Difference Between Pressure Group and Political Party (with Comparison Chart) - Key Differences
Knowing the difference between pressure group and political party helps you understand which group participates in the election and which. Auden's early interest in science and engineering earned him a scholarship to It was also at Oxford that Auden became the pivotal member of a group of writers . “In Praise of Limestone,” which asserts a powerful connection between the at will, like a psychologist on a political platform, like a theologian at a party. Political Party–Interest Group Relationship A Study In Uttar. Kannada District Karnataka State. Associate Prof. Subhash B Naik,ScienceBGVS's Sadashivgad.
Pressure Groups take resort to agitational measures to achieve their objectives, which include marches, petitions, processions, demonstrations, fasts, strikes, and even boycott. These groups also write to the media, issue press releases, organize debates and take part in discussions, etc.
Definition of Political Party A political party is described as an association of people having common political perspective, principles and aims, concerning the political system. The members of the party work together to win elections and hold power in the government, by getting their candidate selected in the assembly. And to do so, they nominate candidates during elections and campaign to get support for their candidate in elections.
It acts as a political unit that use the voting power to gain control over the government, lay down the policies and put the ideology into practice.
'How I accidentally became a poet through Twitter' - BBC News
For this purpose, various constitutional methods are employed by the parties to gain control. When the party wins elections and comes into power, it translates the objectives so declared by it into the public policies. Key Differences Between Pressure Group and Political Party The points given below are substantial so far as the difference between pressure group and political party is concerned: An interest group which seeks to exert pressure on the government to achieve the desired objectives is known as the political party.
On the contrary, political party implies a structured group of people who share similar political views and who collectively work as a political unit and aims at controlling the government.
The pressure groups aim at exerting influence on the government to fulfil their demand. Structure[ edit ] A political party is typically led by a party leader the most powerful member and spokesperson representing the partya party secretary who maintains the daily work and records of party meetingsparty treasurer who is responsible for membership dues and party chair who forms strategies for recruiting and retaining party members, and also chairs party meetings.
Most of the above positions are also members of the party executive, the leading organization which sets policy for the entire party at the national level. The structure is far more decentralized in the United States because of the separation of powers, federalism and the multiplicity of economic interests and religious sects.
Even state parties are decentralized as county and other local committees are largely independent of state central committees. The national party leader in the U. Officially, each party has a chairman for its national committee who is a prominent spokesman, organizer and fund-raiser, but without the status of prominent elected office holders. In parliamentary democracies, on a regular, periodic basis, party conferences are held to elect party officers, although snap leadership elections can be called if enough members opt for such.
Party conferences are also held in order to affirm party values for members in the coming year. American parties also meet regularly and, again, are more subordinate to elected political leaders. Depending on the demographic spread of the party membership, party members form local or regional party committees in order to help candidates run for local or regional offices in government. These local party branches reflect the officer positions at the national level. It is also customary for political party members to form wings for current or prospective party members, most of which fall into the following two categories: The formation of these wings may have become routine but their existence is more of an indication of differences of opinion, intra-party rivalry, the influence of interest groups, or attempts to wield influence for one's state or region.
These are useful for party outreach, training and employment. Many young aspiring politicians seek these roles and jobs as stepping stones to their political careers in legislative or executive offices. The internal structure of political parties has to be democratic in some countries. When a party becomes the largest party not part of the Government, the party's parliamentary group forms the Official Oppositionwith Official Opposition frontbench team members often forming the Official Opposition Shadow cabinet.
When a party achieves enough seats in an election to form a majority, the party's frontbench becomes the Cabinet of government ministers. They are all elected members. There are members who attend party without promotion Regulation[ edit ] The freedom to form, declare membership in, or campaign for candidates from a political party is considered a measurement of a state's adherence to liberal democracy as a political value.
Regulation of parties may run from a crackdown on or repression of all opposition parties, a norm for authoritarian governments, to the repression of certain parties which hold or promote ideals which run counter to the general ideology of the state's incumbents or possess membership by-laws which are legally unenforceable. Furthermore, in the case of far-right, far-left and regionalism parties in the national parliaments of much of the European Union, mainstream political parties may form an informal cordon sanitaire which applies a policy of non-cooperation towards those " Outsider Parties " present in the legislature which are viewed as 'anti-system' or otherwise unacceptable for government.
