Lobbyist pushing the point of view of particular interest groups seems to be a staple in democratic governments. We cringe at the thought of big business or pharmaceutical industry hiring high price advocates to promote their narrow point of view to our politicians.
Worse still, we worry about them donating and subsidizing our elected officials with election campaign funds or some other benefit.
We elect our representatives to parliament to govern and make good policies and yet we don't have complete confidence in their ability to look after the interest of the country and its citizens while influenced by lobbyists.
Is lobbying harmful to a democracy? Can something be done?
It seems to me that lobbyists are no different than lawyers arguing a case for their client.
When we are involved in a court case, we hire lawyers familiar with the legal system to advise and represent us to put the best light on our case.
Lobbyist, I presume, are people who are familiar with the workings of parliament and work with their clients to put the best light on their client's appeal to the law makers.
In the court case scenario, we have either the judge or jury to decide on the lawyer's representation of the case. In the parliament's scenario, we have our elected politician to balance the view point from the various competing lobbyist as well as other considerations to draft new legislation or modified existing ones.
Lobbyist are involved with all kinds of causes. Besides big business, the environmental groups, organized labor, volunteer organizations, just about anyone who is interested in making a change to the status quo.
So what can be wrong with lobbying?
For starters, groups with more money and resources ended up with more persuasive power and they do not necessarily represent the interest of the general population.
Lobbying also narrow focus on issues and runs the danger of loosing sight of the big picture, it can also oversimplify issues into left right politics, labeling issues and building walls of opposing views instead of promoting discussion.
But the alternative of not allowing lobbying seems to be stopping free speech. Are we not lobbying when we want to speak to our member of parliament about an issue?
With limits on campaign contributions, we are already limiting how single organizations can influence political party and politicians.
In Canada, there is a commissioner overseeing lobbying and handling complains and conflict of interest situations. https://ocl-cal.gc.ca/eic/site/012.nsf/eng/h_00000.html
What else should be done?
In the end, should we not just concentrate on encouraging better politicians to stand for office?
Let's hear your ideas this Friday.
In my experience the best way to effect political change is to put in a grant proposal to do research in an area that is of concern to parliment. Lobbying can help with this process, and movements of people do effect political will. So from the ground up there is a possibility to have a hand in the democratic process. But this possibility is not enough, although it does fullfill a certain view of the ploitical arena.
ReplyDeleteDid anyone hear that Rozanne Barr is running for the Socialist party in the US? I'm not a Socialist, although my first reading of Marxism almost made me one, but nonetheless she'd make a good President. As for Canada, I'd like to see an actor/comedian/celebrity in too, like William Shatner, but he's getting ready to retire...Prime Minsister's only run for terms, but once you get into the Senat there's no turning back. It's sad to hear just how closed of a system Canadian Politics really is. But, back to the question, yes Lobbying, Research, and community workshops/demonstrations helps too.
Peace
VTS
Besides lobbying, what can people do? I mean, besides the occupy movement? While it did prove that a group of people could live for a short while in a little village of their own, what was the main objective there? Oppossing the 1% in such a manner is no more effective than lobbying. Was it? OR is showing ones disapproval at all effective? I guess so. Overall I am happy I live in a society where dropping out is an option. I mean, I could if I really wanted to start living on the street as a means of rejecting societies conflicted morals. But there have been improvements over the years in the SYSTEM. Yes, folks, small changes to our legal systems, our ability to live environmentally sustainably; human beings have taken an interest in their planet and each other. Now a days when something is disrespectful of human life people tend to oppose it, vehemently...An eye for an eye is becomming less popular and oppaque....but if something works, why fix it?
ReplyDeletepeace,,,
VTS
Doesn't anybody blog any more? How did the talk on Wednesday go? I hope it went good.
ReplyDeleteTo add. Laws/bills/goverment were originally made by people for people. Colonization's global impact has seriously affected the earth and its inhabitants. What would the earth look like if White Man hadn't of been so damn intent on intruding on a more natural way of living in harmony with the earth? Then again, many places developed according to their cultures, but a few were very natural and were accomadating to outsiders who could of learned much from them, if they hadn't been so intrusive. But, that's a big if, so, really I suppose lobbying does some good with environmental issues or social and political concerns.
Ultimately each one of us has the RIGHT to drop out, or to contribute as we see fit. VIVE LE RESSISTANCE....
The discussion on Wednesday went well. There were the expected complain about politician being "bought" by lobbyist with deep pockets but we all recognize that lobbying is part of democracy.
DeleteMano had a deeper point in that we should set our sights beyond the normal lobbying of politicians and civil servants and that lobbying in more subtle forms are being done in all places.
He cited the gun lobby and tobacco lobbying efforts as examples of where lobbying may be skewing the real sentiment of the population. Either we believe that there is wide support for gun ownership in the US or else the gun lobby is successful in having more influence that it should have. Similarly, while attitudes about tobacco use have changed dramatically over the decade, the fact that tobacco companies are still around and making money is testament to the possibility that their lobbying efforts have been successful in delaying their demise.
Mano's point is that there are subtle forms of influencing such as supporting budding politicians early so that they are obligated or influencing the candidates to be nominated for a commission etc. These are influences that fly below the glare of the public eye but very influential in shaping the range of choices we choose from in democracy.
Mano is really speaking about the ingenuity of lobby groups and the human ability to always work around rules where there is a will to do so.
My thinking is that there is really no way around human ingenuity. Maybe the best we can do is to convert the enemy, convince the tobacco and gun diehards to change their thinking.
I know of a public relations person who recently considered a position in the tobacco industry but decided not to proceed as one really cannot find another position after being an advocate for the tobacco industry.
Attitudes and ideas may have to retire and die with the generation.