Private Groups and Public Life

Social Participation and Political Involvement in Representative Democracies

Jan W. van Deth

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2003
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• eBook ISBN:
  9781134701018
• Subtopic: Political Parties
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book focuses on the changing relationship between social and political involvement in Western Europe. Empirical case studies examine how new social movements interact with conventional political structures as individuals and groups experiment with new forms of political expression. The results indicate not a declining, but a changing democratic culture.

1
Introduction
Social involvement and democratic politics

Jan W.van Deth

INTRODUCTION

‘Participation is organization’ since almost by definition political activities are social events. Attending a meeting, organizing a demonstration or joining a political action group will be done with at least a few people having more or less the same interests or ideals. Besides, the arena for political decision-making and policy formation in representative democracies is crowded with interest groups, intermediary organizations, civic associations, social movements, voluntary associations and the like exerting at least some influence by means of lobbying or by participating in consultative bodies. The quality of democratic politics in modern societies, then, depends at least partly on the performance of these kinds of association and organization, and on the opportunities for citizens to cooperate.

The relevance of social participation and intermediary associations for democracy has been at the centre of traditional approaches to democratic politics ever since Tocqueville published his observations on American society in the early nineteenth century. More recently the rise of new states in central and eastern Europe and contemporary discussions about civil society, communitarianism or social capital has stimulated a revival of approaches to democratic politics in terms of social participation, voluntary associations and intermediary organizations. The central theme of the present volume is the relationship between private groups and public life at a time when traditional membership organizations experience competition from new organizations with quite different ties to their members, or ‘clients’.

The list of interest groups, voluntary associations, intermediary organizations, social movements and civic associations in modern societies is virtually endless, and includes such divergent forms of cooperation as trade unions, business and professional organizations, welfare and charity organizations, service clubs, community associations, churches, sports, social and leisure clubs, scientific, educational, youth, health and cultural organizations, as well as political parties. The terminology used to label distinct groups of citizens in society already suggests important differences between the presumed roles and functions of these groups. If we start with a macro-perspective,¹ terms such as ‘intermediary organizations’ and ‘interest groups’ are frequently used. These phrases refer to the place these groups occupy in decision-making processes. As collective entities they try to influence politics, and many conventional groups like trade unions or business organizations are well integrated into institutionalized decision-making procedures. As interest groups they represent the collective interests of their supporters, or try to attain broader goals. As intermediary organizations they establish a link between different spheres of society such as, for instance, the commercial or religious sector on the one hand and the political sector on the other. A macro-perspective tends to emphasize the relevance of interest groups for the (dis)integration of distinct parts or spheres of social systems. System integration is realized when organizations successfully mediate between citizens and the state or between distinct groups.²

Starting with a micro-perspective, terms such as ‘voluntary associations’ or civic associations indicate that the main focus is on citizens forming groups on a voluntary basis.³ Attention is paid mainly to the mobilization and participation of citizens in associations, as well as to the impact of the activities of these groups on the citizens involved. Voluntary associations provide opportunities to develop skills and to build networks, both of which can be helpful for attaining specific goals (including objectives like self-realization or self-actualization). So a micro-perspective underlines the relevance of voluntary associations for the (dis) integration of individuals within social systems. In contrast to the system integration located at the macro-level, successful social integration depends on the mobilization of citizens for collective or concerted action.⁴

Although quite different in their definition of the object under consideration and the types of theory they belong to, macro- and micro-perspectives do not exclude each other. Interest and intermediary groups are concerned with the mobilization of supporters and the organization of participation within the group. Furthermore, many voluntary associations are able to exert some influence on, or take part in, decision-making processes. Mediation and mobilization are relevant functions for both interest groups and voluntary associations, and the same group can be labelled an interest group, an intermediary organization or a voluntary association depending on the perspective we select.⁵ In other words, mediation and mobilization are not mutually exclusive concepts but refer to different perspectives on the relationships between and within groups.

In an attempt to avoid the usual definitional minefield of concepts such as ‘interest groups’, ‘voluntary associations’ or ‘intermediary organizations’, the terms ‘interest groups’ and ‘intermediary organizations’ will be used here when the mediation function is of prime concern. Consequently, the phrase ‘voluntary association’ is reserved for approaches emphasizing the mobilizing function of these groups. The main criteria for demarcating the total set of relevant groups here is that we are dealing with (i) more or less formalized organizations and associations, (ii) that exist to meet public or social needs, (iii) where commercial profit is not of primary importance, and (iv) which are not performed in the service of government.⁶ The distinction between social and political involvement of citizens does not, however, rest on this distinction between organizations and associations, but on the primary goals of the groups involved. If, and only if, the goal of the organization or association is clearly political, then the term political participation will be used to depict the activities of the people involved. In all other cases, these activities are labelled social participation.

PERSPECTIVES, FUNCTIONS AND ACTORS

Interest groups and intermediary organizations

The acknowledgement of the existence of complex interdependencies of cooperation and consultancy between private and public sectors has by now become a trivial notion in virtually every analysis of decision-making processes in many countries. Moreover, these distinctions seem to have become increasingly blurred in the last few decades, stimulating debates around concepts such as ‘third-party government’, ‘neocorporatism’, ‘private-interest government’, or the ‘Organizational State’. In addition to the two traditional sectors (state and market), a ‘third sector’ has developed, not only—and probably not chiefly—as a response to market or state failures, but also as a ‘preventive organizational device to avoid such failures’ (Anheier 1990:329) or as a result of ‘conflicts among the élites’ (de Swaan 1988:3).⁷ The general acceptance of the importance and relevance of interest groups and intermediary organizations for democratic decision-making processes, however, does not imply that only positive consequences are expected.

