1. Pressure Group’s and Democracy Do they support or undermine it?

2. Arguments that they ‘support’ democratic government They enhance pluralism: competing centres of power, representation and choice. They ‘fill the gaps’ in the party system, e.g. by promoting causes which cut across part lines, especially on local or moral issues such as abortion.

3. They provide channels of collective influence and power for the public where individual action (including voting) may be relatively weak or ineffectual. They provide channels of direct participation for the public, going beyond mere indirect representation through parliament

4. They provide channels of communication between government and electorate. They seek to represent deprived or inarticulate sections of society (e.g. Help the Aged). Protective groups especially are usually internally democratic, in that members elect leaders.

5. Trade Unions especially are representative of large numbers of people (9 million); and their tactics of direct action may be seen as mass, direct democracy or ‘people-power’. They may promote continuity of policy between successive governments.

6. PG’s provide information, education and expertise for public, parliament and government; therefore are much consulted by MP’s and executive; and may help to enhance open government by exposing events, information and issues.

7. They provide a check on ‘parliamentary sovereignty’ and ‘elective dictatorship’ Especially where the electoral system is unrepresentative and parliamentary opposition is weak; and hence checks & balances in liberal democracy. They may provide public services, e.g legal aid

8. Arguments that they ‘undermine’ democratic government They may by-pass or usurp the elected representatives in parliament MP’s may be reduced to ‘lobby-fodder’. Douglas Hurd in 1986 likened them to: “sea- serpents, strangling ministers in their coils and distorting the constitutional relationship between government and electorate”.

9. Their lobbying tactics may amount to near bribery and corruption of MPs. They may have a ‘closed’, excessively close and secretive relationship with the executive, excluding other views and interests; Hence “the embryo of a corporate state” (Benn).

10. Their collective power may undermine individual, rights and interests, contrary to ‘liberal democratic’ principles. They may be small, sectional or unrepresentative but influential or powerful, at the expense of majority or ‘national’ views or interests. Thus Lord Hailsham in his 1983 Hamlyn Lecture described single-purpose PG’s as ‘enemies of liberty’.

11. Promotional groups especially may be internally undemocratic – no election of leaders by members, leadership out of touch with membership, etc. (‘iron law of oligarchy’); Or they may claim to speak on behalf of others, but without any consultation or mandate to do so.

12. Groups with constitutional aims may be internally dominated by people who seek to subvert liberal democracy itself. Their methods may be illegal and/or coercive (But note that many PG’s would defend such tactics in theory and practice).

13. Evaluation: PG’s and Democracy There is no simple answer to the question of PG contribution to democracy because politics is a dynamic process. The influence of PG’s varies from issue to issue, state to state, time to time, circumstance to circumstance.

14. Democracy would be a hollow shell without PG activity but at the same time The general tendency of the PG system is to give much greater power to the wealthier ‘producer’ interests and therefore to undermine the equality of the ballot box.