Chapter Four: Pressure Group Theory
"...the state's power is not a given thing, it stands in constant need of legitimization. Different political actors take part in this struggle over the limits of the state's legitimacy ... it becomes an extremely important task for political groups to question where [the] authority begins and ends. By challenging the authority of the state ..., political groups seek to construct themselves a powerful position, a position from where they can set [influence] the political agenda." (Hjelmar 1996, 7).
The essence of government in Canada is the struggle of competing interests to persuade decision-makers to frame acceptable public policies (White 1998, 160). Canadians organize in numerous and novel ways to influence the government's decision-making process. Some work through political parties, some prefer to act individually, some hire lobbyists to act for them, while others join groups in order to participate in and enjoy the benefits of collective action (Jackson 1998, 469). A large portion of the Canadian population belongs to some organization or another (i.e. professional organization, labour union, community group, church group) which seek to influence governments (Jackson 1998, 469; White 1998, 160). Large or small, these groups are active in pressing their needs, principles, and desires on other Canadians. When such groups act in the political arena without becoming full-fledged political parties, they are usually referred to as interest groups or pressure groups (Brooks 1993, 72).
Pressure group politics, as it is known today, is not a new phenomena in Canada. The 1960s was a decade of frantic activity in public-policy formation (Pross 1992, 66). The three major movements that influenced the national public sphere during this time were the women's, the environmental and the consumer movements. The groups within these movements began to demand government attention. As a result, pressure groups became a new political force, surprising the industry-business sectors with their influence on new legislation and regulation.
In spite of the activity of the 1960s and onward, pressure group politicking is a well-practiced but little-understood art (Jackson 1998, 479). The groups themselves are certainly not a new phenomenon in politics, but the academic recognition of pressure groups is more recent (Ball 1993, 104). In fact, pressure groups have a long history in Canada. Evidence of their work can be seen in the colonial period and in the first years of Confederation (Pross 1994, 178). However, it has been since the mid 1960s that the growth and presence of pressure groups have transformed the country's political landscape (Wilson 1990, 142). These groups have become more prominent actors in political debates. The reasons for the shift are not entirely clear. A root cause is believed to be fundamental changes in social attitudes (in particular women’s rights, environmental concerns, and the anti-war stance) that have been taking place since the Depression (Pross 1994, 179). Another reason is the impact of television, which taught many Canadians how they could use the media to influence public decisions. Richard Simeon (1995, 37) suggests that domestic pressure groups, particularly single-issue groups, have proliferated in Canada and other western countries with the decline of political parties as legitimate organizers of public opinion.
The Canadian state has been faced with the challenge of responding to a host of new and assertive pressure groups attempting to address a multitude of issues. As well, the increasing diversity of interests and identities in Canada, and the difficulty for politicians of representing, accommodating, and transcending the diversities, has resulted in the need for further representation (Pal 1997, 209). As a result, pressure group politics have acquired a more prominent place in Canadian politics and is considered by some as a force to be reckoned with (Pross 1992, xi). Considerable importance has been afforded to the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 to explain the success and prominence of pressure groups, and to the ensuing process of "Charter politics" (Alan Cairns 1992). Gagnon & Tanguay (1989, 2-11) assert that the increase in citizen participation in pressure group politics is due to the decline of political parties and their representational capacity. Theories abound as to why pressure groups have multiplied exponentially.
Along with the growth in the numbers of pressure groups in Canadian politics, these groups have also harnessed the most sophisticated tactics in their drive for political influence (Presthus 1978, 68). It is difficult to find any social activity or interest that does not have representation. However, in spite of having representation, there is no guarantee of equal representation. Substantial variations exist in the political and organizational resources amongst pressure groups. The industrial-business and professional groups tend to monopolize the instruments of political influence: political alliances, resources, and sophistication of tactics (Presthus 1978, 68).
The next section of the literature review will look at pressure group theory, both from a general perspective and specifically as it applies in Canada. The review will begin by defining what pressure groups are, as well as attempt to both differentiate between and reconcile interest group theory with pressure group theory. Once defined, the purpose of pressure groups will be explored from numerous perspectives, as well as the limitations and requirements of pressure groups. The policy process in Canada will be detailed as it applies to pressure group politics. Following is a look at the various actions of environmental pressure groups, using both formal and informal channels. It is at this point that the review will focus in on one area of pressure group politics - environmental. The final area of focus is on the future of pressure groups in Canada, and the potential roles pressure groups will play on the Canadian political scene.
4.1. Pressure Groups Defined
"...there are very real limits on the ability of any one individual to move the policy process. What is generally needed is some form of collective action, and it is here that organized interest groups come into play" (Gibbons 1994, 396).
Movements are tied to ideologies involving broad social change. They are borderless currents of interest that flow easily across political boundaries because of their broad and inclusive philosophies. The message of a movement can be prevalent across countries as well as continents. Movements are not composed of single, unitary actors. Instead, they are informal networks that link different players - organizations as well as individuals - through joint interaction (Phillips 1994, 190). They are socially constructed. Movements are typically composed of four main characteristics: 1) an informal network of organizations and individuals who, 2) on the basis of collective identity and shared values, 3) engage in political and or cultural struggle intended to expand the boundaries of the existing system, and 4) undertake collective action designed to affect both state and society (Phillips 1994, 189; Stefanick 1996, 16). Movements have become a powerful force in changing societal attitudes and influencing governments (Jackson 1998, 499). Because of their inclusiveness, movements often help to unify people by embracing national and international issues or points of view.
Interest (pressure) groups typically spring from a general movement (i.e. from the social movement springs Amnesty International) in order to focus on a specific issue, piece of legislation, or location. Pressure groups tend to reside inside specific countries, although some do not (i.e. Sierra Club, Greenpeace, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - PETA). Political parties can also spring from a movement when a group of individuals decide that the interests of the group can be best served by pursuing change through formal political channels.
What are Pressure Groups?
Pressure group formation is considered to be a natural occurrence in any democratic society where individuals with a common interest often form a group to pursue that interest (Knight 1991, 6). Group theory implies that the constellation of pressure groups participating in a policy process would represent all the interests that could be affected by the process. All groups would actively participate in the process, attempting to influence the outcome of the process. Groups are, in fact, viewed as rational, natural components of democratic society by various political scientists.
'Power' can be either direct or indirect. Direct power is exercised directly on government. Groups affect, or seek to affect, government by effectively possessing and/or employing political resources as constraints upon government's autonomy (Pyrcz 1994, 329). For example, a pressure group lobbying the provincial government to influence a change in a specific policy is exercising direct power. Indirect power refers to those circumstances in which groups employ political resources to garner support from the citizens and groups who themselves have power over governments. Examples of indirect power include the shaping of public opinion via newspaper articles, the distribution of information leaflets to the general public, and the use of the Internet to disperse information.
Pressure groups are "... any group of citizens seeking to bring about or preserve their preferred state of affairs by means of power, directly or indirectly affecting governments, without standing for elected office," (Pyrcz 1994, 329). Pressure group politics involve the political promotion of interests and values. Eckstein (1960, 26) describes pressure group politics as the intermediate level of activity between the political and the apolitical. Pross (1992, 152) refers to this intermediate level as the "attentive public".
Pross (1993, 146) believes that in order to begin to understand pressure group life, one must arrange what is known about them into meaningful patterns. One pattern, applied by many scholars, is to classify all groups according to the kinds of causes they promote. Two broadly defined groups used are the ones that pursue the self-interest of their members (i.e. Canadian Medical Association, Canadian Bar Association, British Columbia Teacher's Federation, etc.), and the groups that pursue more general, public interest (i.e. Canadian Standards Association, Western Canada Wilderness Society, Planned Parenthood, etc.). This type of classification may be too broad because most groups work simultaneously for both selective benefits and the public interest. For example, the Canadian Medical Association's standards imposed upon their members are there to theoretically safe guard the general public.
Pross (1992, 3) believes that the chief characteristic of the pressure group is that it tries to persuade governments to pursue the policies it advocates. The act of persuasion takes many forms with nearly all of them intended to exert political pressure. The characteristics that separate pressure groups from a mob or movement are continuity and organization. Continuity is required in order to have a lasting effect. The public and government require reminders in order to develop a recognition for both the identity of the pressure groups as well as their issues. A mob is a temporary thing, a product of chance. The mob may gain clearly stated and immediately realizable goals, but it does not have the ability to provide for future objectives; a mob is unable to provide for its own continued existence (Pross 1992, 4). A movement consists of many distinct elements that differentiate it from the more coherent unit of a pressure group.
The distinction has been made between pressure groups , mobs, and movements. There should also be a distinction made between political parties and pressure groups. Erickson provides an succinct comparison between the two terms: "... parties are organizations that put forward candidates to compete for publicly elected office under a particular label and that campaign for votes for their candidates" (Erickson 1994, 277). The electoral activities distinguish parties from pressure groups; pressure groups form separately from the electoral system. Because candidates compete for votes in elections, the constraints parties confront tend to be different from those facing pressure groups.
In defining the term pressure group, one may find it helpful to have a concise list of characteristics which distinguish pressure groups from other types of groups. Pross provides four prime characteristics of pressure groups (Jackson 1998, 470):
- They have a formal structure of organization that gives them continuity. Organization is found to be essential to allow pressure groups to determine their objectives and strategies for action.
- They are able to articulate and aggregate interests.
- They attempt to act within the political system to influence policy outputs.
- They try to influence power rather than exercise the responsibility of government themselves.
Similar to pressure groups, interest groups are defined as "... organizations whose members act together to influence public policy in order to promote their common interest (Pross 1992, 3). David Truman's (1951, 33) definition of interest group is "...any group that, on the basis of one or more shared attitudes, makes certain claims upon other groups in society for the establishment, maintenance, or enhancement of forms of behaviour that are implied by the shared attitudes". Interest groups are organizations that attempt to further their common interest by affecting public policy (Jackson 1998, 470). Like pressure groups, there are varying types of interest groups. Gibbins looks at the interest groups that have a single theme of focus and describes them as pursuing non-negotiable interests which are much more difficult for the political system to handle (Gibbins 1994, 397).
