Breaking down the question
The command word is examine, which asks for a reasoned appraisal rather than a mere list of functions. The object is the role — both positive and negative — of pressure groups specifically within a parliamentary democracy, a system of representative government based on periodic elections and an accountable executive.
At 10 marks the answer must be tight. Define pressure groups precisely, distinguish them from political parties, and then weigh the constructive functions they perform in a parliamentary system against the distortions they can introduce. The reference to parliamentary democracy invites attention to how these groups supplement, and sometimes bypass, the formal channels of representation between elections.
The examiner wants a balanced verdict, framed by the pluralist and elitist traditions, rather than uncritical praise.
How to approach it
Open with a crisp definition: a pressure group is an organised association that seeks to influence public policy without itself contesting for office — the point that separates it from a party. Then set out the two theoretical lenses, pluralist and elitist, that structure any assessment.
Devote the core to the constructive role: interest articulation, participation between elections, expertise, and a check on state power. Balance this against the risks: unequal influence, sectional capture, and erosion of accountability. The power elite and political institutions note supplies the elitist counterpoint. Close with a conditional judgement — pressure groups are indispensable to parliamentary democracy but require transparency and rough equality of access to serve it well.
Model answer
A pressure group is an organised association that seeks to influence government policy in a particular direction while, unlike a political party, not itself contesting for governmental office. Trade unions, business federations, professional bodies, farmers' organisations, and cause groups such as environmental or civil-liberties campaigns are all pressure groups. In a parliamentary democracy, where representative government rests on periodic elections and an accountable executive, these groups occupy the space between the citizen and the state, and their role is genuinely double-edged.
The pluralist tradition, associated with Robert Dahl, holds that pressure groups are the lifeblood of democracy, performing functions that elections alone cannot. First, they articulate interests too diverse for parties to capture — workers through unions, farmers through agrarian bodies, minorities and consumers through cause groups — feeding these demands into the parliamentary process. Second, they sustain participation between elections, keeping citizens engaged in the long intervals between polls and channelling grievance into orderly forms. Third, they supply expertise and information, on which legislators and ministers depend for competent policy. Fourth, they act as a check on state power, mobilising opinion and scrutinising government so that the executive is held to account beyond the floor of the House.
The elitist tradition, drawing on C. Wright Mills, counters that this pluralist image conceals grave dangers. Pressure groups are grossly unequal in resources: well-funded business lobbies command access that diffuse, poorly organised interests cannot match, so the loudest voice is often the wealthiest rather than the most numerous. Their pursuit of particular interests can lead to the sectional capture of policy at the expense of the general good. Because they are unelected and need not answer to the wider public, their influence can bypass accountability, and covert lobbying can shade into corruption. A disruptive fringe may even resort to coercion, straining the constitutional order rather than enriching it.
On balance, pressure groups are a necessary element of parliamentary democracy, for representative government cannot express the plurality of interests through elections alone. Yet they become a threat when the assumption of rough equality fails — when a wealthy few colonise policy and influence escapes scrutiny. Their democratic value therefore depends on the conditions in which they operate: transparency of lobbying, breadth of associational life, and countervailing groups that balance one another.
Examiner's perspective
At 10 marks, examiners expect a precise definition and the party–pressure-group distinction stated early, so that time is spent on the examination rather than description. Answers that merely list functions without weighing them stay in the average band.
The mark is won by candidates who structure the appraisal through the pluralist and elitist lenses, cite Dahl and Mills accurately, and arrive at a conditional verdict — pressure groups strengthen parliamentary democracy under conditions of equality and transparency, and endanger it when those conditions fail. A concrete illustration or two, such as a trade union or a business lobby, lifts the answer above the abstract.