To what extent do pressure groups add to democracy?
A ‘pressure group’ has been defined as “an organised group of people that aims to influence the policies or actions of government.” (Heywood 2008). In a democracy a diverse range of views and attitudes are evident. This is known as pluralism. It can be said that the presence of pressure groups reflects the diversity of opinion within society.
It could be argued that pressure groups add to the fabric of a democracy because they enable a further form of participation, they give strength to the voice or opinions of their members. This is particularly true in the period between elections when the electorate in general often sense they have minimal influence over the government of the day as they still have years in power before they can be held to account by the electorate. Pressure groups can and do both reflect and drive public opinion and political parties, government and opposition, may wish to take note and interpret these possible influences on and from the electorate. For example, when the parents of Sarah Payne, who was abducted and murdered in 2000, gained extensive public support for their campaign for increased disclosure of the whereabouts of child abusers the government of the day responded recognising the strength of feeling and support for their view in the press and wider electorate The government made a number of responses to the pressures, including improving the tracking and surveillance of known sex offenders, and most notably introducing ‘Sarah’s law’ (NSPCC 2013). It is worth noting that some pressure groups are so well respected and placed that when they publish reports or data the media and the government take notice. The NSPCC, for example, have been commissioned by the government to conduct research on the grounds that their independence, experience and expertise appear to make them more qualified than any governmental body. In this sense, pressure groups can act as an important additional source of information and advice for the government.
On the other hand, there are a number of arguments preferred to suggest that pressure groups do not add to democracy. One of the main reasons put forward is that they lack internal democracy. It is suggested that many pressure groups do not have accountable leadership and that there is a danger that such groups claim to represent the opinions of thousands but are actually run by a small group of zealous individuals. Additionally, it has been argued that some groups challenge the democratic process directly; it is suggested that such groups can engage in controversial, illegal or violent activities. A well-known example would be the animal rights movement where some sections of the movement resorted to extreme violence. For example, in the 1990’s the child of a research scientist was murdered by a car bomb. Finally, there are concerns about the lack of transparency within some such groups with concern that much of their activity can be undertaken out of the public eye. The same, however, might be said of mainstream political parties.

To what extent does democratic government require political parties?
A political party is a group of people that share common goals and wish to achieve them through gaining and exercising political power. It could be argued that political parties are a necessary element of a modern democratic society; without them, for who or what would an electorate exercise their voting rights. However, whilst they might be necessary it could be argued that they are not sufficient. The existence of political parties is not enough to secure democratic government.
Political parties seek to take forward their agreed policies and values. They establish a manifesto and seek to influence the electorate to vote for their party and policies. If they gain the most votes at an election they can form a government and may consider they have a mandate to take forward their manifesto. However, a government will need to listen and maintain the support of the people rather than take forward their own party’s policies. The party second ‘past the post’ establishes the Opposition and seeks to challenge and hold the government to account. Political parties play an important role in ensuring democratic government; they formulate policies, seek to gain support for them from the electorate as well as seeking individuals to represent the party and its policies at elections. It has been argued that without them there is likely to be “incoherence, delay and contradiction in the political process”. Such an argument suggests that Members of Parliament (MPs) and their political parties are better placed than the electorate to make complex policy and legislative decisions. The electorate votes for the MPs and parties it wants to hold that responsibility until the next election where they can be held to account for their time in office, ensuring legitimacy and democratic outcomes.
On the other hand, it might be argued that political parties can distort the demands of the electorate and act in a selfish way to support their own aims rather than those of the people they allegedly represent. The claim that a new government has an ‘electoral mandate’ granted through winning the most votes in an election has flaws. Voters are presented with a complete manifesto; they must accept or reject the manifesto as a whole with no compromise, citizens cannot express a preference for specific or certain policies within different manifestos.

To what extent can it be argued that given its layered structure, multi-level governance is inherently inefficient?
Multi-level governance, a concept that was first coined by Gary Marks in the early 1990’s, can be described as ‘a system of continuous negotiation among nested governments at several territorial tiers’ (Marks, 1993: 392). Marks’ considered the growth of the European Union and emphasised vertical complexity between ‘governments’. Whilst the concept is still strongly contested others have sought to broaden it to include non-government ‘players’. For example, Bache and Flanders, 2004, argue that, ‘…its broad appeal reflects a shared concern with increased complexity, proliferating jurisdictions, the rise of non-state actors, and the related challenges to state power’.
Many suggest that because of its layered structure multilevel governance is inherently inefficient with duplication and disagreement between jurisdictions key factors. It is argued, for example, that the layered structure involving integration towards regional or economic supranational organisation such as the EU and the ‘Localisation’ agenda inevitably engenders contradictions and complexities. Others suggest a blurring of, or lack of distinction between, different hierarchical levels emphasising instead the interconnecting networks and roles of public and private players both domestically and internationally.
A further argument, focus or emphasis, is drawn on the changing role of the state and nationalism; upon the retention of sovereign states and their influence and powers. This is highlighted in the very recent European elections where nationalist parties such as UKIP in Great Britain and the National Front in France have progressed at the expense of parties favouring more international integration. Electorates have expressed their concerns that the European agenda reduced their national and local power to direct their own destinies, they seek a return to a situation where states retain all sovereignty reducing the influence of the EU. Many Western European governments are attempting to respond to electorates and reconcile limits on supranational integration and increasing localism.
Multi-level governance, with its complex layered structures, does not necessarily derive or emanate from local political, policy or practical realities. It challenges traditional approaches to accountability and reduces the real or perceived influence of citizens upon governance. Tensions between different levels of government exist alongside a diversity of local needs and realities. In such a context it is argued that multi=level governance is inherently inefficient

Bibliography
Heywood, Andrew. The essentials of UK politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
NSPCC. Child sex offender disclosure scheme. Febuary 2013. http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/briefings/sex-offender-disclosure-scheme_wda94183.html (accessed April 16, 2014).
Marks, G. (1993), ‘Structural Policy and Multi-Level Governance in the EC’, in Cafruny, A. and Rosenthal, G. (eds.), The State of the European Community: The Maastricht Debate and Beyond, (Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner), pp. 391-411.
Bache, Ian and Matthew Flinders. (2004a) 'Themes and Issues in Multi-Level Governance', in Ian Bache and Matthew Flinders (eds.) Multi-level Governance. Oxford: University Press; pp. 1-11.