Page 325 - DPOL202_COMPARATIVE_POLITICS_AND_GOVERNMENT_ENGLISH

Comparative Politics and Government

Notes less formal ways. After having a close look at this development of the British political system, Beer
has laid down his doctrine of ‘quasi-corporatism’.
Pressure group activity at the Parliamentary level is easily visible. A group that has failed to have
satisfaction from a minister or a civil servant, may try to exert pressure by taking the matter to the
Parliament. Thus figures in lobbying or contracting MPs for raising a matter, putting a resolution,
demanding discussion, and supporting or opposing a particular measure. It may be done through
the representatives sitting in the House of Commons who could win elections with the active help
and cooperation of some interest groups, or other ways can be adopted to influence the MPs. Some
pressure groups may engage the services of professional lobbyists called Parliamentary Agents. Some
groups like the NFU have local Parliamentary correspondents to maintain contact with their local
MPs. The role of these MPs may, thus, be seen in their actions, by words or deeds, in tabling a motion
or supporting a bill whether in the House or in its committees. Amendments to the official bills can
be made at the isntigation of pressure groups, with the Confederation of British Industries and other
pressure groups being particularly active with regard ot hte passage of the Finance Bill thoruhg the
House of Commons each year.
The role of pressure groups in the working of the Parliament is usually checked by the very firm
discipline exerted on each party by the Whips, but sometimes a particular interest group may win
enough sympathy in the House with both the majority party and the Opposition to force a minister to
change his mind. Pressure groups have the greatest chance, of influencing legislation in Parliament
when the normal party alignment is broken. If there is a dissension among Government back-benchers
with regard to a particular piece of official policy, this can be exploited by the opponents of the
policy. Thus, in 1964-66, Parliament business groups opposed to the steel nationalization benefited
from the dissent among Labour backbenchers over Government’s proposals. Earlier in 1957, a
combination of the Labour Opposition and some Conservative backbenchers had persuaded the
Conservative Government to postpone the operating date of the Rent Act to the satisfaction of the
tenants’ interest groups.
It should, however, be added at this stage that the influence of the business and labour groups waxes
and wanes according to the complexion of the government in which the weight of the public opinion
has its own place. Moreover, while the labour groups do enjoy the privilege of exercising influence
on the Labour government, the influence of the business even on the Conservative government is not
absolute but conditional. It is qualified by the voting power of the working class, for Conservative
party has to keep the support of some 7 million labour voters in order to stay in or get back into
power. The essential fact, however, remains that “for better or for worse, such self-government, as
the English people now enjoy today is one that operates by and through the lobby”.
Critical Appreciation: There is no doubt that pressure groups can be seen performing a number of
valuable service in the British political system in various ways. Their activity smacks of participation
in the decision-making process between general elections and also acts as a healthy check over, as
well as a prime mover of, the parliamentary government. The groups provide information,
administrative co-operation and public and political supports. It can be argued that those who are
most closely affected by Government activity should be most closely consulted and should be able to
influence policy. Indeed, pressure groups are indispensable to the executive for the part they play in
policy-making and also in administration. Thus, pressure groups draw people into the process of
government and at the same time break down party domination of political process, bringing to the
fore issues like capital punishment, which might otherwise lie outside the sphere of party politics.
The weak side of the pressure group politics can not be lost sight of. It is rightly contended that
pressure group politics can not be identified with mass politics in as much as not all sections of the
people take part in it, nor are they capable of exerting influence in a more or less equal measure. The
‘concurrent majority’ as represented by the powerful pressure groups is seen as having too much
power as compared with the ‘numerical majority’ as represented in the Parliament. Thus, the rise in
the importance of pressure group politics has led to the emergence of a new hierarchy of political
influence, based on the organization of group interests, producing what has been described as ‘new
Medievalism whereby a person “is politically important only in so far as he belongs to a group. The
leadership of pressure groups is often unrepresentative and authoritarian, as it has to be powerful if

320 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY