Maria
Evaluate the extent to which PGs enhance democracy in the UK (30)
Pressure groups are a group that tries to influence public policy in the interest of a particular
cause. This essay will evaluate the strengths of pressure groups on our democracy and
conclude that these strengths are strong and do enhance democracy in the UK, primarily
because they help political participation.
The strongest point that PG’s enhance democracy is that they help to improve participation in
politics. However, some groups have ‘cheque book members’ who join to obtain incentives,
such as reduced insurance available only to members of the group, or members who only pay
an annual fee and don’t participate in any other way. This would make it appear that there’s
more people who are participating in a PG than there actually are. This is shown by PG’s like
AA where most people join for their breakdown cover service and pay £5 a month for a
membership. However, there is democracy shown by the high amount of members in some
PG’s like RSPB which has over one million members and has achieved a lot in terms of
protection for birds and there are many laws in place because of their influence on the
government, helped due to the high amount of members. This shows that many people are
getting involved in politics through PG’s mostly because they don’t have to sacrifice too much
time or attention in order to participate. Overall, PG’s do enhance democracy as it gives people
an opportunity to participate in politics between general elections which are every 4 years. The
high amount of participation in some PG’s like RSPB shows that people are getting involved in
politics, even if some members of PG’s are cheque book members.
Another strong point that PG’s enhance democracy is that they improve representation.
However, some PGs are more powerful than others, as finance is a key factor in political
influence, so groups that are wealthy have a disproportionate amount of influence. Pressure
groups are insider and outsider groups, insider or sectional groups having contacts with the
government and more influence due to their wealth or strategic position over the government-
like RMT who are more successful with the government as train drivers could strike, causing
great problems for the government so they generally get what they want. On the other hand,
they can help to promote and protect the rights and interests of minorities, shown by pressure
groups like Stonewall who help to protect rights for LGBT people. PG’s like these can help to
educate and change the minds of the public or influence the government to help the rights of
minorities. Overall, even though some PGs have more influence than others, this is outweighed
by the fact that they improve representation of people as their voices can be heard and the
rights of minorities can be protected.
Thirdly, PG’s can improve democracy by making the government form new policies.
However, some laws are made which only benefit a certain group of people. An example of this
is the NFU who had a food and agricultural policy made only to benefit farmers and nobody
else. This is tyranny of the minority as the needs of a small group are put in front of others, and
their interests may be an expense to the wider society- as more money is going to farmers when
it could be used for something else. Also, if a government in power is unsympathetic to a PG,
their efforts would be useless. The current Conservative government is unsympathetic to trade
unions and environmentalists like Extinction Rebellion, so they have no effect on making new
policies. On the other hand, PG’s like ASH research the effects of tobacco and share this
evidence with the government and the public, helping the government make policies like
restrictions on advertising tobacco and persuading the government to increase tax on tobacco
to deter customers. This is an example of a PG helping the government make policies which
would benefit the whole of the UK, not just a certain group. Another democratic PG is NSPCC
which persuaded the government to ban online grooming which was passed in 2017 soon after.
Evaluate the extent to which PGs enhance democracy in the UK (30)
Pressure groups are a group that tries to influence public policy in the interest of a particular
cause. This essay will evaluate the strengths of pressure groups on our democracy and
conclude that these strengths are strong and do enhance democracy in the UK, primarily
because they help political participation.
The strongest point that PG’s enhance democracy is that they help to improve participation in
politics. However, some groups have ‘cheque book members’ who join to obtain incentives,
such as reduced insurance available only to members of the group, or members who only pay
an annual fee and don’t participate in any other way. This would make it appear that there’s
more people who are participating in a PG than there actually are. This is shown by PG’s like
AA where most people join for their breakdown cover service and pay £5 a month for a
membership. However, there is democracy shown by the high amount of members in some
PG’s like RSPB which has over one million members and has achieved a lot in terms of
protection for birds and there are many laws in place because of their influence on the
government, helped due to the high amount of members. This shows that many people are
getting involved in politics through PG’s mostly because they don’t have to sacrifice too much
time or attention in order to participate. Overall, PG’s do enhance democracy as it gives people
an opportunity to participate in politics between general elections which are every 4 years. The
high amount of participation in some PG’s like RSPB shows that people are getting involved in
politics, even if some members of PG’s are cheque book members.
Another strong point that PG’s enhance democracy is that they improve representation.
However, some PGs are more powerful than others, as finance is a key factor in political
influence, so groups that are wealthy have a disproportionate amount of influence. Pressure
groups are insider and outsider groups, insider or sectional groups having contacts with the
government and more influence due to their wealth or strategic position over the government-
like RMT who are more successful with the government as train drivers could strike, causing
great problems for the government so they generally get what they want. On the other hand,
they can help to promote and protect the rights and interests of minorities, shown by pressure
groups like Stonewall who help to protect rights for LGBT people. PG’s like these can help to
educate and change the minds of the public or influence the government to help the rights of
minorities. Overall, even though some PGs have more influence than others, this is outweighed
by the fact that they improve representation of people as their voices can be heard and the
rights of minorities can be protected.
Thirdly, PG’s can improve democracy by making the government form new policies.
However, some laws are made which only benefit a certain group of people. An example of this
is the NFU who had a food and agricultural policy made only to benefit farmers and nobody
else. This is tyranny of the minority as the needs of a small group are put in front of others, and
their interests may be an expense to the wider society- as more money is going to farmers when
it could be used for something else. Also, if a government in power is unsympathetic to a PG,
their efforts would be useless. The current Conservative government is unsympathetic to trade
unions and environmentalists like Extinction Rebellion, so they have no effect on making new
policies. On the other hand, PG’s like ASH research the effects of tobacco and share this
evidence with the government and the public, helping the government make policies like
restrictions on advertising tobacco and persuading the government to increase tax on tobacco
to deter customers. This is an example of a PG helping the government make policies which
would benefit the whole of the UK, not just a certain group. Another democratic PG is NSPCC
which persuaded the government to ban online grooming which was passed in 2017 soon after.
