The relationship between pressure groups and democracy

                   The existence of many thousands of pressure groups enhances the democratic health of the nation. A society could hardly be considered democratic without the opportunity to join numerous pressure groups representing different interests. Quite frankly, the US has these in abundance. From a constitutional perspective, the first amendment enables citizens to form together and advance a particular cause. However, the actions of certain groups may of course undermine the democratic process.

                   As previously alluded to, there are two types of pressure groups that are commonly associated with undemocratic actions. Insider groups may exert excessive influence over the political process, particularly those who donate campaign funds. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that candidates for political office are essentially ‘up for sale’ to wealthy donors on the inside of the political process. Although there is no direct relationship between money and electoral success, it is incredibly difficult to gain and regain elected office in the states without a great deal of campaign funding. Moreover, the Citizens United judgment (2010) has exacerbated the impact wealthy insiders can exert upon politicians. It also seems reasonable to conclude that such groups make their ‘investment’ in order to gain something back. If they do not gain sufficient return upon that investment from the incumbent, they have the choice to switch funding to the challenger or simply leave the political process altogether. As such, they are in an influential position and in doing so can undermine democracy.

                   Outsider groups can of course be associated with democratic actions if they advance a cause that could be associated with democracy. Naturally, this is an inherently subjective judgment. Take the case of terrorists. In a technical sense of the term they are outsiders; and hardly anyone in the states would associate terrorist activity with democratic change. For the vast majority of Americans, terrorism and freedom are contradictory. That said; even terrorist activity might be associated with the march of democracy provided their cause is designed to promote and advance such values. Moreover, one might add that politicians themselves are at times to blame for the actions of such groups. Politicians may therefore be responsible for pushing such groups outside of the mainstream, thereby leading that group to engage in direct action. Indeed, this argument can be used by politicians seeking some level of contact with outsider groups. Throughout history, several outsiders have to some degree been brought into the mainstream.

                   In summary, the freedom to join a pressure group is an essential expression of living within a democratic society. However, the actions of such groups could certainly be considered undemocratic. Moreover, in any democratic society it might be necessary to ban certain extremist groups because they pose a threat to democratic itself. The decision over who to identify as an extremist group of course provides politicians with a great deal of power. Politicians have every incentive to err on the side of caution, even in the self-styled land of the free. On repeated occasions, politicians have restricted civil liberties in the face of a clear and present danger. It is perhaps worth recognizing that such restrictions have at times gained acquiescence from the wider public, particularly during those times when we feel threatened by the forces of extremism (as in the aftermath of 9/11).