PRESSURE GROUPS

Overview of Key Points

EXAM REQUIREMENTS

“ A knowledge of different categories of pressure group; the factors that contribute to their success; the relationship between pressure groups and democracy”

What is a pressure group?

“An organisation whose members share common interests and seek to influence governments.”

However, there is crossover, in that some pressure groups stand candidates to gain attention for their cause (e.g. Richard Taylor in Wyre Forest); some become parties (the Greens); and some parties are single issue (Referendum Party in 1997).

Pressure Group CategoriesTraditionally placed in four, overlapping,

categories. Insider Groups and Outsider Groups; Sectional Groups and Cause Groups.

The second category group can sometimes be expanded to include other types – local, national, transnational, ‘umbrella’, temporary and permanent. It is not necessary to remember all of these.

Insider and Outsider Groups

Insider Groups enjoy direct access to ministers and policy-makers;

Outsider groups, by definition, do not. Both sectional and cause groups can have

insider status – for example the NFU (sectional), and the relatively small (under 3,000 members) but influential Howard League for Prison Reform (cause).

Status can change as governments - and policy priorities – change.

Some Examples of Insider Groups British Medical Association National Farmers’ Union (very influential in

Foot and Mouth affair) National Trust Confederation of British Industry Law Society RSPCA

Some Examples of Outsider Groups Countryside Alliance OutRage Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Life (anti-abortion) National Anti-Vivisection Society

In or Out?

Some groups are ‘insider’ groups at one point, and then find themselves relegated to ‘outsider’ status, and vice-versa.

E.g., trade unions used to be a strong insider group, particularly under Labour governments, but now find their influence diminished;

The CBI, meanwhile, has retained its insider status even under the Blair government.

‘In-Between’ Groups

Some groups campaign in such a way that they seem to determine to embarrass the government, but collaborate with government in certain ways nonetheless.

Examples include Shelter, the Child Poverty Action Group, and Greenpeace.

Pressure Groups and Democracy In theory, pressure groups are an asset to a

democratic society. They allow ordinary people to participate in

society, and give potential influence to even small groups.

This is a pluralistic characteristic that healthy liberal democracies should show.

However, small numbers of influential individuals, and the possession of wealth, tends to bring overwhelming advantages!

The Case For Pressure Groups They allow political participation between

elections They give a voice to minority groups They can be a source of information to

governments and voters They are a pluralist dimension of a liberal

democracy.

The Case Against Pressure Groups They can divert attention away from elections

and towards single issues They allow well-organised and wealthy

minorities to dominate debate They provide conflicting and biased evidence

to government and voters They exhibit the unequal opportunities

available for influencing government

What Affects the Success of Pressure Groups? Political Context – sympathetic party in

government? Climate of opinion – Anti-Poll Tax in 1990;

high fuel taxes opposed in 2000 Resources – wealth an obvious advantage Membership – large membership gives

greater weight, but there are exceptions – e.g. Howard League

Members’ Motivation – see Howard League

What Affects Success of Pressure Groups? Organisation Leadership – charismatic leadership often

allows groups to punch above their weight Types of campaigns – Countryside Alliance

gained attention with mass marches (as did CND in an earlier age)

Media – this is a real issue, as the media is essentially elitist in its ownership, but essential for pressure groups to get their message across. However, see internet.

Pressure Groups Today

Pressure Group activity seems to be on the increase as people become disillusioned with mainstream parties. However, their contribution to the health of democracy remains ambiguous.