“Interest groups have replaced political parties as the mainstream institution linking citizens and government” - Discussion

Interest groups and parties are associations which aim to represent the public- the main difference between the two is that “interest groups are policy maximizers, while political parties are focused on maximizing the numbers of seats they win in congress” . In the 1960s and 1970s many scholars like David Broder studied and wrote about what was then known as the ‘D’ word . The ‘D’ word was directed at the decline and disappearance of parties in the United States. These claims were formed on the basis that party membership was quickly declining and that partisanship was even more so . Since then, parties have recovered . However, there have been similar signs of party decline since the early 1990s. Scholars like Verba and Fiorina argue that membership and partisanship has declined because parties represent only a small fraction of the American population. Moreover, the number of pressure groups, their membership and their influence has increased , which strongly suggests that perhaps interest groups have, or are close to replacing the role of parties in linking society to the government. This essay will discuss the question by assessing both sides of the coin. Firstly, arguments which propose interest groups are more effective at representation will be analyzed, and in the second part of this essay arguments which suggest that parties are still the mainstream institution linking citizens and government will be discussed. It will become apparent, that there is stronger evidence supporting the argument that the role of interest groups has definitely moved towards being a stronger weapon of representation for the people, especially for the minorities and the worse off in society, however, parties will still remain a necessary institution for stability and overall representation.

There has been major debate about the extent to which the two major parties in America represent the American population. According to scholars Wattenberg and Greenberg “the two major parties are no longer as central as they once were in tying peoples everyday concerns to their choices in the political system” . Hence people have been trying to find alternative ways in which to participate in politics and voice their opinions. Simultaneously, membership of pressure groups has increased and their impact has become significantly augmented. Could it be that pressure groups are becoming the new mainstream institutions linking citizens and government? This first section of the essay will display arguments used to proclaim that parties are weakening in their ability to link the electorates to the government and also that Interest groups are growing in their ability to represent their members.

There is a common notion that pressure groups are limited to a high extent when it comes to influencing policy. However, according to the academic A. Turner, who wrote about how pressure groups work , their influence is growing. Today, they not only influence people with their campaigns, but they also arguably influence the legislative, executive and even the judiciary sectors of government to a high extent. It is important to acknowledge that it is obviously harder for the pressure groups to influence government. This is because they cannot join in the debates on issues and pragmatically voice their opinions in Congress. Instead interest groups have other persuasive means like providing legislators “with facts, information, and arguments” by letters, telegraphs, private meetings, lobbying etc. In fact “organized groups utilize every available opportunity to inform legislators of their wishes.” Evidently it is much harder trying to influence policy with these methods, however it is possible. Indeed, “available information indicates that pressure associations originate a large percentage of the Bills Introduced in congress and the state legislature.” Furthermore, interest associations have also managed to influence the executive branch, and this arguably is “one of the most noteworthy changes in pressure group activity” in this last century. Again, like for influencing the legislature, interest groups send the executive chiefs, letters and statements and so forth, to recommend to the president and governors, to “incorporate or omit specific proposals from their legislative programs” . Moreover, pressure groups also seek to influence the judiciary, however this happens in rare occasions. This is done by “initiating litigation to test the constitutionality of legislation on the action of public officials” . An example of a pressure group which almost solely used this method is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, whose aim was to defend Negro rights. Even though pressure groups do not impact policy in the traditional sense, they definitely do influence government, so one could argue that pressure groups are a strong contender to parties.

Burham wrote in 1989 that parties today “seem chiefly to be associated with… massive decay of partisan electoral linkages to the population” . The words of Bur ham lead us to the argument of the ever weakening ability of parties to represent society. There are two main schools of thought that suggest Burham’s theory. Both schools are of the opinion that the function of a party to focus “on maximizing the numbers of seats they win in congress” is their limit to represent the society because they are too concentrated on the pursuit of election. The first school of thought is a Downsian argument about parties basing their policies on both sides of the center of the political spectrum, “where most voters are massed”, in order to represent the median voter. Anthony Downs also recognizes that the parties from both left and right sides of the political spectrum do "sprinkle these moderate policies with a few extreme stands in order to please its far-out voters,” . Because both the Democratic and Republican parties in America are trying to represent the median voters, the parties are becoming more alike and hence are distancing themselves from minorities. Noticeably they aren’t as ideologically alike as their British counterparts (the labour and Conservative Parties) for “in most contests there is a considerable ideological distance between Democratic and Republican Candidates” . Moreover, The second school of thought is shared by the American Political Science Association and it contends that the alienation of certain members in society is occurring because of the fact that “Modern campaigns for the US congress require significant sums of money in order to be reasonably competent.” The predicament with money being the ‘oxygen’ of modern day elections “is where the money comes from and the influence it buys” . Campaigns do not only focus on the median voter, they also focus on the most affluent of society in order to gain funding for their race. This is because “95% of the donors who made substantial contributions were in the wealthiest households” . This means that the better off in society have a way of voicing their opinions that is unattainable for most of the population. The American Political Science Association concluded from their study about Parties and their Ability to represent the public that:

“Citizens with lower or moderate income speak with a whisper that is lost on the ears of inattentive government officials, while the advantaged roar with a clarity and consistency that policy makers readily hear and routinely follow”

The conclusion is to a great extent, but not solely based on the fact that as richer people donate money, candidates take them more into consideration. The problem is that today only 50 percent of people vote, and of those 50 percent, most are people with higher income than 75 000 a year : 1/3 of lower income families vote, whilst 9/10 of higher income families vote. This means that there is a great fraction of the population who is not being considered when it comes to policy making by the parties. There are definitely strong arguments, which are suggested by research done by various political researchers, that the two main parties today are not representing the American society. In regards to all said above, people are finding other means of representation like demonstrations and joining pressure groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the National Federation of Independent Business and the National Right to Life Committee to seek representation.