In looking at both interest groups and pressure groups, their expectations are seen to override any expectation of the general populace. Because the group believes that the claims being made are of paramount importance, they also believe that the general populace should support the efforts of the group. Fortunately for many of the interest/pressure groups and the public, their focus is a collective good in that not only will the members within the group benefit, but also the populace as a whole (i.e. through pollution abatement measures, protection of a recreation area, etc.). Of course, there are other interests held by varying pressure groups that only benefit the group requesting it (i.e. pharmaceutical groups pushing for longer patent rights on products to monopolize a specific market) (Gibbins 1994, 397).
In spite of the lengthy definitions provided for both pressure groups and interest groups, by now one realizes that the dissimilarities are slight enough that one may consider the two terms interchangeable. Sidle (1993, 218), for example, states that although the expression 'pressure group' is common in the political science literature, his preference leans towards the use of the term 'interest group' because it is more usual in current political discourse, public debate and media reports. The assumption is then that the terms 'pressure group' and 'interest group' are interchangeable. Pross (1992, 68) also uses the terms interchangeably. However, Pross also goes on to differentiate pressure groups from all other interest groups; the other groups are latent interests, solidarity groups, social movements, political parties, and government affiliated organizations (Pross 1992, 11). He provides a "test to determine if an organization is a pressure group" which provides simple questions and criteria to guide the answers (Appendix: Pross’ Test). Pross' use of the term 'interest group' could then be described as 'the groups involved in the policy process'.
Eckstein (1960, 9) defines both pressure groups and interests groups with hardly a differentiating stroke; the deviation is that interests groups do not involve themselves in formal politics, for if they do, they are then called pressure groups. White's (1998, 154) distinction is based on the relative permanence of interest groups versus the more temporary, spontaneous nature of pressure groups. White (1998) believes that an interest group consists of people who recognize that they share certain characteristics and consequently seek goals that will improve their common situation. In contrast, pressure groups spring up in response to some current or public policy that is considered to have fairly drastic repercussions for those impacted. Once the pressure group achieves their goal, the members disband, having no further common thread to hold it together (White 1998, 154).
Upon reviewing the definitions of both interest group and pressure group, there are few notable distinctions between them. As a result of the interchangeability of terms, the term pressure group will be used from the outset of the review simply because it is the most recognized term academically. Where the term interest group has been used in the current literature, it will apply to pressure groups as well.
Types of Pressure Groups
There are various types of pressure groups based on the focus, issue, membership, and who gains from the outcome of the effort. The types of pressure groups may be elaborated by making a distinction between primary pressure groups (groups whose primary purpose is political) and secondary pressure groups (groups whose objectives lead them into political action from time to time) (Grant 1989, 10). Of course, this distinction is not always clear. For example, the Catholic Association may provide a service for members, but the association is also very political with issues such as abortion and sexual education.
Similar to Pyrcz (1994) and Grant (1989), Pross (1975, 12) also makes a distinction amongst certain pressure groups based on their focus and actions. The distinction Pross draws is between 'institutional groups' and 'issue-oriented groups'. Institutional groups are those having organizational continuity, cohesion, stable membership, concrete and immediate objectives, and a preference for organizational goals over particular objectives (i.e. the Canadian Medical Association, the Sierra Club, and the Canadian Broadcasters' Association). Institutional groups are concerned about protecting their access to government, and are thus unlikely to become embroiled in election campaigns that might fragment their membership base and disrupt their access (Gibbins 1994, 397). Their contacts with the federal and provincial bureaucrats are carefully nurtured. Issue-oriented groups, on the other hand, form exclusively to pursue one major policy change, and typically have the opposite qualities of that of the institutional groups; limited organizational continuity and cohesion, lack of organization, knowledge of the government is minimal and often naive, and membership is extremely fluid. Issue-oriented groups typically are involved with issues that are capable of resolution and could potentially be removed from the nation's political arena once addressed (Gibbins 1994, 397). As stated earlier, there are single-issue groups under this umbrella that often pursue non-negotiable interests, which are much more difficult for the political system to address.
Within the two types of pressure groups, there are groups described as advocacy organizations (Pal 1993, 122). As mentioned, these types of organizations are a subset of the larger group of pressure groups, and seek a collective good, the achievement of which would not selectively benefit only the membership of the organization. Instead, a collective good is any public policy whose benefits may be realized equally by many people (i.e. world peace, clean air), regardless of their membership in, or support for, a given organization (Pal 1993, 123).
Canadian Aspects
Canadian pressure group politics, although similar to pressure group politics in other countries, maintains a level of uniqueness when compared with other countries in the western hemisphere (Pyrcz 1994, 346). This next part of the review will look at the uniqueness of Canada's pressure group politics, looking specifically at the Canadian legislature and how it functions, and how this, in turn, dictates the actions of pressure groups.
The actual number of registered pressure groups in Canada proliferated between 1965 and 1984, similar to pressure group growth in the United States (Pyrcz 1994, 348). Much of the Canadian pressure group growth was due to the support and encouragement that new groups received from the federal government of the period. This is one of the ways that Canadian pressure group politics are distinctive from other countries. Canadian governments (provincial and federal) went out of their way to provide access for pressure groups to Cabinet and to the public service. Governments also sought to develop close, co-operative, consensus-building relationships with many groups (Pyrcz 1994, 349). By providing the resources for the proliferation of pressure groups, the various levels of government believed that the multitude of interests within Canada would be represented in policy without the implementation of expensive government bureaucracy. Unfortunately for pressure groups in Canada, the subsequent federal government, led by Brian Mulroney, strove to undo much of the work that the previous Trudeau (and Clark) administrations had done in building a larger theatre for pressure group politics (Pyrcz 1994, 350).
The contact between individual legislatures and pressure groups is believed to be the most significant and persistent difference between Canadian and American pressure group tactics (Pyrcz 1994, 337). The difference in government between the two countries explain the contrast in levels of contact. Many observers of Canadian politics argue that the acceptance and support of the various political players (including pressure groups) has resulted in a particularly Canadian brand of politics that is more tolerant of differences and promotes greater inclusion of diverse voices when compared with the United States (Phillips 1994, 199). Presthus believes that the uniqueness of the Canadian policy process is simply due to Canadians being much more respectful than Americans, thus formally enshrining the various points of access to different groups within a democracy (Pross 1996, 43). Because of this respectfulness, Canadians are said to be more inclined to accept the decisions of the elite.
The debate over the role of pressure groups in public policy formation has been conducted within the framework of a pluralist understanding. It is this understanding that has a Canadian twist with its origins in our traditional view of the state (Pross 1996, 36). Pross believes that Canadian-style pressure group politics is unique to this country (Pross 1993, 152). Canada has no public forum in which pressure groups, politicians, and the public may meet and realize all aspects of an issue at center stage. Debate in Parliament has been tightly controlled by government with functions like committee hearings offering few opportunities for debate, much less changing, a policy. As a result, pressure groups, and others wishing to influence public policy, opt to approach and attempt to persuade civil servants and Cabinet ministers, leaving parliamentarians with few options (Pross 1993, 153). In the United States, however, there are public debates involving committee hearings where rival demands are vigorously presented and where every lobby concerned with the issue has the opportunity to put its case to the general public as well as to the policy makers. The 'unique' Canadian system results in the legitimate, wealthy, coherent interests, having increased access to the legislative process, as well as more influence, compared to the less legitimate, poor, and diffuse interests, who have few sources of access to the legislative process (Pross 1993, 153). A policy system like Canada's, where legislatures do not have a large say in policy development, will encourage pressure groups to develop quite differently from those that emerge in the United States. Canadian legislature, and thus pressure group politics, are unique compared to other countries like the United States. Canadian pluralism has distinctive characteristics that requires focused understanding in order to know how to best apply these characteristics (Pross 1996, 34).
4.2 The Purpose of Pressure Groups
After 1965, the Canadian government, like its counterparts across the western world, was faced with the challenge of responding to a host of new types of pressure groups (Wilson 1990, 141). With the arrival of groups articulating a variety of public interest positions, the political landscape was transformed. The electoral process is a process in which citizens are able to cast a retrospective judgment on government performance (Gibbins 1994, 400). The electoral process, however, does not enable citizens to direct the course of public policy. To address the everyday actions of government, pressure groups have come to serve as alternative policy instruments.
Political parties and other agencies of representation do not seem as attentive to the task of respecting diversity and multiplicity as do pressure groups (Pyrcz 1994, 330). In fact, Canadian political parties have proven to be less and less successful at carrying out their fundamental duties. Some of the more predominant reasons for this have to do with the emergence of the mass party, the impact of the electronic media, changes in the way economic and social life is organized, and the rise of specialized bureaucracies (Pross 1994, 183). Political parties have become proficient at running elections, but steadily less proficient at organizing communication with the grassroots (ibid., 184). Government policy can only serve as public policy if it is based on consultations with an interested public. At a time when many citizens are understandably disenchanted with political parties, involvement in pressure group activity has become increasingly attractive as an alternative means of influencing government (Grant 1989, 164). Pressure groups have a growing importance as a source of constructive opposition to government policy, and as a means of ensuring that the distance between government and the governed does not become too great. Pressure groups have also attempted to fill the representational vacuum at the grassroots level; groups have developed to address the needs of specialized interests. As working relations developed between grassroots groups and specific agencies, the formal political system became less and less important as a required ally. Instead, political interventions were reserved for major issues. As members of the public found it difficult to address large public issues through party channels, the public began forming advocacy groups which found ways to attract national attention and provoke public debate (Pross 1994, 184). The overall success of these advocacy groups led to a growing public conviction that an individual has a greater chance of influencing policy through a pressure group than through a political party.
Pressure groups are a major source of mediation between the government and the individual, articulating aggregated opinions and protecting the individual from excessive control by the state (Jackson 1998, 472). Pressure groups provide a mechanism for political representation which supplements the electoral process. This service assists the political system by marshaling support for various issues and providing ideas for public policy. Pressure groups enable the political process to be more responsive to social and economic differences in society than the electoral process. Groups provide government with information, both fact and opinion, that can potentially be used to help formulate policies, or discontinue a policy effort. This cycle of communication provides a valuable link between citizens and public policy by enabling government to keep in touch with fluctuations in public opinion (Jackson 1998, 472; Gibbins 1994, 398; Tanguay & Kay 1991, 102-3; Knight 1991, 3). As well, pressure groups help to disseminate and interpret state policies to their members, and assist the state by expanding the range of information available to the state for planning and management (Knight 1991, 4). Groups also act as agents of government by undertaking activities which would normally be a function of the state, such as licensing and regulating their members (Canadian Medical Association, Canadian Bar Association, Professional Biologist Association, etc.).
As Knight details, pressure groups perform these functions in vastly different ways and with varying levels of effectiveness (Knight 1991, 4). There are numerous factors which impact in the effectiveness of the functions of pressure groups. These factors will be discussed further on in the review.
4.2.1 The Role of Pressure Groups: Past, Present, and Future
The purpose of pressure groups in terms of their role in Canadian society, in the country’s politics, and in its policy development, is the focus of this part of the review. With a firm idea of what a pressure group is, one may now delve into the question of why pressure groups exist and why they are important; what is the purpose of pressure groups in Canadian society?
Pressure groups are social constructs with varying levels of cohesion and shared aims which attempt to influence the political decision-making process (Ball 1993, 103). They can be identified in all political systems and serve in various capacities, both formally and informally. Pluralist theorists place particular emphasis on the role of pressure groups in liberal democracies. They argue that the competing group interaction determines the outcome of many political conflicts, provides wider avenues of political participation, and also ensures a wider distribution of power (Ball 1993, 104). In promoting their members interests, groups perform four socially and politically significant functions. They administer, regulate, communicate, and legitimate (Pross 1994, 175). Pressure groups promote the common interests of their members as the central and foremost important function. If they do not adequately serve their members they generally cease to exist. Pressure groups serve to widen the range of interests that are taken into account in the legislative process. Wilson claims (1984, 22) that pressure groups counterbalance two inherent weaknesses in democracy (Grant 1989, 156). The first weakness is that democracy does not work for all people. The second inherent weakness is that electioneering encourages a short-term perspective on issues.
The first weakness emphasizes the fundamental link between the existence of pressure groups and the very survival of a system of democratic government. Freedom of association is a fundamental principle of democracy. Democracy permits the existence of groups, and these groups are seen to contribute to the quality of the decision-making process (Ball 1993, 21). Pressure groups enable citizens to express their views on complex issues which affect their lives. Ball believes that democracy cannot be simplified to a head-counting exercise. Instead, it must also take into account the strength of feelings expressed, and of the quality of the arguments advanced. Pressure group participation provides a voice, as well as an mechanism for citizens to participate in the experience of ruling and being ruled.
The following is a summary of the eight roles pressure groups play according to Pyrcz (1994, 340-5):
1) Pressure groups as agents of interest: The first role pressure groups perform is to identify, collect, express, and represent the interests and opinions of citizens.
2) Pressure groups as the agents of community: The second role of pressure groups is to develop a sense of community among citizens who share an interest and who consider this interest to be important to their identities.
3) Pressure groups as agents of power: Pressure groups effectively possess and exercise power over governments. Many political agents believe that they get more value from the political resources they expend in advancing their interests and concerns via pressure groups than they do from resources spent in political parties.
4) Pressure groups as the agents of Judicial Review: The fourth role of pressure groups is to use the authority and power of the law to protect and advance their members' interests.
5) Pressure groups as the agents of information: Pressure groups provide information to government and society. This information is of two sorts - political information and nonpolitical information. Both sorts of information are useful in representative democracies. Political information provides an indication of which interests and opinions citizens consider to be salient and important to their core interests. Nonpolitical information is information provided by the pressure group on the matters that affect their group's interests and opinions.
6) Pressure groups as agents of legitimacy: The sixth role of pressure groups is to provide legitimacy for governments, Cabinet members, bureaucrats, oppositions, elected representatives, political parties, and even journalists. In doing so, pressure groups run the risk of legitimizing the actions of government while government opts for the opposite of the pressure groups' desired result.
7) Pressure groups as the agents of leadership: Pressure groups provide political leadership. In doing so, they shape public opinion and often politicize the electorate - causing the public to become interested and active in politics and government.
8) Pressure groups as agents of advantage: Pressure groups seek and often achieve an advantage for the interests they represent.
Some pressure groups choose to devote all or most of their efforts to influencing government policy. Other groups may only rarely seek to influence government, instead they concentrate mainly on other activities. However, despite the area of focus, it can be said that those who belong to an organization or a group can be presumed to have a common interest. Along with the common interest, each individual also brings their purely individual interests, different from those of the others in the organization or group. It is the common interest, however, that brings people together to form a pressure group. And in spite of all the different interests held by the numerous different pressure groups, what each individual has in common, regardless of the group or organization they 'belong' to, is the desire to influence government policy, legislation, regulation or expenditures (Jackson 1998, 470). Aside from the obvious potential political role of pressure groups, they also perform a more subtle task of political communication by helping to create civil society. Groups are able to do this by fostering public spiritedness and motivation, increasing knowledge about public issues, promoting innovation, and helping to mobilize the public (Pross 1994, 177; Gibbins 1994, 398). In fact, in a study of local pressure groups, and how they were viewed by local Members of Parliament, revealed that even those groups with so-called offensive tactics or unrealistic demands were seen as serving an important communications function in the political system, as well as sparking much-needed debate on issues of public policy (Sidle 1993, 196).
Political parties are primarily instruments of governance rather than instruments for the transmission of policy preferences from the electorate to the government. As a result, other ways of transmitting information are required. Individuals are able to express themselves in a number of ways, however, the impact of an individual is very limited in terms of policy development. Where the individual is found to have little impact, pressure groups perform. Gibbins (1994, 396) uses the example of Greenpeace when comparing the impact of the individual with the impact of the pressure group. As an individual, one would be powerless to impact the policy process if it were not for groups like Greenpeace. On one's behalf, Greenpeace can lobby internationally, sail boats in front of whaling fleets, raise concern for whales in newspapers and magazines around the world, and organize consumer boycotts. Greenpeace becomes one's 'hired gun' with no more demand than the short time it takes to write a cheque. This minimal requirement, when considered cumulatively across thousands of individuals, provides the foundation for an effective political organization.
Pross (1992, 2) believes that pressure groups are essential in any modern state. In fact, he goes so far as to state that the rise in the number and proliferation of pressure groups in Canada has enhanced Canadian democracy (ibid.). Pressure groups provide information both to the government and the general public, thus serving as an information conduit. The provision of information also serves as a connector between government and the governed.
Because pressure groups are accepted within the political culture, there are legitimate channels for complaints and frustrations (Jackson 1998, 498). Citizens are provided an opportunity to articulate viewpoints and defend them. In doing so, most citizens do not have to resort to extra-legal behaviour to be heard. When citizens are part of a legitimized group, they are committed to acting within the system. When the purpose of pressure groups are presented in this fashion, they act as a safety valve for individual frustrations by allowing the possibility of joining with others to influence legislation. Thus, pressure groups provide a crucial and culturally acceptable link between citizen and public policy. Because of the important role pressure groups are said to play within the political arena, Pal believes that legislative committees should bring groups out of the background and provide explicit opportunities to support or reject bills (Pal 1993, 122).
In spite of the now obvious need for pressure groups in the Canadian political arena, there are limitations to the growth of pressure groups. If pressure groups were allowed to accumulate too much influence, there would be a risk to democracy. However, pressure groups operate in a political system in which they are checked by other political forces (Grant 1989, 163). The first check is public opinion; public opinion strongly influences the context in which pressure groups operate. The second check is political parties. The more broadly based political parties have to appeal beyond the relatively narrow concerns of most pressure groups to win elections. Because of these two 'controls', pressure groups' power is limited, for their power is based on the ability to persuade and to influence, rather than to make decisions or veto them.
4.2.2 Requirements and Limitations Experienced by Pressure Groups
Up to this point in the review, one is left with the understanding of the importance of the pressure group in Canadian politics, both formally and informally. However, there is a small portion of pressure groups who are able to exercise their democratic role to its fullest. The rest of the groups, desperate to play a larger role in the policy process, are denied from doing so. The reason for the denial is not necessarily a legislated one. In fact, restrictions come in the form of resources; they lack the necessary resources to fully participate in the Canadian policy process. This next part of the review will look at the limitations most groups experience, as well as some of the requirements that are thought to be essential in order for groups to be effective and successful in their endeavors. The first and largest section of this portion of the review is 'resources', with 'legislative' and 'legitimacy' to follow.
Participant Resources
Gibbins (1994, 397) asserts that one cannot assume that all interests within society will find adequate expression through organized groups. An effective organization requires resources. The resources referred to here, as well as throughout this research, are the resources cited by both activists and pressure group theorists as necessary to participate in policy development. The use of resources should not be confused with the term as it applies to natural resources such as forests and water. The term ‘resources’ as it is used in this research refers to the resources necessary to participate in the policy process in Canada; participant resources. Participant resources (referred to in this research here on in as ‘resources’) include things like money, leadership, and membership.
As a result of the unequal distribution of resources, group politics may extend the political influence of already powerful interests as much as they open up the political arena to a wider array of competing interests. According to Pal, power can be defined by the level of resources (such as membership, money, strategy, and leadership) that an organization (or group) maintains. The groups with the best mix of resources are presumed to win what they want from the political process (Pal 1994, 42). This approach assumes that politicians respond to the configurations of group power, and that government is not simply a neutral force.
Substantial variations exist in political and organizational resources, with industrial-business and professional groups tending to monopolize the instruments of political influence, both in numbers and resources (Presthus 1978, 68). As well, when one analyzes the relative political effectiveness of pressure groups, industrial-business types tend to rank highest. This is largely due to these groups having the greatest amount of resources, including the exceptional legitimacy that governmental elite’s provide to economic actors. As a result of the generosity of government, both access and influence vis-à-vis legislators and bureaucrats, are easier for the industrial-business and professional pressure group’s to obtain when compared to, for example, women's or ethnic groups (Presthus 1978, 69; Pyrcz 1994, 335).
The need for leadership and expert advice is unavoidable when a pressure group needs to know what government is thinking about, what it needs to know, and how to get the information to the right place at the right time, and in the most acceptable form (Pross 1993, 148; Ball 1993, 110). In order to accomplish the objective of communication, pressure groups must have an expert staff, or at least a well-informed membership, able to communicate with government officials at bureaucratic as well as elected levels, on a continuous basis. The lack of staff in general is a serious deficiency within the pressure group setting because it generally means that the group does not have expert knowledge about what government is doing or thinking about the issue of concern. As a result, members tend to work in a vacuum (Pross 1993, 150).
When considering resources, Jackson & Jackson (1998, 478) have provided an overall summary of what are necessary ingredients for success for pressure groups:
- An appealing issue; one that will garner very broad public sympathy/support, and increase the size of the group, or at least increase its support.
- Good leadership is important; a strong, vocal, and prestigious leader brings valuable publicity and direction.
- A high-status general membership further increases the chance of success. Distinguished, influential people bring contacts and other resources, as well as having easier personal access to bureaucrats and politicians.
- A permanent organizational structure is important because it helps the group act cohesively. Internal divisions weaken the group. Sections of society that have common interests but are unorganized usually have little long-term impact on public perceptions.
- Large budgets naturally assist in achieving and maintaining access to policy-makers. Property does not guarantee success, but it does increase its possibility.
- Flexibility is another important factor in achieving success, since it is often necessary to compromise one part of a demand to achieve another. The need for flexibility also includes the value of developing networks with other like-minded groups to share resources and amplify the support behind an issue.
- The final important condition of success consists of knowing where and when access to policy-makers can be achieved.
Ball adds to this list the importance of co-operation; governments want advice, technical information, as well as co-operation from strong pressure groups (Ball 1993, 111). By not securing at least a minimal amount of the necessary resources, these disadvantaged groups will remain underrepresented as will their interests in the policy process (Knight 1991, 11; Pal 1997, 194).
The above summation does not cover the entire spectrum of necessary resources, because these vary with the societal and cultural considerations. For example, what is deemed as absolutely necessary in Canada, may not completely apply to pressure groups politics in other countries. One could even go so far as to say what is found to be essential pressure group requirements in western Canada or British Columbia, does not completely apply to the east coast of Canada.
Legislature
The introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms into Canadian society in 1982 redefined the relationship between the individual and the state (Sidle 1993, 189). In fact, the Charter has clearly, and in some cases dramatically, changed the Canadian policy process (Pal 1993, 152). The academic literature supports the view that the state is less than it used to be, in light of the implications of the Charter (Pross 1996, 43).
In spite of the lessened importance of the state, the legislature remains a prominent player in the policy process. Because of this, pressure groups must be aware of procedure when dealing with a legislature in order to efficiently utilize resources. When choosing a lobbying strategy, a group must consider the extent of its resources, as well as the extent of its lobbying efforts. A group may choose to not only lobby legislators and bureaucrats. Instead, they may lobby in concert with arousing public opinion. However, no amount of persuasion of the government by pressure groups will be effective unless public opinion is in agreement with a lobby, or at least not hostile to its demands (Jackson & Jackson 1998, 482; White 1998, 118). As well, pressure groups must be aware of the policy process within the legislature. Policies are made before they reach Parliament, therefore, lobbying MPs at this point is not the most effective use of group energy and resources. Instead, the most beneficial form of lobbying is probably to target key bureaucrats and ministers while policy is in the development stage (Jackson & Jackson 1998, 483).
With the realization of the procedure of the policy process, pressure groups work towards their goals in vastly different ways with varying levels of effectiveness. There are numerous factors that cause this variation in effectiveness, however, theorists have suggested that access and legitimacy are the most important (Knight 1991, 4). Access is determined by the level of legitimacy bestowed upon a group by members of the policy process.
Seeking Legitimacy
Pressure groups are not strongly oriented towards Parliament because of the limited capacity groups have in influencing public policy within this forum (Sidle 1993, 190). In addition to limitations on the ability to influence, it was found that even if the newer, issue oriented groups, or those speaking for previously underrepresented elements, opted for the legislative path to address their interests, they lack the privileged access to government (Sidle 1993, 193). In the attempt to overcome these limitations, groups have accessed the power to reach the public via dramatic demonstrations carried on television and in other media.
In Canadian politics there are many represented interests, and over time a considerable number of people representing these interests exert influence in the policy process. However, unless these groups of interests have access to more resources than most individuals and the majority of companies, they lack the ability to sustain their influence (Pross 1993, 145). The end effect of a system persisting with unequal distribution of resources is that legitimate, wealthy, coherent interests, having multiple access to the legislative process, will tend to be more influential than less legitimate, poor, diffuse interests, which have few sources of access to the legislative process (Pross 1993, 153; White 1998, 160).
It is important for pressure groups to use the access points provided within the political system and establish a framework for mutual consultation (Jackson & Jackson 1998, 485; Ball 1993, 109). Legitimacy may be obtained by working within the established system. These types of actions indicate that the group has obtained recognition as the representative for its particular interests. The established interaction is a symbol of the compatibility of the groups' goals and tactics with both Canadian political culture and the goals of the government (Ball 1993, 109). The legitimacy established by a group provides further access to the bureaucracy and Cabinet during the pre-parliamentary stages of a bill where the most change is possible.
The rewards of legitimacy for pressure groups is the knowledge that policy-makers acknowledge that the groups speak for a significant portion of the general population. With this acknowledgment comes power. Policy-makers recognize that the pressure group(s) speaks for a part of the public that can be mobilized into political action should its interests not be accommodated in public policy. This legitimacy bestowed upon a pressure group serves as a useful group-governmental bargaining tool (Pross 1992, 9; Pyrcz 1994, 334; Eckstein 1960, 20; White 1998, 158).
The importance of gaining and maintaining legitimacy, however, can result in groups compromising their principles and goals. For example, Greenpeace began as a direct action group applying civil disobedience as the mainstay for garnering support. However, in their efforts to gain political legitimacy, Greenpeace has increasingly devoted more resources to research, report-writing, and to more conventional lobbying techniques than to direct action. As a result, Greenpeace has alienated members who have been supporters from the outset. It is these supporters who feel that Greenpeace has compromised their purity and effectiveness in their drive to gain mainstream legitimacy (Grant 1989, 20).
Compromise also occurs in other forms. There are pressure groups who are either largely or partially funded by government and industry. The pursuit of organizational development through these types of financial support has obvious limitations. The groups in these situations can feel constrained when their agenda challenges the orientation of government and of the corporate sector (Coleman & Skogstad 189, 9). If a group takes their challenge too far, they risk losing their funds as well as their capacity to act. However, if they back down from their agenda established by their members, they risk group legitimacy and face eventual disintegration. As a result, state sponsorship of pressure groups appears to be as much a method for controlling dissent as it is for assisting the disadvantaged. The possibilities for government supported groups to initiate policy changes are clearly limited.
4.2.3 The Operating Structures of Pressure Groups
The functions of pressure groups have much to do with their internal organizational structure (Pross 1993, 145). The operating structures of pressure groups can take on two general forms: hierarchical/leader-led or grassroots/consensus-based. Most pressure groups would fall under both at varying degrees depending on the issue and available expertise. The structure, in turn, is greatly influenced by variables such as the kind of resources made available by the group's members, members' determination to promote their common interests through exerting influence, as well as the characteristics of the political system itself. The structure of the pressure group in terms of decision-making affects its ability to respond to immediate issues. The pluralistic nature of our society creates many cross-pressures within individuals and makes it difficult for larger groups to consolidate their membership for concerted action (White 1998, 156). Hjelmar states that in hierarchical organizations, the right to exercise power is centralized which makes these types of organizations capable of reacting more promptly to urgent issues (Hjelmar 1996, 5). However, organizations that operate with a grass-roots, consensus based decision-making model are unable to react promptly. Instead, they must take the time to inform, discuss with all interested members, and then try and arrive at a consensus based decision.
Most pressure groups progress through an organizational life cycle, beginning their existence as a relatively ill-equipped, under-financed and naive organization concerned with the resolutions of one or two issues or problems (Tanguay & Kay 1991, 83). They tend to seek publicity or media attention more than access to key political decision makers. If the once new groups are able to adapt to the political system, they then expand their membership base and increase their access to knowledge of the workings of government. The most important determinant of the selection of channels for pressure group activity in any political system is the structure of the decision-making processes (Eckstein 1960, 16). By gaining further insight into the 'workings of government', pressure groups are able to influence policy decisions more effectively.
Since the profile of pressure groups has increased over the past three decades, there has been open criticism regarding various structural attributes. There have been concerns about pressure groups and the degree to which they actually represent the people they claim to represent (Pross 1994, 181). The internal decision-making processes are said to be frequently undemocratic and dominated by an elite and not the membership at large. As well, the tactics used by some groups are believed to be an abuse of the general principles of civil discourse in politics. Opinion has gone so far as to state that some groups unnecessarily polarize issues and encourage their members to take extreme positions and to refuse compromise. In taking the position of 'no compromise', these pressure groups' interests cannot be met within the Canadian political structure.
Pressure groups, as well as other organizations, can also develop momentum that goes beyond the intentions and interests of key actors, even when organizational action initially unfolds in an orderly and rational fashion (Hannan 1989, 6). Organizations can take on lives of their own, which can be largely independent of the wishes and interests of those who created them. Another way that an organization can lose sight of the initial objectives is when organizations face potential demise or the status quo is threatened. This may be due to changes in social, economic, or political systems, which will affect organizational structures and practices, as well as changes in membership. When faced with the need to preserve status quo, an organization's goals may be displaced in favour of the aim of simply maintaining the organization and its hierarchy of power and privilege (Michels 1915, 49). As a result, the private goals of the more powerful members tend to dominate the public goals as an organization ages (Pross 1994, 181). The politics of resource allocation in an organization prevents these members from responding quickly to pressures to alter organizational practice or to initiate new kinds of action (Hannan 1989, 6).
Organizations, especially the larger and more powerful, rarely change strategy and structure quickly enough to keep up with a constantly changing social, political, and economic environment (Hannan 1989, 12). Pross describes most pressure groups as "chameleons"; they take their lobbying role seriously and will adapt their internal organizations and structure to suit the policy system in which they happen to operate (Pross 1993, 147). The smaller, newer organizations, however, are far more flexible. Organizational change occurs in response to environmental changes, threats, and opportunities. Where the smaller and newer organizations have the advantage of flexibility in organizational structure and adaptation, the larger more established groups have superior capacities for creating specialized units to deal with emerging environmental problems. As well, the larger, more established groups have the membership and notoriety to forestall or direct change. In light of the advantages and disadvantages of both the large structures of some organizations and the smaller, newer organizations, one can see the potential strength in developing networks amongst organizations that share common goals. One can also see the need for both types of groups on the political scene.
4.2.4 The Co-Existence of Pressure Groups
In political life there are many interests requiring representation to ensure they are represented in the policy process. In order for organizations to be a part of this extremely complex process, they must have access to more resources than most individuals and the majority of companies in order to sustain their influence (Pross 1993, 146). For most organizations who want to take part in the process, the only feasible way to do so is to band together with other like-minded organizations to share costs and to deploy at appropriate times the numerous talents that participation in the policy process requires (Coleman & Skogstad 1989, 85).
In liberal democracies, such as Canada's, pressure groups thrive within pluralist systems; such systems allow a diversity of interests to be pursued by a wide variety of associations (Jackson & Jackson 1998, 473). Within the pluralist allowances, pressure groups often unite together both formally and informally. A policy community consists of numerous actors or potential actors who share a common policy focus and help shape policy outcomes over time. Pressure groups, within this regime, maintain a relatively narrow focus and tend to be part of only one policy community but can, with the strength of a network, be quite a force within the one policy community. As a result, it is often the notably successful groups who opt to join, at least temporarily, with other groups to bolster each other’s claims (Jackson & Jackson 1998, 478). As well, networks offer greater flexibility and capacity to accommodate differences within a movement. Organizations within themselves may become specialized, but collectively, as a network, the movement covers a diversity of issues (Phillips 1994, 191). In light of the potential benefits of networking, groups must maintain flexibility in order to make use of all the access points available to them.
4.3 Pressure Groups in the Policy Process
This section of the literature review will focus on pressure groups within the policy process; what generally happens, why it happens, and any recent changes that have occurred in the policy process regarding the role of pressure groups.
Pressure groups are impressive democratic bodies due, in large part, to their diversity and multiplicity (Pyrcz 1994, 332). And, in spite of the media's general presentation of a coupe type approach by pressure groups, their participation in the policy system is thought to be generally continuous, discreet, and multifaceted (Pross 1993, 153). The existence of pressure groups in Canada, as stated in the introduction, has a fairly long history for such a relatively young country. However, it was not until the late 1960's that pressure groups grew in number and prominence (Pal 1993, 148). This is due to the advent of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, which created new opportunities for pressure group politics in Canada. It is believed by some students of policy development that pressure groups have functions to perform that are just as necessary to the development of government policy as those performed by other political actors such as political parties, executives, and courts (Pross 1993, 147). One must consider, however, that the way in which pressure groups perform those functions is as much determined by the shape of the policy system as it is by the knowledge, the enthusiasm, the financial capacity, and other internal characteristics of individual groups (ibid.).
There are basic rules regarding the task of government in the policy process. At its most basic, the task of government is to hold societies together. To do this, Richardson believes that the major sections of society must somehow be accommodated in the policy process as part of the basic role of government. If the state is unable to accomplish this basic requirement, then society itself is threatened (Richardson 1993, 15). As stated by Jackson, the interaction of pressure groups within the political system requires mutual accommodation at all points (Jackson & Jackson 1998, 492). In fact, it has been found that government agencies find it helpful to have friendly pressure groups endorsing government policies, programs, and budgets before Parliamentary committees and the media (Pross 1994, 179). There is the realization by all parties involved in the policy process that all other parties have an investment in the outcome of the legislative process, and therefore have a legitimate share in the formulation of public policy. This type of accommodation is referred to as "elite accommodation" (Presthus 1973, 4). Elite accommodation is a structural requisite of any democratic society in which policy decisions are the result of negotiation and consultation among the parties (the elite) concerned. Presthus considers elite accommodation as inherent in the process of democratic government.
As mentioned, unlike political parties, pressure groups do not run candidates for public office under their own organizations label. Pressure groups are active in influencing election outcomes by vocalizing their support for candidates who support their cause. Between elections pressure groups' primary focus is directed toward cabinet where policy formation takes place. However, with the growing presence of the courts of law in politics, pressure groups are using the courts to pursue political objectives (Gibbins 1994, 397).
Aside from the organizational considerations such as financial resources, membership commitment, and knowledge requirements, there is also the role of government in the pressure groups' effort to convince policy-makers of the rightness of their cause. Government affects pressure groups behaviour just as much as organizational considerations like structure, resources and legitimacy. In fact, those pressure groups who take the lobbying role seriously have been found to adapt their internal organizations and structure to suit the policy system in which they operate (Pross 1993, 147). Because of this need to be flexible on the part of pressure groups, the groups working at the provincial level in Canada are often quite different from those groups who concentrate their efforts at the federal level. To go further, this is why both groups are found to be quite different from their counterparts in other parts of the world, including the United States.
The potential limitations experienced by pressure groups, as outlined in a previous section, are typically experienced by the new, small pressure groups; they either continue to exist in spite of these limitations, or they no longer exist. Because of the limitations (financial, organizational, leadership, and expert knowledge), there are pressure groups who resort to confrontational tactics in order to gain a voice in the policy making decisions. Pross believes that confrontation is dysfunctional for groups in the long run, but does recognize that in the early life of a group it can be very important and sometime essential (Pross 1993, 151). Because groups generally emerge in response to a policy issue, chances are these groups have not participated in the actual policy development that led to the decision they are concerned about. Therefore the group is entering at a point in the policy process when events have moved beyond the stage of participation by the group. As a result, the development of a pressure group over the formation or demise of a policy provides groups with few options as to how to respond. Under these circumstances, confrontation may be the best available strategy.
The pressure groups who progress from this 'placard carrying' stage are believed to do so by changing its relationship to its members by adapting to the policy system (Pross 1993, 151). Pross believes it is at this point that a group is required to get past the single issue focus, instead they must take up various causes. This is a common progression for environmental groups. They begin with a single-issue focus, gain notoriety, membership, and financial resources, then progress from there to focus on more general environmental issues. In doing so, the group is able to garner a larger membership base and potentially increase the level of finances. The larger membership base may provide further access to expert knowledge, as well as political clout with membership numbers representing voting citizens. This growth includes the financial capacity to hire professionals such as lawyers, public policy experts, and public relations experts. These professionals and experts provide the means for a pressure group to better participate in the policy process. The growth also signifies the first step in institutionalization of the pressure group. Pross believes that from this point on the organization does not change in structure, focus, or approach. The growth allows the organization to become more complex, more capable of responding and adapting to changes in the policy system, and - to the disappointment to grassroots minded people - typically more remote and professional, guided increasingly by paid staff (Pross 1993, 151).
The move towards institutionalization provides the pressure group more readily the attention of government officials. In doing so, the level of legitimacy - both political and societal - afforded the group also increases, thus projecting the group further along the institutional path. This progression steers the pressure group in its chosen actions. As the group becomes more intimate with the details of bureaucratic decision-making, it is less likely to utilize the media as a tool to influence the public and politicians (Pross 1993, 152).
An example of a pressure group which fits the above progression is Greenpeace. Greenpeace began with seven students concerned about nuclear testing. They began with a single issue, and garnered tremendous support via the local, national, and international media. The public became aware overnight of this single issue, and a new pressure group was born. Now Greenpeace is an international organization with offices on every continent, millions of members, a multi-million dollar budget, hired experts, and a sophisticated public relations effort.
With the progression of pressure groups comes specialization. This specialization occurs in all areas of management including government, private companies, and pressure groups. To specialize is to focus on one specific area and to come to know that area of focus entirely so that one may serve as a source of information for others not specializing in this area. Specialization within the political community results in what is called "policy communities" - groupings of government agencies, pressure groups, media people, and individuals who, for various reasons, have an interest in a particular policy field and attempt to influence it (Pross 1993, 154).
The presence of policy communities limits the participation of others in any policy debate. As mentioned previously, Pross describes those who are excluded from the policy debate as the "attentive public" (Pross 1993, 155). The attentive public lacks the power of the state, but still plays a vital role in policy development. From its strategic territory between the government and the public at large, the attentive public has the power to force the emergence of issues from the policy community into the larger political system (Gardner 1990, 4). Another role of the attentive public is to maintain a perpetual policy review process. In other words, the attentive public plays the role of the scrutinizers; constantly ensuring that the inclusive policy players are performing as expected. In doing so, the policy process should never at any point become static or unchanging. One may look at the attentive public as the catalyst for constant progression.
