Interest groups bring a great deal of influence to bear and this is [often] seen as being negative. The expression "interest group rule" is one that is often heard and defines the way in which governments are put off from implementing "matters of national importance" and obstructed from implementing policy for the commonweal. However, we have already established that this commonweal does not have a fixed outline and incumbent governments should not be allowed to determine what is best for society of its own accord, if individual freedom is to be anything more than just empty words. Groups from across society - employers and employees, producers and consumers, city and land dwellers, house owners and those renting - must have the opportunity to represent freely their own convictions as to what makes up good political policy in order that a settlement can be reached between differing interests, be they social, economic or ideological. Of course, all this has to be set against the basic values of a free social order that is fit for all people.

Compromise between society's differing interests cannot be reached without the important contribution of organized groups in which interests have become consolidated. Those demanding political participation from voters, which extends beyond casting a vote and writing the occasional letter to the local newspaper, should be wary not to prevent voters from finding the kind of participation best suited to making sure that their contribution to political events will be as effective as possible. Given the prevailing conditions in our highly complex modern societies, the only way for individuals to make headway among the competing interests is to join forces with other like-minded people.

In this respect interest groups and political associations represent citizens and speak on their behalf for certain purposes. Interests groups can be regarded as an extension of an individual's political power through which their wishes find expression and with whose help they can defend themselves against the superiority of the state and other organized groups. A similar situation applies to civil-action groups, which, while usually active only at a local level and with a fixed aim, organize those affected and represent their interests before local authorities and administrative bodies.

The wishes and demands of associations and interest groups are usually aimed directly at government and parliament. Surprisingly, perhaps, government and parliament do not always regard lobbying as annoying external pressure. Set against the huge expansion and complicated nature of modern legislation, representatives of the interest groups are often the only experts in the field. Legislators are able to take advantage of this expert knowledge without having to agree to all their demands. This contribution by people affected by proposed legislation to the process of preparing state legislation represents an integration of society and state. Indeed, it is also in the interests of those governments claiming to represent the people that representatives of affected parties are given the opportunity to voice their concerns beforehand.

[Back to top of page]

This voicing of interest group opinion is carried out in a great number of ways and is often prescribed by parliamentary rules of procedure. Representatives of interest groups attempt to promote and accentuate their interests wherever they can and at every opportunity. They are sometimes disparagingly referred to as lobbyists. At one time lobbyists hung around in the lobby of parliament waiting for an opportunity to enter into direct talks with MPs in attempt to influence them. The way in which today's lobbyist operates is very different. Representatives of large interest groups often sit on parliamentary party benches. All modern-day parliaments have MPs that represent farming interests, trade unions and civil servants and these representatives are spread across parliament. These representatives are often a party's most important experts on a given subject and they bring a great deal of influence to bear on the rest of the party. Drawing on their expert knowledge and other information made available to them by their respective associations, they perform an important role in checking and verifying the information being given by the government's experts. Individual MPs are often unable to oppose departmental red tape through lack of expert knowledge. This is where associations can step into the breach. Indeed, associations often monitor state administration, when parliament and political parties are no longer able to perform the task.

So it is clear, then, that interest groups and the political activities they perform are essential in a pluralistic democracy. Be that as it may, it is important that society does not lower its guard vis-à-vis these egoistical organizations. Danger is always associated with power and this applies equally to interest groups. A deficit of democracy often exists within pressure groups and this combined, perhaps, with a lack of sufficient measures for controlling the leadership and a failure of the membership to monitor adequately a group's apparatus can spell danger. In addition to this, associations are well known for their keenness to remove themselves from the public sphere. There activities often go unseen and this makes it difficult for other interest groups to provide an adequate counterbalance quickly enough. Even more worrying, however, are situations in which individual interest groups - particularly the large ones - gain a great deal of influence. They achieve political power by forcing one or more political parties to prioritize their interests. Those promising large numbers of votes or who have become indispensable to a party through generous financial donations are more likely to be listened to than others. This can lead to a situation in which individual interest groups have a far larger say in the compromise to made for society than smaller, less-well-organized interest groups, whose interests in a democracy should also receive consideration.

The natural variety of interests will usually be enough to prevent a single association becoming so powerful that is able to force through its interests against all others. Moreover, competition among differing interests is far too intense. Yet for all this it is still relatively easy to imagine a situation in which interests of crucial importance for the entire population end up not being addressed simply because they could not be organized or asserted in an effective way. A good example of this danger is provided by the relative impotence of consumer and environmental groups. The more common an interest the more difficult it is to organize. One day we will all be old and yet interest groups representing the elderly (...) usually have only a small amount of influence.

Furthermore, any organization whose primary focus is on achieving a more equal society will find it difficult to force fundamental change. The main focus of organized interest groups is usually on securing or improving its supporters' share of the national product. In actual fact, the most powerful interest groups are often the most defensive. This is because groups whose social status is threatened by hard-impacting economic development are also the easiest to organize. These organizations attempt to protect their position in society by thwarting painful but often essential reforms. To this end, large interest groups hold positions of veto and are often successful in preventing politicians from making far-reaching changes. This also means, however, that a pluralist society's main interest is maintaining the status quo; something of which it is capable. If a polity wants to face up to the real challenges of the future such as the protection of our natural environment, then this must expand beyond that of organized interest groups. Indeed, issues such as this are primarily a matter for the political leadership, whose job is to force a compromise between opposing interests, to set goals for the community and to make sure that the differing interest groups stick to them - in order that society may advance forward courageously into the future. Of course, for this to happen the political leadership has to be willing to force through change despite dissenting voices form powerful interest groups, and this is only possible when the leadership is supported by a fully functional party system.

[Taken and translated from: Waldemar Besson/Gotthard Jasper, Das Leitbild der modernen Demokratie. Bauelemente einer freiheitlichen Staatsordnung, BpB Bonn 1990]

[Back to top of page]

Subjects:  Human Rights  I  Democracy  I  Parties  I  Examples  I  Europe  I  Globalisation  I  United Nations  I  Sustainability

Methods:    Teaching Politics    II    Peace Education    II    Methods