Indian Polity

A pressure group is an interest group organized to promote the interests of its members by influencing the policies of the government without seeking to acquire/exercise the formal powers of the government. They use instruments like lobbying campaigns, polls etc. Different types of pressure groups found in India are business groups, trade unions, peasant groups, student groups, caste and religious associations, women’s associations etc. These pressure groups play significant role in governance in following ways:

• Participative democracy: They keep the government in touch with the public opinion and provide representation to a wide range of diverse interests and opinions. For e.g. India Against Corruption made the government aware of rising resentment against corruption in public life.
• Upholding interests of minorities: Pressure groups give political voice to all kinds of minority groups and increase their power of negotiation with the state. For example, Naz Foundation’s x advocacy of rights of the LGBT community.
• Grievance Redressal mechanism: They provide alternative platforms to citizens to redress grievances and hold the government responsible. For e.g., the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan contributed to the passage of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
• Influencing Government Decisions: Workers’ organizations, employees’ associations and most of the movement groups often resort to strikes, in order to force the government to take note of their demands. For instance, the Government of India’s withdrawal from RCEP was mainly due to protests by Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh and other trade unions.
• Provides technical inputs for policy formulation: Business groups often employ professional lobbyists and send their experts to participate in official bodies and committees that offer advice to the government. In India, this is done by FICCI and ASSOCHAM.

However, there are issues related to transparency in representativeness of pressure groups, their funding and their relation with the Government:

• Undemocratic internal functioning: Leaders of most of the pressure groups are not elected by all members and such unrepresentative leaders are likely to represent their own interests rather than the interests of their members or the organization. In the last decade, the rotation of senior executive level leaders across major groups like Amnesty International, ChildFund, Greenpeace, Oxfam, Save the Children cements conformist culture.
• Narrow Consultation: The Pressure Groups seldom consult all the affected parties before entering into negotiations with the Government. The decisions reached as a result of such negotiations are not acceptable to all the groups and thus a threat of direct action by nonx represented groups is presented.
• Issue with funding: Most of the pressure group’s funding source is not in the public domain. Internal security issues owing to foreign funding of NGOs was reported by the Intelligence Bureau (IB); MHA cancelled FCRA licenses of around 1300 NGO’s.
  • It has been alleged that the funds received from abroad have been utilised in evangelist activities or propping up protests, say to oppose nuclear plants, to hinder the growth and development of the country.
• Issue in relation of pressure groups with governments: Most of the powerful pressure groups negotiate with the Government in close quarters, away from the public eye which makes their decision-making non-transparent and so it is difficult to ensure accountability.
  • This particularly applies in the case of insider groups, whose representatives stalk the o ‘corridors of power’ unseen by the public and away from media scrutiny.
  • Sometimes techniques used such as lobbying or using direct methods like strike, protest forces the government to take policy decisions in favour of pressure groups and thus sometimes it circumvents larger public interests.

Despite these limitations, pressure groups are considered as an indispensable and helpful element of the democratic process as well as societal welfare. The government should strengthen mechanisms to increase transparency and accountability as well as legitimacy of the pressure groups so that more inclusive policy formulations can take place.