Pressure groups and members of the attentive public are the most mobile members of the policy community. Via informal networks, they are able to cross the organizational lines that formal players within the policy development circle cannot. These networks, and their role in evaluating policy and developing opinion, make pressure groups important members of the policy community (Pross 1993, 155-6). There are times when this generally predictable policy relationship is altered. When circumstances occur beyond the control of both the formal and informal policy community, such as economic changes, technological change, or a shift in public concern, the usual procedures are not equipped to handle these changes. Instead, the issue will be resolved at the highest political levels. When this occurs, the policy community, and the policy itself, is often altered well beyond its original state.
Another way that pressure groups are able to participate in the policy process is via the committee system (Jackson & Jackson 1998, 487). A committee is a body of people appointed for a special function by a larger body like the government or a branch of government. The objective of a committee is to gather information and either arrive at a decision, or provide information or choices to an appointed body. Some examples of committees within the Canadian political arena are the Agriculture Committee, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, and the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee. These examples do not even begin to represent the multitude of committees and the subjects of interests within the Canadian political system. It is through committees that pressure groups often serve, representing their interests amongst numerous other interests.
Similar to the duration of time that serving on a committee can require, passage of legislation is a very lengthy process, often taking years. Knowing this, pressure groups are able to utilize this wait of passage lobbying government and conducting public relations campaigns, especially if they are opposed to the proposed legislation (Jackson & Jackson 1998, 488). This effort by pressure groups often results in the delay of a proposed bill, which can often be just as effective as working to have a proposed bill thrown out.
In spite of the growing realization of the crucial democratic role pressure groups play in the Canadian political society, there is a growing concern that pressure groups have too much influence in public decision-making (Pross 1994, 173, 180). This concern derives from the belief that too often the special interest that pressure groups speak for overrides the general public interest. As a result, pressure groups are seen to pose a threat to the Canadian, constitutionally established, representative institutions - the legislatures. So then, one is faced with the question of how the Canadian political system is able to make effective use of these relatively new machines for political communication, while respecting Canada's traditional, party-based system of democratic government (Pross 1994, 173). One suggestion has been to simply impose limits on the media and their coverage. In order to offset the level of coverage a pressure group receives, the media could establish equity between those who are elected and accountable to the people and those who have a special interest (Pross 1994, 180). Presthus (1973) suggests that for political markets to be competitive, and yield plans that promote the public interest rather than favour particular interests, there are five important considerations that must be satisfied (Knight 1991, 10):
1) power must be diffuse in the system;
2) all interests must be represented in the process;
3) pressure group leaders must accurately reflect the goals and aspirations of the group's members;
4) individuals must possess a multiplicity of overlapping membership so that narrow self-interests are tempered; and
5) the political market place must have multiple points of access (therefore equality of opportunity) and a government that is open and receptive to all interests.
Presthus' requirements to ensure pressure groups' interests are not given priority over the general publics’ appears to be somewhat of a 'wish list'. Each point's relevance would be difficult to argue, but the feasibility of obtaining the degree of openness, accountability, and access proposed by Presthus is optimistic to say the least.
Regardless of Presthus' optimistic criteria for attempting to equalize the representativeness of all interests in the policy process, there exists a perception that groups desiring attention to influence the public will use whatever means in order to dictate what the media considers news.
4.4 Pressure Groups in Action
The "pressure groups in action" section will be looking at the specific actions employed by pressure groups. To accomplish this task, the focus will be to look at actions that have been utilized, as detailed in pressure group theory.
Critics of the present system of policy development assert that the public interest is not represented by those who make major decisions in society (Knight 1991, 13). Instead, the participants involved in policy development are accused of being motivated by their own self-interests or class interests versus the interests of the general public. As a result, there is an elite group maintaining the policy-making power while groups outside the elite are forced to adopt radical measures to initiate even small changes in the status quo (Eckstein 1960, 21). In spite of the apparent realities, pressure groups place a high priority on access to upper-level bureaucrats. To gain access to this level of decision-making, a pressure group obtains highly valuable information that other groups do not have (Knight 1991, 15). The pressure groups who secure such a privileged position do so because they are not a direct threat to the government and the status quo, otherwise the government would not find it in its best interests to allow such an elitist position.
Jackson believes that the most fundamental ingredient for the political success of a pressure group is that its values, goals, and tactics are compatible with the country's political culture, thereby being perceived as legitimate (Jackson & Jackson 1998, 478). Gaining public support is essential for without it a group has very little chance of receiving government recognition. Groups who employ violent demonstration tactics, rather than negotiation, meet rigid resistance within the Canadian system. The same can be said of those who approve goals foreign to the Canadian political culture such as the concept of state controlled family planning.
In light of the position of most pressure groups, who are members of the attentive public with no access to high level decision-making, there is hope that the force of logical and well-prepared arguments will be sufficient to convince reluctant ministers and skeptical bureaucrats to adopt their proposals. When this fails, these pressure groups resort to other ways of garnering support. Many groups, especially the newer groups, look to the public by arousing emotional support to persuade government that general support for the pressure group's proposal exists (Pross 1992, 3; Sidle 1993, 193). The pressure groups may also appeal to the unions for support, or initiate economic boycotts, or get industry-business on side in order to sway government. The choice of tactics of persuasion is as extensive as the relationship between government and the society it serves (ibid.). Persuasion is the underlying objective of any action employed by pressure groups; to persuade agreement or support for their views and interests.
Persuasion depends on various attributes such as organization, persistence, the level of knowledge regarding the issue at hand, as well as the financial resources available to pressure groups. Aside from the necessary attributes that enable pressure groups to accomplish their goals, there are certain steps that are deemed necessary (Pross 1992, 3): common objectives must be identified, strategies worked out, procedures adopted, responsibilities assigned, and consistent positions formulated, if a group is to persuade government to take specific action. Pross believes that, above all, pressure group activity must have continuity if it is to have lasting effect.
The policy process in Canada, like other countries, is highly bureaucratic. As a result, most successful pressure groups are those that know who to talk to - and when - and are able to communicate in a bureaucratic fashion, with briefs, working papers, and professional consultations, as opposed to the use of placards and demonstrations (Pross 1992, 15).
The term successful, when looking at the pressure groups and those admitted by the bureaucracy, would include considerations such as access, impact, and overall level of representation of a group's interests and concerns by the bureaucracy. To encourage the odds of success, some major pressure groups in Canada have established themselves as federations in order to influence the local, provincial, and federal governments within the Canadian political structure (White 1998, 157). Some examples of established federations are the Canadian Bankers Association, the BC Federation of Teachers, and the Canadian Construction Association. These are just a sample of the numerous federations in Canada that exist solely to represent the interests and values of their members, and to increase their access to the policy making process.
In looking at levels of access, Leon Dion (1971, 335) found that the groups who were afforded the best access to government were those that neither wholly opposed nor wholly endorsed the policies of governments. Whereas, the groups that were denied effective access to governments were either those that embraced governmental policy or those that were wholly opposed to government. Participation in the democratic process requires some degree of equal access, balanced debate, diversity of expression, and the absence of overwhelming bias favouring one side or another (Danielian & Page 1994, 1057). Public debate in which important voices were silent or drowned out could mislead the public and would also ill serve democracy.
This next part of the "pressure groups in action" section of the review will look at specific actions of pressure groups in general, as well as at tactics used by specific types of pressure groups.
Media Use and Advertising
Media coverage has clearly had an important role in promoting concern about various pressure groups, especially those concerned with environmental issues. There is strong circumstantial evidence that the priorities of policy-makers and the general public are influenced, though not determined, by the issues stressed in news coverage (Fletcher 1992, 180). There have been a number of case studies done that have shown that sustained media attention has forced government action on a particular issue or problem. One is then able to conclude that media coverage influences public perceptions and the responses of politicians by framing issues as economic or social, personal, or political (ibid.).
Media use and advertising is a mainstay for pressure groups at some point or another. Groups influence public opinion through advertising, via direct lobbying, by capturing media attention, and by exploiting Parliament (Pross 1992, 166). Media use and advertising serve as a way of getting in touch with members of the general public who may be sympathetic to a group’s cause. As well, politicians of every rank are also susceptible to the influences of media and advertising, serving as a potential sympathetic ear to the cause (Cook et al 1983, 25). The general public and politicians, with their newly formed opinions, are able to serve pressure groups by providing the information. This service can be in various forms. For example, a number of people of the general public may sit down and write a heart-felt letter to their local politician, providing copies for the provincial and national representative, voicing their distaste for the particular action or bill that was presented to them via the media, with the original information gained from a pressure group utilizing media. Perhaps the politician will go to work the next day and make a few calls to influence the issue at hand. Either way, the use of media and advertising can be an especially gainful option for any pressure group with a well-worded message. But as pointed out in an earlier portion of the review, most pressure groups are limited in their venues due to the lack of financial resources.
The lack of resources will indeed limit the extent of advertising done by a group, but the use of media remains an option. Therefore, groups with many willing volunteers but little cash have come to rely on the free advertising provided by the media. One may think that the only real limitation in using media is the imagination of the members of the group in deciding how to grab the attention of reporters and television cameras. Actually, this has been found to be untrue. Theories of biased pluralism have revealed that the level of media coverage is proportional to material resources, especially money, organization, and media-related skills (Danielian & Page 1994, 1059). Because most corporations and business associations have far more resources than most other pressure groups, one is able to assume that there is a dominance of corporate and business interests in public debate and media coverage. Journalistic emphasis upon the novel, the spectacular, and the contentious provides the resource-poor pressure groups little choice but to draw media attention with protests, demonstrations, and other such activities (Danielian & Page 1994, 1060). With the corporate pressure group bias, the notion of balance in terms of representation in media coverage is just that, a notion.