Cordons sanitaire, however, have been increasingly abandoned over the past two decades in multi-party democracies as the pressure to construct broad coalitions in order to win elections — along with the increased willingness of outsider parties themselves to participate in government — has led to many such parties entering electoral and government coalitions.
Such political finance regimes stipulate a variety of regulations for the transparency of fundraising and expenditure, limit or ban specific kinds of activity and provide public subsidies for party activity, including campaigning.
Partisan style[ edit ] Partisan style varies according to each jurisdiction, depending on how many parties there are, and how much influence each individual party has. Nonpartisan systems[ edit ] In a nonpartisan systemno official political parties exist, sometimes reflecting legal restrictions on political parties. In nonpartisan elections, each candidate is eligible for office on his or her own merits. In nonpartisan legislatures, there are no typically formal party alignments within the legislature.
The administration of George Washington and the first few sessions of the United States Congress were nonpartisan.
Washington also warned against political parties during his Farewell Address.
In Canada, the territorial legislatures of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut are nonpartisan. In New Zealand, Tokelau has a nonpartisan parliament. Many city and county governments in the United States and Canada are nonpartisan. Nonpartisan elections and modes of governance are common outside of state institutions.
Uni-party systems[ edit ] In one-party systemsone political party is legally allowed to hold effective power. Although minor parties may sometimes be allowed, they are legally required to accept the leadership of the dominant party.
This party may not always be identical to the government, although sometimes positions within the party may in fact be more important than positions within the government. The Correlates of War Project, founded at the University of Michigan ingathered much quantitative data and became one of the leading sources for scholars studying the causes and effects of war and international tension. Behavioralism also established itself in studies of judicial and bureaucratic systems. By the s behavioralism was in full bloom, forcing the traditionalists into retreat in much of the discipline.
By the late s, however, criticism of behavioralism had begun to grow. One charge leveled against it was that the statistical correlations uncovered by behavioral studies did not always establish which variable, if any, was the cause and which the effect.
The fact that two variables change together does not in itself show which causes which; indeed, the changes exhibited by both variables may be the effects of an underlying third variable. In order to make sense of the actual relationship between the variables, the researcher must often use intuition—a tool that behavioralists expressly sought to avoid. A study of white blue-collar Roman Catholics in Detroit, Michigan, for example, might find that during a certain period they were more likely to vote Republican as they became more affluent and suburbanized.
However, whether the change in their voting patterns was due to their race, their religion, their increased affluence, or their suburban lifestyle—or whether they simply responded to the message or personality of particular Republican Party candidates—may be unclear.
In addition, though behavioral research yielded important insights into the political behaviour of individuals, it often explained little about actual governance. Voting studies, for example, rarely provided an understanding of public policy. Because behavioral research tended to be limited to topics that were amenable to quantitative study, it was often dismissed as narrow and irrelevant to major political issues. Indeed, intense methodological debates among behavioralists and within the discipline more broadly often seemed arcanefilled with esoteric jargon and addressed to issues of little concern to most citizens.
Because behavioralists needed quantitative survey and electoral data, which were often unavailable in dictatorships or less-affluent countries, their approach was useless in many parts of the world. In addition, the reliability of behavioral research was called into question by its dependence in large part on verbal responses to questionnaires.
Analyses of survey results have shown that respondents often give socially desirable answers and are likely to conceal their true feelings on controversial topics; moreover, the wording of questions, as well as the ordering of possible answers, can affect the results, making concrete conclusions difficult.
Finally, many behavioral findings revealed nothing new but simply restated well-established or obvious conclusions, such as the observation that wealthy people tend to vote conservative and poor and working-class people tend to vote liberal or left-of-centre.
Political culture studies attempt to uncover deep-seated, long-held values characteristic of a society or group rather than ephemeral attitudes toward specific issues that might be gathered through public-opinion surveys.
- Langston Hughes
- 'How I accidentally became a poet through Twitter'
- Difference Between Pressure Group and Political Party
Several major studies using a political culture approach appeared simultaneously with the behavioral studies of the late s, adding psychological and anthropological insights to statistical covariance. Modern political culture approaches were motivated in part by a desire to understand the rise of totalitarian regimes in the 20th century in Russia, Germany, and Italy, and many early studies e.
Almond and Verba identified three types of political culture: The authors found that democratic stability arises from a balance or mixture of these cultures, a conclusion similar to that drawn by Aristotle. Critics of The Civic Culture also pointed out that political structures can affect culture. The problem, again, is determining causality. Over the decades Lipsetwho served as president of both the American Sociological Association and the American Political Science Association, turned from explanations of political values based on social class to those based on history and culture, which, he argued, displayed consistency throughout history.
