aims.
Pressure groups may benefit the operations of liberal democratic politics through ways that include educating the general public on issues that might otherwise be ignored by policy makers.
The activities of pressure groups may be harmful to the operations of liberal democratic politics, especially when coercive methods are used to further their cause.
* * *
7
The media
In this chapter you will learn:
the diverse nature of the media
the political influence of the media
the key operations affecting the operations of the media.
The role of the media in a liberal democracy
* * *
Insight
The term ‘media’ embraces a wide range of mechanisms that seek to communicate information, ideas and opinions to the general public. They consist of historic means of communication such as newspapers and new forms of information transmission such as the internet.
* * *
The media consist of mechanisms of communication: historically the media consisted mainly of newspapers, but today they are more diverse and include journals, radio, television and newer means of electronic communication using computer technology. The internet is one example of the latter whose growth has been considerable: in a lecture given on BBC television in the UK in 2001 Bill Clinton pointed out that when he entered office as American president in 1993 the world wide web consisted of 50 sites. When he left office in 2001 it comprised 350 million sites. The internet is now a major mechanism of international communication and is widely utilized as a key source of information regarding political affairs and also as a means to organize extra-parliamentary political activities on a global basis – rallies and demonstrations anywhere in the world can be organized ‘by the click of a mouse’.
We will now consider the importance of the functions performed by the media in the operations of a liberal democratic political system.
A SOURCE OF INFORMATION
The media are a source of information concerning internal and international events. By reading,
listening to or viewing the media, members of the general public are informed about events of which they have no first-hand knowledge and thereby become more politically aware. One advantage of this is that public participation in policy making is facilitated. Public opinion is able to exert pressure on governments over a wide range of matters which, but for the role of the media, would be confined to the knowledge of a relatively small, elite group of rulers. The problems facing minorities can be made more widely known in this manner.
SCRUTINY OF GOVERNMENT
The media act as a watchdog and scrutinize the activities performed by governments. The electorate has information placed at its disposal with which it can judge the record of governments: in particular the shortcomings or errors committed by individual ministers or by the government as a whole may be exposed. Investigative journalism has especially aided this role, whose impact was spectacularly displayed in the downfall of President Nixon in 1974 in connection with the Watergate episode (which was concerned with a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in 1972 and the subsequent attempt to cover up White House involvement). In this manner, the media perform an important function by ensuring that governments can be held effectively accountable to the electorate.
THE ‘FOURTH ESTATE’
The term ‘fourth estate’ is often used to describe the role of the media as guardians of a country’s constitution and its liberal democratic system of politics. This implies, however, that the media possess autonomy and are independent of the state, the institutions which comprise it (including the political parties) and the economic interests which underlay it.
Question
Using examples of your own, assess the importance of the role performed by the media in liberal democratic political systems.
Problems posed by the media
* * *
Insight
We should be aware that information derived from the media may not always be accurate. The information provided may be tainted by bias or be inaccurate.
* * *
While it is generally accepted that the media are important to the functioning of liberal democracy, their operations are frequently subject to adverse comment. In the next sections we consider the major criticisms which have been made concerning the manner in which the media operate.
PARTISANSHIP
The first problem is that of partisanship. Although in countries such as the UK and Ireland, radio and television are subject to legislation which is designed to prevent programmes favouring one politician or political party at the expense of another, other sections of the media, especially the press, are politically biased: they may support one party which they portray in a favourable light while seeking to belittle its political opponents.
Press bias is primarily effected through analysis: that is, newspapers do not simply report events, but seek to guide the public to a particular interpretation of those occurrences and the manner in which problems might be resolved. One way this is done is by blurring fact and opinion. This results in a story which is slanted towards the political perspective that the newspaper wishes to advance.
Partisanship is not necessarily a problem: if a country possesses a press which is diverse, a relatively wide range of political opinion will be presented. The biases of one newspaper, for example, can be offset by another presenting a totally different report or analysis of the same issue. Most members of the general public, however, do not read a wide range of newspapers and thus secure a balanced view. We tend to be selective in our choice of newspaper and thus may be influenced by the interpretation which it puts forward.
