Features of Decision Making in a Political System

WHAT FEATURES OF DECISION MAKING IN POLITICAL SYSTEMS INFLUENCE THE PRACTICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS?

INTRODUCTION

The changing role of law and the need to relate with a transforming society and its citizens has led to a demand on decision making in political systems (Bijsterveld 2010). Due to the variance in the decision making of these systems, interest groups carry out their public affairs (PA) activities in a plethora of ways (Baumgartner 2007) as features such as type of political system, structure, accountability, dependency on interest groups, etcetera influence PA practices. This stems from the fact that issues that are significant in one political system might not be as significant in another (Lowery, Poppelaars and Berkhout 2008). Ljiphart (1999) has identified two basic types of decision making in political systems – Majoritarian; examples are the United States of America (US), Nigeria, Sweden, France, etcetera and Consensual; examples are European Union (EU), Belgium, Netherlands and Germany. This essay seeks to focus on how PA can be influenced by the different features in political systems by comparing these institutions using the EU as an example of a consensual system, and the US for the majoritarian system.

MAJORITARIAN AND CONSENSUAL SYSTEMS.

Majoritarian systems are federalist democracies where policy making is divided among different authorities. Government is by the majority and follows after the desires of the majority (Woll 2006). It is characterized by “exclusivity, adversarial politics and is highly competitive”, while the consensual system is a corporatist government by diverse representatives of the people which is characterized by “inclusiveness, bargaining and compromising” in order to influence policies (Ljipart 1999 p.2). Lobbyists in the majoritarian systems have the tendency of becoming more autonomous and self limiting as their activities are geared towards influencing the private offices of government officials and

References: BAUMGARTNER, F.R., 2007. Commentary: EU lobbying: a view from the US. Journal of European public policy, 14(3), pp.482-488. BAUMGARTNER, F.R., GREEN-PEDERSEN, C. and JONES, B.D., 2006. Comparative studies of policy agenda. Journal of European public policy, 13(7), pp. 959-974. BENZ, A. and PAPADOPOULOS, Y., eds., 2006. Governance and democracy: comparing national, European and international experiences. Abingdon: Routledge. BENZ, A., 2006. Policy-making and accountability in EU multilevel governance. In: A. BENZ and Y. PAPADOPOULOS, eds. Governance and democracy: comparing national, European and international experiences. Abingdon: Routledge. Pp.100-114 BEYERS, J BOUWEN, P. and MCCOWN, M., 2007. Lobbying versus litigation: political and legal strategies of interest representation in the European Union. Journal of European public policy, 14(3), pp.422-443. BROSCHEID, A. and COEN, D., 2003. Insider and outsider lobbying of the European Commission. European Union Politics, 4(2), pp. 165-189. DIAMANDOUROS, P.N., 2010. Overview: the European ombudsman. [online]. Strasbourg Cedex, France: European Ombudsman. Available from: http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/activities/annualreports.faces. [Accessed 9 December 2010]. DELALANDE, P., 2010. Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen. Lecture note: Comparing EU and US public affairs. EUROPEAN COMMISSION., 2010. The European Commission at work. [online]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/basicfacts/index_en.htm. [Accessed 1 December 2010]. GREENWOOD, J., 2007. Interest representation in the European Union. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. HANSFORD, T.G., 2004. Lobbying strategies, venue selection, and organized interest involvement at the U.S. supreme court. American politics research, 32(2), pp. 170-197. LEVY, D.L. and PRAKASH, A., 2003. Bargaining old and new: multinational corporations in global governance. Business and Politics, 5(1), pp.131-147. LIJPHART,A., 1999. Patterns of democracy: government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. London: Yale University press. [online]. Available from: http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/excerpts/lijphart_patterns.pdf [Accessed 2 December 2010]. LOWERY, D., POPPELAARS, C. and BERKHOUT,J., 2008. The European Union interest system in comparative perspective: a bridge too far? West European politics, 31(6), pp. 1231-1252. MAHONEY, C., 2008. Brussels versus the beltway: advocacy in the United States and the European Union. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. MCGRATH, C., 2006. The ideal lobbyist: personal characteristics of effective lobbyists. Journal of communication management, 10(1), pp. 67-79. MELTZER, R. I., 1976. The politics of policy reversal: the US response to granting trade preferences to developing countries and linkages between international organizations and national policy making. International Organization, 30(4), pp. 649-668. POHL, C. 2006. Transparency of the EU decision making: reality or myth? [online]. Available from: http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2006/Transparency_in_EU_decision_making_May2006.pdf [Accessed 9 December 2010]. TSEBELIS, G., 1995. Decision making in political systems: veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism. British journal of political science, 25, pp. 289-325. VENABLES, T., 2007. Tips for a would-be European lobbyist. [online]. Available from: http://www.ecas-citizens.eu/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=308&Itemid [Accessed 2 December 2010]. WOLL, C., 2006. Lobbying in the EU: from sui generis to comparative perspective. Journal of European public policy, 13(3), pp. 456-469.