The potential dangers of organized groups in democratic societies were already spelled out by Madison in The Federalist no.10, where he refers to the ‘factious spirit’ which ‘has tainted our public institutions’ as the major threat to democracy. Even more famous is Madison’s conclusion ‘that the causes of faction cannot be removed; and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects’ (italics in original).⁸ Since the time of Madison, interest groups have been looked upon with a certain degree of scepticism. Several observers have pointed out the potentially dangerous consequences of institutionalized interest mediation by specific groups dominating the entrance of the political processes effectively (see Etzioni 1993:217–25). This implies an unequal distribution of influence among different groups—not only owing to the craving for power of these groups, but also because it is inherent to the process of establishing associations. It is this development which has been so neatly summarized in Schattschneider’s dictum that ‘organization is itself a mobilization of bias in preparation for action’ (1960:30; italics in original). And this ‘bias’ cannot be counteracted simply by deliberate action of the actors involved (see Bovens and ’t Hart 1996:105).

These rather sceptical approaches to the role and functions of interest groups in society are not shared by a number of authors analyzing the potentially devastating consequences of social cleavages or divided societies. In this perspective, interest groups and intermediary organizations play a decisive role in bringing together at the level of the state what is divided at the level of society. In the traditional pluralist approach, the competition of groups and organizations in several areas is expected to prohibit the concentration of power and the development of totalitarian regimes, which preoccupied the authors of The Federalist so clearly. Linkages between the demands and needs of the population and the output of the political system are realized mainly by the exercise of some type of group pressure on political élites (see Newton 1976:73; Held 1987:186–220; Dahl 1989:295).

The development of welfare states in Europe seems especially to have strengthened the position of interest groups and intermediary organizations. An intensive cooperation between state agencies and interest and intermediary groups is also at the centre of corporatist or neocorporatist approaches, including variants of a consociational nature.⁹ In these lines of argument, conflicts and competition between interest groups are much better regulated than the battles for influence which characterize pluralist approaches. In addition, institutionalized rules should guarantee cooperation. This position is clearly defined in the demarcation presented by Lehmbruch (1979:150) of corporatisms as ‘an institutionalized pattern of policy-formation’ where interest groups cooperate with each other and public authorities. The emphasis here is not on interest articulation or attempts to influence the input side of the political process only. Instead, the stress is that interest groups participate in each phase of the policy formation process, including the implementation of policies. Corporatist arrangements, then, do not restrict the role of interest groups to consultancy, but underline the need for institutionalized cooperation among groups and between groups and government.

The need for these kinds of arrangement becomes even more pregnant if we move to consociational types of decision-making. In deeply divided societies the only reasonable alternative to violence seems to be a type of organized pluralism not based on the inclusion of socio-economically defined interest groups, but based on the representation of distinct parts of the population. Textbook examples here are the Dutch system of ‘pillarization’ (see Daalder 1987) and the Austrian Sozialpartnerschaft in the context of the Lagertheorie (see Gerlich 1987). In these systems, interest groups and intermediary organizations are grouped within each segment of the population, while contacts between intermediary organizations of distinct segments are not only not stimulated, but also forbidden. Consultancy and cooperation between the segments is restricted to élite contacts on the basis of rules, including principles like a proportional distribution of costs and benefits, and ‘non-intervention’ in the affairs of other segments (Lijphart 1968).

While neocorporatist variants emphasize the relationships between groups and their contacts with the state, pluralist and consociational approaches also pay considerable attention to the functions of intermediary organizations in contacts between citizens and state. Paying attention to this last function, however, is not t...

Table of contents

• COVER PAGE
• TITLE PAGE
• COPYRIGHT PAGE
• SERIES EDITOR’S PREFACE
• FIGURES
• TABLES
• CONTRIBUTORS
• PREFACE
• 1. INTRODUCTION: SOCIAL INVOLVEMENT AND DEMOCRATIC POLITICS
• 2. VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS AND DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION IN BRITAIN
• 3. SOCIAL REFLEXIVITY, DEMOCRACY AND NEW TYPES OF CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN DENMARK
• 4. POLITICAL PARTIES AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS IN FLANDERS
• 5. WOMEN AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE NORWEGIAN VOLUNTARY SECTOR
• 6. THE RISE OF PROTEST BUSINESSES IN BRITAIN
• 7. POLITICAL CAPITAL FORMATION AMONG BRITISH PARTY MEMBERS
• 8. THE CORPORATIST CHANNEL AND CIVIL SOCIETY IN THE NETHERLANDS
• 9. ASSOCIATIVE AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION IN SWITZERLAND AND FRANCE
• 10. THE POLITICAL PARTICIPATION OF INTERMEDIARY ORGANIZATIONS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
• 11. ORGANIZING CAPACITY OF SOCIETIES AND MODERNITY
• 12. VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS, SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND INDIVIDUAL POLITICAL BEHAVIOUR IN WESTERN EUROPE