The Participatory and Democratic Potential and Practice of Interest Groups: Between Solidarity and Representation

Abstract

Embracing ‘groups’ as means to address democratic deficiencies invites scrutiny of their democratic practices. However, many groups lack internal democratic practices and offer few opportunities for affiliates to participate. Guided by an implicit ‘representation’ narrative of groups, the absence of internal democratic practices is interpreted as a sign of ‘failure’ or ‘deficiency’. Some scholars have entertained the idea of setting minimum standards of internal democracy as a prerequisite for policy access. This article scrutinizes this emerging consensus and its ‘representation’ narrative. Drawing upon the work of O’Neill (2001) and Pitkin (1967), it is argued that groups can also be viewed through a lens of solidarity. This paper argues that the type of constituency a group advocates for can be used to calibrate expectations of internal democratic structures of accountability and authorization. The concepts of ‘representation’ and ‘solidarity’ are used to make sense of the (changeable) practices of a variety of groups.

Defining and classifying interest groups

“…For instance, Beyers (2004) makes a distinction between specific groups representing the narrow interests of a well-circumscribed constituency and diffuse groups representing the interests of broad segments of society. Similarly, Klüver (2013) speaks of narrow 'sectional groups' and broad 'cause groups'; Walker (1991) distinguishes between groups with specific members and those open to all citizens, and Halpin (2006) speaks of groups pursuing solidarity versus groups pursuing representation. Moreover, using a different rationale for classifying groups, Schneider and Baltz (2003) classify interest groups according to the scope of their activity, distinguishing between general interest groups and those specialized in a limited number of issues.…”

“…A central alternative to defining interest groups based on their lobbying function is to focus instead on a narrower definition that sees organizational characteristics as key defining features and reserves the interest group term for membership-based organizations (for example, Thomas and Hrebenar, 1990;Jordan et al, 2004;Halpin, 2006Halpin, , 2010Christiansen, 2012;Jordan and Greenan, 2012;Binderkrantz et al, 2014). 1 Some of the studies within this approach derive from a theoretical interest in the dynamics of group membership and mobilization -namely, when and how certain interests are mobilized into groups capable of politically relevant action (for example, Schlozman and Tierney, 1986;Walker, 1991;Jordan and Greenan, 2012).…”

Membership Recruitment and Internal Democracy in Interest Groups: Do Group–Membership Relations Vary Between Group Types?

“…While trade unions or associations of patients display a direct correspondence between the kind of members they recruit and the interests they advance politically, public interest groups such as Amnesty International or WWF do not represent the material interests of their membership but advance broader causes and attract members among citizens who support those causes (Dunleavy 1991;Halpin 2006). Interest groups therefore find themselves in differing situations both when it comes to attracting and maintaining members and when it comes to deciding on internal democratic processes and political priorities of the groups.…”

“…Darren Halpin (2006) distinguishes between 'representative' groups and 'solidarity' groups, arguing that only the former should in fact be judged by their correspondence to democratic standards. Representative groups are characterised by overlap between the members recruited and the interests pursued.…”

The European Commission and the public governance of interest groups in the European Union: Seeking a Niche between accreditation and laissez-faire

“…But there is an argument to suggest that internal democracies -even if they could be established -are less important for legitimating the advocacy of groups pursuing the interests of non-humans and future generations than groups pursuing the interests of humans (Halpin 2006). There is no dispute about the empirical finding that many groups lack internal democratic procedures and practices.…”