In spite of the hard-earned, potential benefits of media use and advertisement for pressure groups, Pyrcz believes that groups are most active, and often most effective, when they are out of the news; nurturing their access to public decision-makers (Pyrcz 1994, 333). Pyrcz makes the assumption that pressure groups can all gain equal access to the policy decision-makers in order to impact the final outcome. The potential ideological burden of soliciting the attention of the media is that once a group presents its position on an issue, the media can create an ideological niche in which groups may find it difficult to change in spite of fluctuating situations. Unfortunately for a pressure group in this position, life is not static. If the group wavers from its position, and the media reports this, it may create a feeling of distrust amongst the public and the membership (Sidle 1993, 197). However, the media can also beneficially serve the newer, issue oriented groups, as well as the more seasoned groups in their efforts to obtain and maintain the public's and politicians' attention. Going public is an important technique of communication that pressure groups rely upon to obtain and maintain public support for the policy positions the group feels the government should take (Pross 1994, 176). Because it is the function of the media in a democratic system to inform the public, the pressure groups with limited resources often create newsworthy events so that information about their group and their activities will be publicized without a cost to the group (Jackson & Jackson 1998, 488).
Direct Lobbying
Lobbying, with the knowledge of the policy process and skill in presenting a clients case to decision-makers, has become a fixture in our modern, extremely complex, governmental system (Pross 1994, 179). Lobbyists working within the Canadian parliamentary system face some daunting challenges. In order for a lobbyist to be effective, he/she must have reliable information about when, where, and how decisions are being made, along with an ability to penetrate the screening structures set up to shield decision-makers from unwanted entreaties (Wilson 1992, 117). A good lobbyist must earn good access to decision-makers as well as to those who supply the information and advice on which decisions are based. Wilson believes that it is essential to recognize the power of those who shape Cabinet ministers' perceptions of problems and solutions.
For direct lobbyists, Wilson (1992, 117) details how lobbyists are able to best address the challenges:
- cultivate alliances; when the door of a new contact opens, make sure that one's homework is complete by understanding the audience;
- the higher up the ladder the bureaucrat is, the more valuable their time is; be concise and provide illustrations if possible;
- the art of successful negotiation requires that a person understand what his/her adversaries value and need as people - and give it before he/she is able to receive it;
- build personal rapport with people who are sympathetic;
- figure out a strategy for building coalitions across parties; and
- follow-up is critical (i.e. credit those deserving credit).
The list provides some general guidelines considering that there is considerable variation across both pressure groups and issues. The extent of variation includes the degree of access to decision-makers and in the extent to which access translates into influence. It has been found that access and influence are generally better where the issue is not perceived to entail major and visible redistribution of scarce resources among pressure groups or government agencies (Wilson 1992, 118).
In spite of lobbying being a fixture in our modern and complex government system, there continues to be a degree of distrust towards lobbyists. The efficiency at which most lobbyists operate has inevitably drawn suspicion. Even the firms who fulfill their objectives with integrity are observed with suspicion because of the fact that the wealthy are most likely to succeed in the policy process because they can buy lobbying expertise. This is galling to many Canadians who believe in equal rights for all in a democratic society. The function and necessity of lobbying in the Canadian political culture has not alleviated the distaste for its existence. This situation may never resolve itself.
Parliament
Parliament, a formal channel of access, has become an important target for groups wishing to publicize their demands and receive the legislature's support (Sidle 1993, 194). With the participation and endorsement of Parliament regarding the efforts of a specific pressure group comes the interest from other pressure groups to also get Parliament on-side. In spite of the fact that some MPs subscribe to the argument that the Canadian Parliament has been highjacked by pressure groups, there is a more prominent view that groups make a useful contribution by providing information, proposing policies, and providing reaction as to whether legislation and regulations will be workable. This has been reiterated by such well known environmental activists as Elizabeth May. She has stated that she works extensively with MPs individually and members of standing and legislative committees (Sidle 1993, 200).
Pross believes that the more direct-action methods such as blockades, placard carrying, and boycotts do not work in the long run (Pross 1993, 150). In short term, the action may result in a decision being turned around, but to change policy groups need to be close to government thinking. Groups also need to overcome the barriers created by administrative secrecy, and become knowledgeable about where and when to intervene as a pressure group.
In spite of Parliament's potential limitations, it has become a valuable tool amongst the leaders of pressure groups. Because of the fragmentation of election discourse as a result of the increasing role of pressure groups, the parties' ownership claim on the election stage has become the subject of considerable debate (Hiebert 1991, 3). The increase in election involvement by pressure groups has introduced a new dynamic to election contests and the parliamentary process, as well it has raised questions regarding the fairness and appropriateness of the present regulatory regime (Hiebert 1992, 4). For example, some are in favour of allowing pressure groups to participate financially in elections and the parliamentary process through actions such as donations towards specific political parties and more ready access to pre-policy development. In allowing this, groups force parties to address issues that they would otherwise be reluctant to have put on the political agenda (Hiebert 1991, 8). However, unless the legislation enacted in 1974, which prohibits pressure groups from incurring expenses to promote or oppose candidates or parties, is addressed (Hiebert 1991, 13), the level of participation by pressure groups in formal elections will remain limited.
In spite of the limitations on participation of pressure groups in the formal political channels, there has been a recent increase in the chorus of criticism regarding the election activities of organized pressure groups. There is the perception that these rapidly proliferating bodies - representing diverse interests - are becoming more organized and openly political (Tanquay & Kay 1993, 77). The tactics employed have resulted in the general fear that pressure groups may influence electoral outcomes by hijacking the political agenda, thereby diminishing the role of the traditional representative institutions in a democracy - the political parties. The fear is that ultimately this could lead to government by special interests, with political parties and individual candidates becoming increasingly accountable to a few wealthy groups with the resources to propagate their views (Tanquay & Kay 1993, 78; White 1998, 85).
Protests
Nonviolent demonstrations are used as a means of securing publicity for a group's cause. Both violent and nonviolent protests do not fit within the norms of mutual accommodation between pressure groups and policy-makers in Canada (Jackson & Jackson 1998, 483). As a result, Jackson & Jackson believe that groups who employ the protest tactic risk being ignored, discredited or pacified with purely symbolic action. As well, the use of protests, and other well publicized attempts to influence legislators, such as bombarding representatives with petitions, letters, and telegrams, tend to bear out the generalization that noise accompanies political weakness (Ball 1993, 112; Danielian & Page 1994, 1057). Ball suggests that governments and pressure groups operate within a web of political values and attitudes that provide other variables to determine group effectiveness (Ball 1993, 115). The result is that pressure groups are expected to learn the already established intricacies of policy development and abide by them in order to be effective in impacting the outcome of policies.
As stated earlier, Pross also believes that confrontation is deemed dysfunctional for groups in the long run (Pross 1993, 150). However, in the early life of pressure groups, protests can be very important tools, sometimes they are essential. The less organized, policy-polished groups lack the influence within the policy community. The lack of influence may be countered by exciting public discussion on the issues that concern them. The essentials for participating in policy discussions - standing in the policy community, knowledge of the policy process, and the language used - are lacking in a lot of groups. Consequently an appeal to public opinion may be the best way - sometimes the only way - to challenge specific decisions or to object to an undesirable policy and to embarrass governments into taking action (Pross 1992, 124). Actions are often in response to an issue already in the presentation stage. Pressure group options are limited as to how to stop the progression they oppose. As a result, only those actions with the most media grab can be considered. By making use of protests, a group is able to make use of the media's ability to influence the only decision-makers who may still be able to change the course of events - the politicians (Pross 1993, 150).
Phillips, in defense of the various actions employed by pressure groups, including protests/demonstrations, states that all political issues and discourses are filtered through values and ideologies, thus, meaning is always constructed or framed (Phillips 1994, 194). Pressure groups do not accomplish the framing of issues "... by locking themselves away in offices, but by being visible to people, demonstrating the injustices, the causes, and reasons for working for change” (ibid.). Phillips believes that by getting people to act, the group reinforces a collective identity and communicates its 'frames' to others. The wide-spread acceptance of the projected frames by groups does not occur as the result of a single event. Instead, it can take many actions and efforts which can span over months, years, or generations.
There are numerous opinions offered regarding the degree of effectiveness of protests in impacting the outcome of a policy or other issue. Some theorists believe that protests are necessary within certain criteria, a tool that should be accessed as frequently as deemed necessary. Others believe it should never be accessed for the result will not be suitable for all parties involved and the group employing the action will marginalize itself further. One could also look at it simply from the stance that as long as the average citizen is being drawn into political participation, then varying degrees of effectiveness have been accomplished. Ball supports this summation in stating that by encouraging wider political participation, pressure groups are said to extend the liberal democratic concept of representative government, and in some instances groups provide the only source of opposition to the united front imposed by the political parties (Ball 1993, 117).
4.5 Pressure
Groups from an Environmental Perspective
There is interest in Canadian society to press for policy change. Two notable examples of this in all Western democracies since the late 1960’s are the rise of women's and environmental movements (Richardson 1993, 7). The environmental movement appeared in western societies as people became concerned about the deteriorating quality of the natural environment and the depletion of world resources (Jackson & Jackson 1998, 495). The emergence of new and more outspoken organized environmental pressure groups is linked to the progress of scientific discovery. This growth and increased vigour of pressure groups has resulted in the policy process being crowded and the ability to reach agreements within the process has become more difficult (Richardson 1993, 8). The existence of groups is a constraint on governmental action, but this cannot be helped for the role of government is to hold societies together. To do this, governments must accommodate the major sections of interests in society.
Environmental pressure groups can be differentiated from other types of pressure groups, such as the industry-business and professional association pressure groups. As stated earlier in the review, pressure groups like these latter ones are formed to represent the interests of their members, but not typically the Canadian collective good. Of course, some of the indirect results of these organizations can have a collective good (i.e. Canadian Medical Association ensures their members are good standing in order to practice medicine in Canada), but this is not the primary objective of these organizations; the interests of their members are primary. Environmental pressure groups, on the other hand, are composed of members who have an interest in the natural environment and its continued health. The natural environment, being a collective good (we all rely on a healthy environment for the continuation of humans and other animals) benefits from the efforts of these groups. This part of the review will delve further into the role environmental pressure groups have had and continue to have on the Canadian political landscape.
