|
|
|
|
Another part of this basic course addresses the relationship of the media with the political parties [... to the section on the media].
Political parties and interest groups make up two fundamental types of political organization, which, within the framework of institutionalized structures for forming a public will and decision-making, seize both the opportunity and function to communicate interests. In addition to political parties, interest groups represent a second type of collective player-based organization with specific organizational features, functional characteristics and special relationship models to the other types of players in the political system (state institutions, media etc.) and especially to the political parties. Interest groups organize and articulate the political interests of individual citizens, social groups and other social units (businesses, associations etc.) and can usually be differentiated from political parties by three elements: 1. They themselves do not compete for a parliamentary mandate. 2. The scope of their work (purpose, aim, program) is more sharply socially and sectorially (according to functional area and social groups) differentiated and specified, while political parties tend to take on a more general organizational function and the representation and/or integration of different social groups. 3. They are more sharply integrated into the specific social links of the interested parties they represent, are more closely bound organizationally with the structure and action patterns present in society and are often in a constant state of conflict or cooperation with other interest groups (wage settlements). The political activities, relationships and functions of interest groups, therefore, has to be taken in context to their closeness to society (social structures, groups and problem areas) and their focus on specific areas of politics. This sectorial anchoring of interest groups stands in contrast to the territorial and more generally based representative basis of the political parties. Within these definitions, however, interest groups are not homogenous but form a wide spectrum according to focus of the interest and its purpose, the degree to which it affects the public as a whole or the particular nature of the objective, size, organizational structure, power base, influencing potential, strategies etc. (...) A division of the content is usually carried out in the large areas of activity and conflict: 1. economic and labor systems, 2. social area, 3. culture, religion and science, 4. cross-sections in society, i.e. human rights, environment and peace (there are also associations set up by public bodies such as municipal umbrella organizations) (...). Those looking to identify the political relevance of interest groups should expect to uncover a wide spectrum; a complex picture is also uncovered when looking at their relationships to parties. The first indications as to their relevance can be gathered out of their possible functional priorities and the general framework in which they are active within a given state and institutional system. Interest groups can focus their purposes on four functional priorities: a) on the self-help and self-regulation of their membership, b) on horizontal conflicts with counter groups, c) on political influence over institutional bodies and d) on the production of individual services targeted at a certain section of society (which coincides with the interests of its membership). Typical organizational logics for realizing goals can be allocated to these priorities (membership logic, conflict and negotiating logic, influence logic, production logic). While interest groups would appear to be most interested in their influence function, their other functions should not be overlooked as is demonstrated by bargaining units [Germany-specific term relating to wage bargaining] (conflict-based relationships) and charitable associations (production of social services). Moreover, to a certain degree each type of association also has do justice to other function-related problems lying outside of their main function area, especially those of membership integration and political influence. (...) The state-based institutional system of parliament, government, administration and judiciary forms the framework within which the interest groups must move to achieve political influence (...). The central players in this framework are the political parties, which in their attempts to achieve power and as holders of public office have a great deal of influence on the decision-making process. Parties usually adopt a dual role in the communication of interests: firstly, they are the addressees for the demands being made by the organized interest groups (particular when they are the ruling party) and, secondly, they themselves act as representatives of interests during the political decision-making process with other parties. Both parties and associations, then, are, to varying degrees and for differing functions, subject to shared conditions determining the rules within their sphere of action. The fundamental functions of associations in a democracy are articulation of interests, aggregation of interests, selection of interests and their contribution to political integration. To this end, they share functions with the parties in the sense of a staged model of the communication of political interests A combination of parties' dual role and the substantial differences in the spectrum of parties and associations gives rise to different kinds of relationship models between associations and parties. Grave differences can be found between parties according to size and position of power. A large party that forms the government on a regular basis and for long periods, for instance, will represent a completely different point of reference for interest groups than a small opposition party. In contrast, associations can also vary greatly according to their membership numbers, function in society and financial clout and are not restricted to entering into relationships with political parties but can also approach state administration at a ministerial level directly and under certain circumstances might even bring more influence to bear than some political parties. The pluralistic influence model offers the most simplistic model for illustrating the relationship between parties and associations. According to this model a great number of organized interests (partially competing with each other) try to bring influence to bear on single or several parties in the promotion of certain demands. The cooperation model offers another equally plausible model according to which associations and parties cooperate over the long-term to achieve shared goals, this might even include integration of ideals and organization at higher levels (as might be represented by the classic labor movement type). The interdependence model forms the third variation on the theme in which interest groups and parties are involved in a mutual relationship of exchange and influence, even if they are not "friendly" organizations in the sense of the cooperation model. A corporate tax union might offer one example of this. [Taken and translated from: Theo Schiller; aus: O. Gabriel u.a. (Hg.), Parteiendemokratie in Deutschland, Bonn BpB 1997]
|
|
Subjects: Human
Rights I Democracy I Parties
I Examples I
Europe
I
Globalisation
I United Nations
I Sustainability
|