The Collapse and Revival of American CommunityPutnam claimed that the American tendency to form citizen groups, a characteristic that Tocqueville praised, was weakening.
The political culture approach declined in the s but was later revived as political scientists incorporated it into explanations of why some countries experienced economic growth and established democratic political systems while others did not. Some suggested that the rapid economic growth and democratization that took place in some East Asian countries in the second half of the 20th century was facilitated by a political culture based on Confucianism.
In Africa and Latin America, they argued, the absence of a culture that valued hard work and capital accumulation led to the stagnation of much of those regions.
This viewpoint was captured by the title of Lawrence E. Harrison and Samuel P. How Values Shape Human Progress Systems analysis Systems analysis, which was influenced by the Austrian Canadian biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy and the American sociologist Talcott Parsons —79is a broad descriptive theory of how the various parts and levels of a political system interact with each other.
The central idea of systems analysis is based on an analogy with biology: When one component changes or comes under stress, the other components will adjust to compensate. Systems analysis studies first appeared alongside behavioral and political culture studies in the s. In doing so, he distinguished his sense of the subject matter of political science from that of Lasswell, who had argued that political science is concerned with the distribution and content of patterns of value throughout society.
Inputs demands flow into the system and are converted into outputs decisions and actions that constitute the authoritative allocation of values. Drawing on cyberneticsthe Czech-born American political scientist Karl Deutsch used a systems perspective to view the political system as a communications network. Following Deutsch, some political scientists tried briefly to establish communications as the basis of politics.
Systems analysis was applied to international relations to explain how the forces of the international system affect the behaviour of states. The American political scientist Morton Kaplan delineated types of international systems and their logical consequences in System and Process in International Politics Locked in a zero-sum game when one country wins, the other losesthe two superpowers watched each other vigilantly, eager for gains but also wary of the threat of nuclear war.
In Man, the State, and Warthe American international relations theorist Kenneth Waltz applied systems theory to the study of international conflict to develop a view known as structural realism. Waltz argued that the underlying cause of war is an anarchic international system in which there is no recognized authority for resolving conflicts between sovereign states. According to Waltz, with many sovereign states, with no system of law enforceable among them, with each state judging its grievances and ambitions according to the dictates of its own reason or desire—conflict, sometimes leading to war, is bound to occur.
By the s, systems approaches to domestic politics were criticized and generally abandoned as unverifiable abstractions of little explanatory or predictive power.
In international politics, however, systems approaches remained important. Systems analysis also was unable to explain certain policy decisions that were made despite the absence of predominating favourable inputs, such as the decision by U.Interest Groups: Crash Course Government and Politics #42
Johnson to deepen U. Finally, systems theorists unrealistically reified the systems of the countries they studied, portraying them as durable and stable because they were supposed to correct and reform themselves. They were thus unable to explain defective systems or systemic upheavals, such as the collapse of communist regimes in eastern and central Europe in — Other approaches employing systems analysis flourished briefly in the late 20th century.
Decision-making theory is based on systems theory but also borrows from game theorywhich was devised by mathematicians during World War II. Decision-making theory supposes that actors behave rationally to achieve goals by selecting the course of action that will maximize benefits and minimize costs.
Air Force over who was to pilot the plane. Bureaucratic-process models, which maintain that policy decisions are influenced by the priorities of bureaucrats who compete with each other to protect their programs, budgets, and procedures, became prominent during the s, but research failed to identify a consistent pattern of influence resulting from bureaucratic infighting. There was no consensus among political scientists concerning the system that developed after the end of the Cold War.
Some scholars believed that there was a return to a 19th-century balance-of-power system, in which multiple states make and remake alliances.
Others argued for the existence of a multipolar system consisting of trade blocs that were neither mutually hostile nor totally cooperative with each other. Some argued that the international system became unipolar, the United States being the single dominant world power. The worst clashes, he argued, took place between Islamic and other civilizations.
Theory of rational choice The dominant school of thought in political science in the late 20th century was rational choice theory. Whereas the earlier decision-making approach sought to explain the decisions of elite groups mostly in matters of foreign policyrational choice theorists attempted to apply their far more formal theory which sometimes involved the use of mathematical notation to all facets of political life.