Mentors Comment:

The language of the question is one sided but you have to critically discuss the issue. Present both sides of the arguments. Start with intro of PGs and their methodology. Give examples of some PGs in India like trade, agriculture, students and education related PGs.

Next in the answer, discuss how PGs strive to bring political equality. Points will revolve around giving voices to unheard and marginalised sections, high level of involvement of members in PGs. Because there is always a counter PG against a dominant one, hence the role of powerful might get diluted.

From here, jump to the next part which will be based on the actual statement of the question: how they empower the already powerful and reduce equality in the process. Points like role of money and political back support, cartelisation of interests by PGs, influencing the decisions of govt by access to better resources and mobilisation etc.

Do you agree with this view? This component of the question will form your conclusion of the answer. Don’t be too critical of the opposing side which you take. Try to balance the perspective. For example we have given balanced viewpoint on the question in the conclusion. That’s a better way to approach the end rather than outrightly taking a stance against any discussion.

Model Answer:

Introduction:

• Pressure groups (PGs) are voluntary organisations formed to advance or defend a common cause or interest. They do not strive to take office or to govern; they simply seek to express their ideas in an organised manner. Trade associations like FICCI, ASSOCHAM, farmers groups like BKU, different trade unions like AITUC, students organisations like ABVP and NSUI and even RWAs of our colonies are examples of PGs in India.
• For some, pressure groups are a fundamental part of democracy. To others, pressure groups undermine the whole principle of democracy by increasing political inequality.

How they increase the political equality:

• The democratic problem of inequality is compensated when there is a high level of membership and involvement in pressure groups.
• Pressure groups constantly compete against each other which in turn evens out the spread of power and equality.
• No group can be dominant indefinitely, as there is always another which challenges it.
• Pressure groups bring forth ideas and changes which is not the norm.
• Also, pressure groups allow power to be dispersed.
• They represent the politically unrepresented.
• They complement and supplement democracy by enabling opinions to be weighed as well as counted equally.

How they reduce political inequality:

• Pressure groups improve participation, but in an unequal way, benefiting the well organised but disadvantaging the weakly organised.
• In this sense, they work against and not in favour of the public interest.
• There is a fine line between pressure groups and lobbyist and its when PGs become lobbyists then problem of inequality starts coming to fore.
• It seems as if they’re sort of cartels of interest, a bunch of privileged groups that just benefit.
• PG creates instability and unfairness within the democratic process because it leads to a group being more powerful than the other because of the unequal distribution of money and resources.
• Powerful insider groups can use their insider status and power to go and pursue their own personal cause.
• Pressure groups tend to empower the already powerful. They therefore increase rather than reduce, political inequality.
• This has a negative effect on democracy itself as it contradicts the whole concept of democracy and it allows those who have access to resources to impact decisions.

Conclusion:

• In nut and shell, it’s when PGs start working as lobbyists then problem occurs. Lobbying industry in India is unregulated and informal unlike US, which results into bribery, corruption etc. Thus, passing of Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Bill, 2013 (DLA Bill) holds much significance to organize activities of PG in India.
• Pressure groups do to an extent promote democracy and political equality in creating another channel in which people can partake in politics. But the ways in which they try to exert an influence can become underhand and undermine parliamentary democracy.