Pressure groups are seen as a way to promote democracy, because they add to the plurality of the UK. However, they can also be seen as undemocratic, due to the influence they may have over political parties and governmental policy. Ways in which pressure groups promote democracy in the UK are: they act as an education function, they also add to participation. Democracy is promoted, also, by the added representation they allow, and promotion of minority interests. However, they are seen as undemocratic due wealth influencing a pressure groups ability to pressure, disproportionate influence, and they are also not accountable - internal democracy.
Pluralism is a sociological theory which says media give a representative approach of society however the content of the media is what the public demand, this is essential as the media owners will go out of business if they present information that the public do not want. Pluralists argue that the media presents a range of the diverse views and opinions in society, so the minority’s views are catered for as there are many selections to choose from. For example, newspapers have tabloids such as The Star and higher class selections such as The Times. Therefore society has the choice to choose a newspaper which contains a political and more informational approach or a tabloid paper. Murdock and Golding say that digital technology allows the public to access any type of media and information when they want to.
Capitalists, on the other hand, believe that Socialists deny people their basic rights of freedom of decisions and opportunities. It is also said that taxes are usually higher in Socialist countries such as Cuba and China. The systems discussed seem very different, and may work on paper, not in the real world. It is for this reason that many countries have adopted a system which is predominantly socialist or
There are several main advantages of going public. The first one is that company stock can be used to raise capital. The second one went to the company obtains increased prestige and visibility. And going public can help improve its financial condition by obtaining money that does not have to be repaid. What’s more, company stock in the form of stock options can be offered to employees and contractors as a meaningful form of incentive compensation.
Do pressure groups strengthen or weaken democracy? It is extremely difficult to reach a conclusion on whether groups are good or otherwise for democracy but it is important to realise how they can be both beneficial and damaging to it. In debating the matter we face the difficulty that the group’s methods, aims and composition vary significantly and so they cannot all be thrown into the same group. So while we make comments on judgements they are only generalised and do not apply to all groups in all circumstances. Government’s aims are always to please the public, or do the best for the state and so these groups clearly show the government what a certain band of people wish to happen.
In some cases, the pressure groups even undermine their internal democracy as the minority (the leaders) voices are heard rather than the majority (the members). Pressure groups could be said to promote democracy by educating the electorate. They do this by making them more educated and more informed through political discussions and debates. Pressure groups widen the information available to the public. Without the media and pressure groups, the public would have to rely on information given from a narrow range of sources with limited viewpoints; mostly from the major political parties e.g.
Economic Goals of Business and Government VS Social Goals of Consumers Milton Friedman suggests that the social responsibility of a business is to increase its profits (Boardman, Sandomir and Sondak 221). While increasing profits is certainly one of the most important factors in a successful business, is it considered a social responsibility, or better yet, the only social responsibility of a corporation? Friedman seems to think so. But why is increasing profits a corporation’s social responsibility? According to Friedman, “A corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business.
The federal system gives states the power to pass its own laws including laws that may restrict voting to only a particular group. This becomes problematic when attempts are made to prevent certain people from contributing to the voting turnouts and twisting the votes to benefit a particular party’s self interest. Voting should be regulated by the federal state because it will prevent states from restricting and discriminating certain groups of people within its state from voting which is unconstitutional, racially biased, and will lower the voting turnout. Federalism is what gives states their power but often times states use this power to their advantage to create outcomes that may increase their power. An example would be the Arizona Voting Law which demands proof of one’s citizenship and other documents that many people of color may not have or have difficulty obtaining.
Power can lead anyone to be selfish. This is why we have to keep them contained. Andrew Kohut in his research paper “The people and their Governments” states “Rather than an activist government to deal with the nation’s top problems, the public now wants government reformed and growing numbers want its power curtailed. With the exception of greater regulation of major financial institutions, there is less of an appetite for government solutions to the nation’s problems –
But defenders of the social contract idea seem to think that present government depends on a contract among the people. Hume doesn’t explicitly do this, but we can distinguish two different ways of understanding this idea: i) as a nonnormative thesis of political sociology, and ii) as a normative thesis of political philosophy. According to i), just as it is a fact of political sociology that people tend to get very angry whenever they believe that their rights have been violated, it is also a fact that people believe (rightly or wrongly) that the duty to obey government derives from consent. Hume’s reply is that this is not a fact at all; it is demonstrably false. “…We find everywhere princes who claim their subjects as their property and assert their independent right of sovereignty, from conquest or succession.