The Key To Effectiveness Of A Pressure Group Is A Large Membership Base Essay, Research Paper
A pressure group can be described as any organised group that does not put
up candidates for election, but seeks to influence government policy. Whilst
an organisation such as Friends of the Earth (FoE), with an income of almost
two million pounds a year can be described as a pressure group, so too, for
example, can the Upminster and Cranham Residents? Association (UCRA), which
relies solely on volunteers and whose only source of income is via advertisements
in its monthly bulletin. Both however have a certain impact on government policy.
Although FoE tackle much more serious and international issues than the UCRA,
the UCRA are more influential on government policy as they are in direct and
regular consultation with the government via the MP for Upminster. Whilst in
comparison with the job of the British government the UCRA fight for reasonably
trivial issues, yet are in their aims, much more successful than FoE.
From the above example it can be said that the key to the effectiveness of
a pressure group lies not in a large membership base, but in having the platform
by which to communicate with the government. However, the above two groups are
both insider groups. For an outsider group, achieving one?s aims is far more
difficult, but it is important to realise that under democracy, the majority
rule, and so therefore it can be said that a large membership base is important
in gaining public, and more significantly, government attention. Having said
that though, this does not necessarily mean that the larger a group, the more
likely they are of gaining government attention, portrayed by the fact that
petitions with thousands of signatures are often ignored by the government.
It is important though, to realise that the major advantage of a large membership
base is that it commands more attention, but having a lot of members is not
the only way to do this. Take for example, perhaps Britain?s most famous ever
pressure group, the Women?s Social and Political Union – the Suffragettes. This
was a group founded by a small family from Manchester and had very few members,
but because of their militant tactics and violent protest (smashing windows,
chaining themselves to railings, etc.), and moreover because they were women,
they instantly commanded a lot of public and government attention, and brought
the issue of female suffrage to the top of the political agenda.
However, whilst a large pressure group can attract a lot of publicity, not
all publicity works in favour of the group. To look again at the Suffragettes,
and to compare them to another famous group, the IRA, we can see that in spite
of the fact that they receive wide media and government attention, they are
portrayed to the people as thugs and terrorists, and the government cannot possibly
be seen to give in to this kind of violence. In this example, whilst the group
has managed to get the government to acknowledge them, this has had a detrimental
effect on achieving their aims, and so therefore it can be said that the large
scale of the two groups has been a disadvantage rather than an advantage.
The failure of the IRA, and the relative success of the UCRA shows us that
the likelihood of a pressure groups success lies in its links with the government.
This can also be seen in the civil rights movement in America. Whilst black
Americans made up a highly significant percentage of the population, Martin
Luther King realised that this paled in significance to the power of the government
that opposed them. He realised that the key to effectiveness lay not in attempting
to fight the government but simply trying to make them see sense, without having
an open confrontation. After all, it is ultimately the government that has the
final say, and a group that sets out from the start to threaten them is presumably
less likely to achieve its aims than a group who seeks government support rather
than government fear. However, it can be said that in a democracy the power
lies with the people and so therefore the larger the membership base the higher
the likelihood of success. Indeed due to political accountability a government
cannot afford to ignore a pressure group that constitutes a significant proportion
of the population. It is though, unlikely that a pressure group would have enough
power to play a major part in the results of an election. Therefore it is more
important to gain government links and whilst having a large number of members
goes a long way towards achieving this, it is not the only way and perhaps not
the best way. Evidence would suggest that the most effective way to achieve
one?s aims is quite simply to appeal to the government. In fact, the most influential
groups are those which represent strong producer interests, the rich and the
well resourced. By contrast, groups which represent the poor, the socially disadvantaged
or unfashionable minorities come off worst of all. Thus social inequalities
have continued to increase despite the efforts of groups such as Shelter, the
Child Poverty Action Group and the Low Pay Unit.
In conclusion, the key to effectiveness of a pressure group lies not in a
large membership base, but in securing government attention. Whilst a large
membership base helps to achieve this it is not the most important factor. It
is also important to realise that although a large pressure group does have
a certain amount of power, the government holds the ultimate power. Therefore
the key to effectiveness is in becoming an insider group, and therefore part
of the political infrastructure, not in trying to intimidate the government
into submitting to one?s demands, as, in the interest of sustaining governmental
legitimacy they cannot afford to do so.