There are definitely significant arguments which strongly suggest that pressure groups do represent the people and may be becoming a new mainstream institution linking citizens and government. However, as we move into the second part of this essay we will examine arguments that parties are still the conventional institution, and even if pressure groups would become more popularized with extreme ideological people and minorities feeling alienated, interest groups will not replace the position of parties. Firstly, the differences between pressure associations and parties in representing the population and their power will be briefly highlighted with the aim of showing that pressure groups have not and cannot replace parties as a representing mechanism. Lastly, it will be argued that membership decline is an irrelevant point of reference when criticizing the party as a non representative institution.

According to most theories “in a modern, complex society parties are a necessary link in the relationship between government and people” . The first reason why a party can be seen as a necessary mechanism is that unlike interest groups, parties represent a broader image of society. One defining “characteristic of both the Democrats and the Republicans is that they have constantly sought to appeal to as wide a spectrum of voters as possible”, hence they offer their supporters “very general and diffuse policy options”. Additionally, one could characterize both parties for the most part as being extremely inclusive and non-ideological . Pressure groups on the other hand are in most cases associations which focus on issues, or groups in societies like teachers, and doctors for instance. The benefit of parties having a broad but complex agenda, is that they have a bigger opportunity of representing the society as a whole. The second reason why parties are a required mechanism for representation is that pressure groups lack the necessary power to influence. When a president from a party is elected, he appoints “government officials to fill the major posts in the new administration. Not only departmental chiefs, but also the top civil service” . Because party members are appointed such great positions, they have more power to actually implement policy, and make sure that citizens are being represented. Indeed, “today, the Republican and Democratic parties dominate the political process. With rare exceptions, the two major parties control the presidency, the congress, the governorships, and the state legislatures” . It is undeniable that pressure groups do influence government to a high extent, however they have to rely on lobbyists, letters, phone calls and even on threats of punishing or rewarding governors and legislators, “by giving or withholding support at the polls” . The third point to make is that parties are a great mechanism of representation because they can be held accountable. “According to social-contract theory, governments must be held accountable for their actions” in order to be fully representative. The last point to be mentioned is that “staffing the government through party helps to ensure an intimate link between the implementation of policies and public preference”.

There seems to be a common notion that citizens aren’t represented by the parties, and this notion is explained with the membership decline that has occurred in the last 15 years (6.1% for the democrats and by 1.08% for the republicans ). However, this notion has been argued by various different academics like Paul Whiteley, to be nothing but an illusion or a myth which is broadcasted by students of parties- because political scientists today do not clearly understand the concept of parties. In fact, J. Schlesinger said that “Students of parties have never even come to an agreement on what a political party is, much less on how to tell whether one is strong or weak, decaying or blossoming“ . Whiteley is of the opinion that parties may “be losing their activists and members because of the rise of relatively new forms of political participation” . There seems to be a change from the traditional participation to informal participation. The traditional participation refers to voting at elections, and to being a member of a party. The informal participation on the other hand refers to joining political forums and chat rooms, signing electronic petitions, and even “buying or boycotting goods for political or ethical reasons” . Whitely blames the internet and the consumer society for transforming the participation from the formal to the informal type, which results in the lowering of party membership and even turnout. This argument suggests that parties are not disappearing and aren’t less representative, instead, society has changed mind set and hence people are less likely to join a party or vote at elections and more likely to stay at home at their computers and participate in a new virtual sense.

To finally conclude on the question of whether interest groups have replaced political parties as the mainstream institution linking citizens and government- it is important to understand that there are arguments for and against this claim, and hence the answer is subjective and can be intertwined. As it was made evident, both parties and interest groups have their own benefits and their own constraints when it comes to representing citizens. The limit of parties is their pursuit of elections and the alienation it provides. The limit of pressure groups is how narrow they are and their lack of power to influence. I think that both pressure groups and parties are the cause for their own limitations - the fact that parties are meant to influence a broad society and hence the median man, means that some people (usually minorities and the worst off in society) are being distanced. Also, pressure groups have a limit to their influence because they choose to be associations which simply aim to influence government and not be a part of government. I am of the opinion that parties will not disappear as they are a necessary institution which represents the broad picture of American population and they dominate and run the political system. “The problem today is that this mechanism for a broad and inclusive democracy –political parties- caters to some of the same narrow segments of American Society.” Because of this I also think that the number of pressure groups could hypothetically rise with the growing number of unrepresented people. Overall, because of this dilemma, I think both institutions are important for different types of representation.