What is the role of pressure groups in policy-making

In any democratic practices, pressure groups or interest groups evidently play a potently vital role in dictating and influencing public policies. Being an inseparable part of governing system of representation, pressure groups’ say in democratic transaction lends a bigger hand in the process of policy making in that they initiate and precipitate views that eventually find their echoes in the public policies. Pressure groups are usually divided into two broad categories - domestic and global. While the activities of the domestic pressure groups are concerned with domestic policies pertaining to the interests of the group in question, the multi-national or global pressure groups are involved in multi-dimensional engagements covering wide-ranging issues across the globe.

Pressure groups’ direct involvements in and interference with the legislation process are constitutionally permitted practices in the world’s largest and most stable democracies like ones in the USA, UK and India. The much talked of lobbying culture in the US democracy, despite huge criticism and controversies, has been interpreted by US courts as constitutionally protected free-speech. In free-wheeling democracy of the USA, any interest group or even individual both from home and abroad can hire lobbyist firms to speak for their cause especially in the US Congress. This is a practical example of pressure groups’ direct access to legislative process of policy-making.

Pressure groups’ act as both blessings and banes depending on their avowed objectives and the instruments they realise these goals. For instance, historically, students’ bodies are the largest and the most powerful non-profit pressure groups in Bangladesh. In the evolution of independent Bangladesh students’ outstanding contributions and supreme sacrifices are to be reckoned with high respect and dignity once we weigh the overwhelming pressure they put collectively against the oppressions and injustices since the British India.  Particularly, in1948, 1952, 1962, 1969, 1971 and 1990 are clearly the landmark years when students evidently made their supreme sacrifices in pressurising the then autocratic rulers to yield to their charter of demands. All through these years their charter of demands instead of protecting their group interests only echoed in bold overtones the genuine voice of the mass people. Aren’t today’s democratic practices and policies direct derivatives of their long-drawn-out struggle of putting mounting pressure?

In contrast, the role and activism of some other pressure groups pose a diametrically opposed picture. Pressure groups like public vehicle owners association, public vehicle workers association, hawkers associations etc., for example, typically serve their respective group interests instead of reflecting the voice of the people. Yes, it is their democratic right to protect their group members’ interests and that any democratic culture allows it to do. However, whenever any irrational demand of any particular group offends and ignores the genuine concerns of the overwhelming majority, it has to be treated as a criminal offence even in the most open-ended democracies.

For example, everyone wants safe driving for road safety in Bangladesh. If the public vehicles’ drivers drive in the wrong format at their own sweet will and kill people at random, their demand of getting scot-free is blatantly a criminal offence. We should always remember that the difference between accident and murder must not be blurred. Debate may continue but cutting off head just for headache is absolutely an insane solution.

 Both in domestic policies and in external relation issues pressure groups are found outspokenly vocal in any healthy democratic practices. Even in autocratic and authoritarian systems where all outlets of free speech are silenced ruthlessly, we here the echoing voices of pressure groups ringing in undertones round the corner. Thus, standing by the side of the people either in group formation or in full-fledged formation especially in time of real need, pressure groups’ voice essentially becomes the true representative bubbles of the people.

Multi-national pressure groups’ relentless activism and campaigning have radically changed many crucially important policies across the globe. For instance, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Greenpeace etc. have been working as ever-vigilant voice in their respective areas of activism. Practical instances of these groups’ remarkable successes are not far to seek.

In safeguarding and protecting human rights globally, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have been doing quite a commendable job over the years. These global pressure groups minutely monitor human rights situations even in the remotest corners across the globe and record the slightest violations instantly. With a view to putting pressure on the concerned governments they mobilise global public opinion against the violations and thus help bringing the government back to the negotiating table. In fact, these pressure groups have become instrumental in upping the global human rights index.

Undeniably, pressure groups constitute the inseparable organs of effectively workable democracy. These groups practically work as psychological deterrent before the public policy planners and makers preventing them in doing excesses and injustices. Reciprocally, the legislators or the policy makers are expected to scrutinise the authenticity of pressure groups’ raised issues and demands in the light of mass people’s voice. Thus, through the process of reciprocations and interactions, the final democratic deal is struck which is essential for the survival of healthy democracy.

The writer is an Assistant Professor of English, Bogura Cantonment Public School & College. E-mail: [email protected]