The approach of Eva Etzony-Halévy looks more closely at elite conflict. For proper functioning of democracy, the most powerful elites must be balanced against each other to overcome the unequality already created by raising them above ordinary citizen. Elite pluralism and elite autonomy are key terms of the theory. Elite pluralism describes the number of elites, elite autonomy (which is always relative) looks at the distribution of resources among them, so not one of the elites is profoundly more powerful than others. The theory is built on the comparison of Great Britain and the Weimar Republic, and of Russia and Poland at the end of the 1980's.
What is political Culture? How does political culture differ from political opinion? Political culture refers to the ideals, values, and the history of norms of society into which we are born. Unlike political culture, political opinion consists of the views held by the population of the state which influence those that are in power. There are three distinct differences between political culture and political opinion which will be discussed throughout this essay.
The term ‘mass’ is a reference to the large numbers of people, to which traditional broadcasts are aimed. The spread of interpersonal media systems means that, “modern communication has become less mass in character. However, the term is still relevant for many influential media systems. The pluralist view of the mass media is that society is made up of a complex of competing groups and interests , all of which interact with one another. The groups are important to an idealistic democratic society, where a benign and neutral state allows them equal access to resources and influence.
In the pluralist model of democracy, pressure groups play an essential role. Political parties cannot provide adequate representation for the full range of diverse interests and opinions in a modern democracy because their key function is to aggregate interests into a coherent political entity capable of governing the country. Pressure groups enable particular interests and causes to be heard and to exert influence in public decision and decision-making. Yet it is precisely the representation of specialist interests and of single issues which may give cause for concern, both in terms of the methods used to achieve objectives and of the undue power and influence which particular lobbies can exert. Pluralists believe that pressure groups overcome the democratic deficit that builds up as most people’s political participation is to cast a vote every five years, this leading to people having little or no influence over decisions made between elections, and minority views not being represented.
Regardless of the position of those involved, similar resources, tactics, strategies and grass root efforts are required to exert political influence and leverage toward the issue at hand. In this aspect, there is a strong class argument with a hint of the political-institutional approach. While those in weaker, powerless groups have fewer and less legal, economic and institutional clout and power; the stakeholder mobilization theory suggests powerless groups still have a strong need and desire for leadership, an administrative structure, incentives and mechanisms for gathering resources, a setting and marshalling support where grassroots activity can be organized. (Quadgo, 28) An example of such mobilization can be seen in the case of the formation of the American Medical Association. Historically, physicians fought to uphold their sovergnity internally in order to exclude external intervention within the health care system.
They may either further the interest of a specific interest in society or they may promote an issue or cause. There are many ways pressure groups can be classified, for example; as insiders, outsiders, and sectional or promotional groups. All still are considered as pressure groups and have ways in which they may try to become successful, some would use finance and others the media. There are many reasons why a group such as ‘fathers 4 justice’ may be more successful than the pressure group ‘WWF’. One simple reason is due to the lack of publicity a pressure group may achieve.
Depending on the resources at their disposal and the power and influence they are able to wield there are varying degrees constraints encountered by political actors as well as promising opportunities to assert authority1. The post-Cold War dynamic has paved the way for a diverse array of politically activated groups, which have broken away from the tradition political units, such as the nation state, and created a new idea of what constitutes a ‘political actor’ 2. Therefore the term ‘political actor’ is in need of definition, and specification, in order to clarify what groups can be classed as political actors as well as which groups will be considered in this essay. In general terms political actors can be thought of as individuals or groups of people who react to pressures within a society and drive for change or attempt to prevent change in order to uphold the views of those they represent3. These individuals or groups fall into many categories in the contemporary political arena where decreased transactions costs make communication far quicker and cheaper than ever before and the ease with which people can travel allows the constant exchange of ideas and action.
Effective financial systems allow for vibrant entrepreneurship and with both you have an inclusive economic system. An extractive economic system would seek to hinder wealth development outside of the existing elite and to keep the labor class immobile, would never instigate managerial and systems reforms. So while the two systems are similar, the
The concept of culture can be applied to social systems at different levels, not only at the national level but also at the sub-cultural levels of ethnic group, region, gender, generation, religion, profession, and organisation. Culture is the substance that holds and binds groups together. Hofstede (1991) suggests that there is no such thing as human nature independent of culture. What, then, are the common features in definitions of culture? Most of the major definitions refer to culture as a set of shared values, beliefs, and practices.
Interest Groups as defined by SprakNotes (2010) are “organization’s of people who share a common interest and work together to protect and promote that interest by influencing the government”. They also vary greatly in size, aims and tactics but generally have either Economic or Noneconomic goals. This aside they both share the same core ideas and reasons for their existence and these are to make sure the “government remains responsive to the communities in which they serve” (Acker, V. Et al 2013). In knowing this, the purpose of this essay is to critically analyze the affects Interest Groups have on the society in which they operate and brings to attention the main positive and negative roles caused through their application such as the theory of Pluralism and its flaws, Hyperpluralism, and other roles in which they benefit or disadvantage society in general. This essay will argue that there is no one side when looking at the effects of interest groups and that the society in which they operate will continually feel both the positive and negative results of their activities.