Further, newspapers rarely reflect the wide range of political views and opinions found within a particular country. In the United Kingdom, for example, the bulk of national newspapers support the Conservative Party. In Germany, they tend to articulate a moderate conservative political position. This problem of bias has been compounded by recent developments in the concentration of ownership. In many liberal democracies a number of newspapers are owned by one individual which may restrict the diversity of views expressed in that nation’s press. Examples of such ‘press barons’ include Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, the Springer Group in Germany and Rupert Murdoch whose worldwide interests cover Europe, Asia and (following the acquisition of Direct TV in 2003) North and Latin America.
SELECTIVE COVERAGE OF EVENTS
A second criticism which is sometimes levelled against the media concerns the process by which events are selected for coverage. It is argued that stories which appear in our newspapers or on our television screens are chosen not according to their importance but, rather, by the criterion of ‘newsworthiness’ applied by media owners or editors. This may mean that stories which are sensational get media coverage at the expense of worthier events which lack such ‘glamour’. Thus war coverage or an inner city riot may get coverage at the expense of events such as famines, simply because editors believe that the spectre of a tenement block being bombed or a police car being burned is more likely to attract readers or boost listening or viewing figures than is a story of quiet and resigned suffering which lacks such drama.
This criticism suggests that the media do not fulfil their role of educating the public since they are selective in the information provided and how this is presented. This is especially of concern if media owners or editors concentrate on trivia at the expense of key issues of national or international concern.
PRIVACY VERSUS THE ‘RIGHT TO KNOW’
* * *
Insight
A key issue affecting the operations of the media is the extent to which they may encroach on individual privacy in their belief that they are performing an important service for the public by feeding it information which it is entitled to know about.
* * *
A third criticism which has been directed against the media is concerned with editorial freedom: should the media be free to publish any story which they believe is of interest to the general public or should limits exist to prevent publication under certain circumstances? Censorship is regarded as anathema to a liberal democratic system of government. This is suggestive of state control and implies that the media function as a propaganda tool of the government, as was the case, for example, in the former communist state of East Germany. Written constitutions in liberal democracies frequently incorporate provisions to guarantee the freedom of the press: the First Amendment to the American Constitution contains such a statement and this principle is also enshrined in the German Basic Law.
However, restrictions on the media exist in all liberal democratic systems of government. For example, it is a requirement that reports should be truthful. Those which are not might be subject to actions for slander or libel. A more contentious restriction concerns state interests. Legislation (such as the United Kingdom’s 1989 Official Secrets Act) is designed to protect the state against subversive activities waged by foreign governments. In Ireland, the 1939 Offences Against the State Act or the 1960 Broadcasting Act may be used to prohibit media coverage of illegal organizations.
One difficulty is that state interests are difficult to define precisely. Should the term cover such activities performed by a government in the name of the state which it might find politically embarrassing if revealed to the general public or to world opinion? This issue arose in the former state of West Germany in the 1960s in connection with the ‘Spiegel Affair’. It led to an amendment of the criminal code of the former state of West Germany in 1968 whereby the press could be punished for revealing secrets which were clearly and unambiguously a threat to the state’s external secrecy.
Another contentious area is that of individual privacy. The media’s watchdog function may involve publishing information which infringes on the personal life of a public figure. Such information may be obtained in dubious ways including the use of telephoto lenses or bugging devices. This reveals an important dilemma: where does the public’s ‘right to know’ stop and a public person’s ‘ri
ght to privacy’ begin?
This matter is often determined by the media themselves which may operate some form of code of practice. However, accusations that the United Kingdom media, and especially the newspaper industry, have unduly infringed on the privacy of members of the Royal Family and leading politicians have led to calls for the enactment of legislation (in the form of a privacy law) to impose restrictions on the activities of the media which would make intrusive behaviour by newspapers a specific criminal offence.
This issue became one of public debate following the circumstances surrounding the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in Paris in 1997. The car in which she was travelling crashed while engaged in avoiding the attention of freelance photographers (termed ‘paparazzi’). Although such persons were not employed by major media outlets, the willingness of the tabloid press to buy photographs from them effectively encouraged their work. Accordingly, a revised code of practice designed to provide greater protection to members of the public against intrusion by newspapers and magazines was drawn up and came into force in the United Kingdom on 1 January 1998. However, the effectiveness of this reform is doubted, a particular problem being that stories which appear in the press sometimes seem to confuse the concept of ‘public interest’ with a broader notion of ‘what interests the public’.
