Despite the many problems that minority parties face, they certainly play an important role in the political affairs of the government. Pressure groups too help in the shaping of society but it is greatly disputed whether both these groups are an essential part of democracy. Some people argue that the impact which smaller parties and pressure groups make may be regarded as undemocratic as well as being undesirable. This essay will start by defining and stating the roles of both groups thereafter arguing for both sides while leaning more to the side I agree with the most. Although many would be in support of the argument above, there is a stronger one that feels that the significance of minority parties and pressure groups is not undemocratic
…show more content…
They too act as a medium between the people and the government by making sure the interests of the people are made known. By accelerating participation they too act as check on government power by encouraging debate and discussion among the people (Hague & Harrop, 2013: 150). Pressure groups, sometimes referred to as interest groups, also seek to influence public policy but without trying to become the government. They are not an “election fighting organization” (Hague & Harrop, 2013: 150) but they take a more business-like approach in dealing with power structures. In this way they aim to win the support of political parties. Like in their name, they use pressure as one of their many methods in achieving their goals. Pressure groups membership is more discerning as they are interested in advocating for a smaller group in society. Their participation has no limit on their expansion and so a country can have a number of interest groups unlike parties in South Africa, in particular, that have to pay a cash deposit after which they can participate (Sadie, 2006: 217-278). Although they speak for the people, they are not accountable to them the way political parties are as the leaders are not …show more content…
This view comes from the idea that in democratic elections elected officials are given power to make choices on behalf of the people but pressure groups take away that role thus disrupting an already established system (Trueman, 2015). Because pressure groups are not directly elected by the people it is a much more difficult thing to hold them accountable in the event that they start to show signs of illegitimacy. Lastly another could argue that some of the times the methods used by pressure groups may are undesirable. For instance although the use of protests and demonstrations does encourage participation it tends to be very conflictual again between pressure groups and the government. The media is used as one of the instruments of putting pressure on the government but at times this takes a wrong turn and instead using the media, pressure groups would then ‘force’ the state to act which does not sound
They too act as a medium between the people and the government by making sure the interests of the people are made known. By accelerating participation they too act as check on government power by encouraging debate and discussion among the people (Hague & Harrop, 2013: 150). Pressure groups, sometimes referred to as interest groups, also seek to influence public policy but without trying to become the government. They are not an “election fighting organization” (Hague & Harrop, 2013: 150) but they take a more business-like approach in dealing with power structures. In this way they aim to win the support of political parties. Like in their name, they use pressure as one of their many methods in achieving their goals. Pressure groups membership is more discerning as they are interested in advocating for a smaller group in society. Their participation has no limit on their expansion and so a country can have a number of interest groups unlike parties in South Africa, in particular, that have to pay a cash deposit after which they can participate (Sadie, 2006: 217-278). Although they speak for the people, they are not accountable to them the way political parties are as the leaders are not …show more content…
This view comes from the idea that in democratic elections elected officials are given power to make choices on behalf of the people but pressure groups take away that role thus disrupting an already established system (Trueman, 2015). Because pressure groups are not directly elected by the people it is a much more difficult thing to hold them accountable in the event that they start to show signs of illegitimacy. Lastly another could argue that some of the times the methods used by pressure groups may are undesirable. For instance although the use of protests and demonstrations does encourage participation it tends to be very conflictual again between pressure groups and the government. The media is used as one of the instruments of putting pressure on the government but at times this takes a wrong turn and instead using the media, pressure groups would then ‘force’ the state to act which does not sound