From its inception, environmental pressure groups have been treated as a threatening phenomenon by such interests as big business and industry (Wilson 1990, 143). Wilson believes that this is due to industry's conviction that any systematic threat to the sanctity of the status quo undermines its leverage in financial markets. Environmentalism, in its entirety, imperils the unwritten code of speculative rights in the capitalist system in Canada, thus threatening a system that has long legitimized a profitable flow in access to public resources (Wilson 1990, 143; Stefanick 1996, 271). Environmental groups face corporate-government alliances determined to resist fundamental challenges to 'business as usual' patterns of resource development (Wilson 1992, 124). As a result of the perceived threat by environmental pressure groups, environmental groups, by and large, remain outsiders in the Canadian policy process. Due to a high level of “issue commitment” among environmentalists, these groups have been able to largely overcome the various problems which affect the abilities of other groups to attract and retain members, and have largely avoided the trend towards dependence on government resources (Wilson 1990, 145). Due to factors such as limitations in resources, environmental groups have moved little towards the establishment of hierarchical, over-arching group structures (with obvious exceptions like Greenpeace, Sierra Club of Canada, World Wildlife Fund, etc.). This has limited the ability in the establishment of stable and binding deal-making arrangements with the government and industry. These types of linkages are considered highly suspicious by most environmental groups, and they are therefore not keen on such co-optation.
Environmental groups vary considerably in size, generally have low overhead operations, require deeply committed volunteers, and have a tendency to reject complex, formal structures (Wilson 1990, 149). These groups vary also in decision-making approaches, but most can be characterized as benign, open oligarchies. The main motivation for members of an environmental group is the desired result; the intrinsic worth or dignity of the ends themselves are regarded by most members as justifying effort. Broadly speaking, environmentalists themselves regard economic growth as less important than the protection of 'quality of life' (Jackson & Jackson 1998, 495), thus making them a threat to all other pressure groups and governments who exist to protect the continued growth in the Canadian economy in spite of the impacts to the natural environment.
Along with size, environmental pressure groups can be differentiated according to various criteria. As discussed earlier, Pross describes groups who would be presented as issue-oriented groups, or, at the other end of the spectrum, institutional groups. Institutional groups include groups like Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and World Wildlife Fund. These types of groups have an established hierarchical, over-arching group structure. Issue-oriented groups, however, envelope numerous other types of environmental groups. Issue oriented groups spring up at a moments notice, then typically disband when the issue has been addressed. Occasionally, however, they keep on playing a part in politics and slowly become recognized voices in policy-making (Pross 1993, 149). In order to reach this point, groups must become more highly organized, developing a particular competence to communicate their policy views to government. Since the early 1970s, a number of environmental pressure groups have made the transition, in effect engaging in the process of institutionalization. This transition does not happen quickly or completely. In fact, very few groups 'progress' to the institutional status, instead most being described as fledgling or mature groups (Pross 1993, 150).
There is a tremendous degree of diversity within the environmental movement. The movement's diversity represents an important political asset. The organizations within the movement are able to cover a range of tactical bases. There is typically some segment of the movement that can usually be counted on to gravitate quickly to the approach deemed most appropriate in a particular situation (Wilson 1990, 150). Because of the diversity within the environmental movement, interests opposing the efforts of environmental groups have found their various objectives very difficult to obtain, and impossible in some cases.
The diversity of environmental pressure groups also shows in the methods applied by these groups in order to accomplish their goals. The goals of the group influence how the group attempts to realize those aims. Groups with aims hostile to important aspects of the existing political system cannot hope to exert influence on the administration and legislature in the way legitimized business groups would do (Ball 1993, 109; Stefanick 1996, 50). The type of approval that the group possesses affects its methods. Those groups without approval (such as Greenpeace) have to resort to national campaigns and programmes of civil disobedience. However, the groups deemed acceptable by government and other participants in the policy process, ones who do not threaten the status quo, will be called upon for active participation in policy decision-making (Stefanick 1996, 15). It is these groups that are able to use their participation as a powerful tool in any negotiation with the government.
There are, however, the environmental pressure groups who do not enjoy the approval of the various levels of government, or by other powerful pressure groups like industry-business groups. These groups do not share the privileges of access and do not have a vested interest in keeping issues out of politics. Because these groups lack power, and are excluded from securing power and influence, public debate is seen as a way of obtaining power and influence (Pross 1992, 159). These groups are prepared to challenge the status quo and bypass the Canadian capital in their search for environmental solutions (i.e. economic boycotts), which can result in volatile relations between the government and members of the policy community (Boardman 1992, 240; Garner 1990, 4). Groups like Friends of the Environment and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society refuse to play the game of pressure politics because the groups believe their objectives are qualitatively different from those of other pressure groups, in particular the industry-business groups (Tanguay & Kay 1991, 84). The outcome has been that relations between environmental groups and members of the policy community are often particularly hostile, perhaps because environmentalism attacks the ideological underpinnings of much of the economic activity in Canada.
The subject of resources has been already discussed in a previous section of this review. It was found that the level of resources available to pressure groups determines, to varying degrees, the effectiveness of the group. In an attempt to overcome the limitations imposed by the lack of resources, environmental groups have developed numerous alliances, referred to in this review as networks. The formation of a number of issue-specific alliances have enabled environmental groups to overcome problems that could have been expected otherwise (i.e. lack of personnel due to limited finances is alleviated somewhat with the sharing of information, research, and actions by various other like-minded groups). As well, the high level of issue commitment prevailing among group members enabled groups to counteract shortages of resources, thus enabling environmental groups to maintain lobbying and public relations efforts (Wilson 1990, 163).
It is the limitations in resources, as well as ideological constraints imposed on environmentalists by themselves, that has encouraged environmental groups to garner support from the general public in creative ways. The massive mobilization of support from the public depends largely on actions like the capturing of media attention. Both Pross (1986, 154) and Love and Goyer (1983, 85) acknowledge the importance of this route of influencing public opinion and generating wider participation in the policy process (Gardner 1990, 16). The dependency of environmental groups on media contacts to compensate for their weak position, with respect to interests that are well entrenched in government policy, is expected due to the groups' lack of traditional political power. The group with the least power to sanction has less incentive to play by the rules. In addition to the media, the point of access to policy most used by environmental pressure groups on the national level is the lobbying of federal politicians (Pross 1986, 165). Signs of institutional and political change as a result of the efforts of environmental groups are appearing (Garner 1990, 25). Worldwide, campaigns by environmental groups have aroused public opinion, and decision-makers are increasingly obliged to consider carefully what the public is likely to tolerate or reject in terms of environmental impact (Lowe & Goyder 1983, 79; Coleman & Skogstad 1989, 132).
4.6 The Future of Pressure Groups in Canada
The increasing role of pressure groups in Canadian policy development, as well as in the overall political culture, has been found to have several effects. From a democratic participation standpoint, pressure groups have increased the sum total of public participation and influence on government policy (Presthus 1978, 69). One outcome of the increased role of pressure groups in Canadian politics has been that such groups (except perhaps poverty and minority groups) tend to represent social interests that are already highly advantaged. As a result, they put government in the position of protecting the strong against the weak. This, of course, is not a general application for even though environmental pressure groups have shown to be effective in influencing the policy process on a site specific basis, their successes have not constituted a strong position when compared with the industry-business pressure groups. Other effects that have been noted with the increasing role of pressure groups have been the participation of the general public in the Canadian democracy, increased awareness of the intricacies of the policy process, and the increase in the representation of previously underrepresented groups within the Canadian society.
It is widely known that both the organizational structures and the multi-media communications abilities are constantly expanding to bring together the forces of like-minded individuals and pressure groups across national boundaries (Dobell & Steenkamp 1993, 574 from Pal 1997, 209). The new 'hypermedia' (electronic mail, internet, video conferencing, etc.) enables groups from across the world to communicate, develop networks, and track the actions of other groups, industry, and government in every continent. Stanbury & Vertinsky (1994, 14) outline some of the potential impacts of the new communication and information technologies on pressure groups. The new information technologies are: making it less expensive for groups to operate; enabling organizations to seek out more easily others with similar interests; enabling easier communication, more often, and for longer periods of time; enabling ease in raising funds, to acquire information, monitor issues, communicate views; and enabling the mobilization of members to a threat or opportunity for group action (Pal 1997, 210).
Pressure groups have been found to perform various functions vital in the policy process, as well as in the Canadian political community in general. Pross details four of the most important functions performed by pressure groups: they play communication roles in politics, they transmit demands from sectoral constituencies to public authorities, they carry messages and demands from the authorities to their members, they help build public support for programs and policies, they administer various programs for government, and they often engage in regulatory activities (Pross 1993, 14-15). It was found in the first part of the review that there are various types of pressure groups, each performing a role in democracy. Pross has long argued that as political power becomes more diffused, the political system becomes increasingly dependent on 'policy communities' to articulate, implement, and monitor the general will (Johnson 1996, 13). Because of the growing complexities in life, pressure groups have come to fill a political representation void, and the need is expected to continue to grow. The long term direction of change is toward democratization, decentralization of policy to local communities, debureaucratization of government structures, and the forging of partnerships with communities, business, and pressure groups of all types (Pross 1993, 203).
As we come to understand how it is that some pressure groups survive in the Canadian political system, to become influential and organizationally sophisticated, while other groups quickly disappear, there is the opportunity to learn a great deal about pressure group interior life and about their particular policy environment (Pross 1993, 148). Pressure is a group phenomenon which indicates the push and resistance between groups. It is the balance of the group pressures that results in the existing state of society (Bentley 1993, 19). And, as suggested by Pross, it is in the best interests of both the political parties and the pressure groups to reach an understanding of the role each can best play in the Canadian political system and to work out an arrangement - balance - within that understanding (Pross 1994, 184). In doing so, all pertinent values have the opportunity to be represented in the policy process, and democracy is preserved.