Interest Groups In The United States

Though the United States shares the same “Liberal Democracy” classification as its Western European brothers, there is substantive difference in the role an individual plays, and can play, in the shaping of their political system. The best example of differences between European and American political action is recognized in the role of interest groups. In those countries which most align themselves with the United States, namely Great Britain, France, and Germany, the role of interest groups is downplayed and only seen as a radical option for voicing political dismay. However, citizens of the United States are far more likely to voice their respective ideologies and beliefs via interest groups. As a result, interest groups play a much
Great Britain operates under a system of “fusion of power,” in which the executive branch exists with in the legislative branch. As a result the party which controls Parliament has complete control over the government till the next election. Single party control, without the existence of committees, practically negates any sort of impact an interest group could have. Leaving those who look to push their own political agenda alienated and instead opting to participate via local government. In France and Germany the Constitution advocates a strong executive branch and expressively limits the powers of legislature and individuals. This presents a major problem for interest groups, as they often look to directly impact legislators. Instead, in order to be heard citizens must voice their disproval via referendums, which have come to take on the role of interest
Countries such as Hungary wrote new constitutions implementing democracy solely on the platform of knowing that they did not want communism (Graham 154). As a result no concrete decision on how to rule was ever setup and many of these nations still face political upheaval. The main problem which stems problem from a lack of consensus is the ensuing inability to legislate with authority. However, leaders with in each country failed to recognize that when you govern merely through authority you lack any legitimacy (Graham 169). Political scientists who study the failings of post-communist nations developed four ways to help achieve legitimacy: procedure, results, habit, and identity. If these four elements can be forged into a process of electoral change, than legitimacy is a possible