Webers Perspective with Various Arguments - Coursework Example

Name: Tutor: Course: Date: Major Essay Introduction Leonard Weber puts forward a fundamental concern with regard to the good of society and democracy. He says democracy and the public good is at stake when some interest groups possess more influence as compared to others. Corporations are not left out in the political process since the policies formed by the government end up defining their space of operation. Legislation by law makers is surrounded by interest groups that call for their interests or concerns to be addressed (Weber 1996). In order to ensure fair play it is important that some interest groups should not have more influence than others since it will contribute to inequality and skewed policies owing to undue influence. The statement by Leonard Weber is correct and presents the real threat to democracy and the public good in any society. This essay supports Weber’s perspective with various arguments. Discussion A society that is democratic aims at providing each of its citizens with an equal voice when it comes to political decision making. The emphasis on equality in political power is often undermined if some of the groups can bargain for unequal share of power due to the virtue of their influence and economic size. Weber raises an issue where he questions if business too might for ethical purposes choose to let go political activity that is legal and planned to further their goals’ for the sake of public good (Young & Tham 6). However the involvement of businesses in political process is inevitable. Businesses get involved in the political process since the decisions arrived at in the political realm have ramifications for business enterprises and the entire economy. If the businesses do not express their interests emphatically and accurately, the policies that affect business may be influenced by other interested parties like consumer watch groups, labour unions, and environmentalists. The interest group-model in a democratic society presents an image of a legislator who is forever bombarded by special interest groups where each of them is persuading the legislator to consider their concerns (Bobbio 2005). The public good has to prevail regardless of the influence of the corporate lobbying and political funding. In case where some interest groups have much influence as compared to others public good and democracy is threatened. Interest groups with powerful influence will want to control formulation and implementation of government policies to their own advantage with little regard to the public good of the society. Good governance calls for public servants in the government to have the public good before private interests but the burden should not be placed on the government official (Kelly, 2004). Ethics regulations can help in reminding public servants of the necessity to protect against undue influence from the parties enhancing private interests but it is not easy to expect that officials can act for the good of the society when they are being surrounded by the individuals and groups seeking private interests. If individuals and organizations reduce citizenship activity to the pursuit of private interests, all regulations on ethics in the world are not likely to result in good government. Corporate influence on government can only be limited through policies of transparency as well as disclosure and through capping or abolishing political parties getting private donations. Disclosure and transparency can help to prevent graft but are less effective in making undue influence less. It is wrong morally for individuals or businesses to induce public officials to get into arrangements that are likely to lead to activities that are corrupt. The assurance of democracy is that every individual in the society will share equally in terms of political power. Contrary in the setting of a liberal capitalist democracy as well as its attendant economic inequalities, businesses and individuals who are wealthy have the influence to manipulate their economic power into political power since some people with lots of money will often try to speak louder and will often have their way in the process (Young & Tham 7). The influence of money in societies that are liberal capitalist translate to the fact that there is a persistent risk that forms of democracies do not divulge the plutocratic reality of government influenced by the wealthy.in its more awful forms, the power of money on politics increases the specter of ‘money politics’ which illustrates itself into the democratic polity in many forms but the main presence is manifested in forms political campaigns being financed by private funding. There are two major types of political corruption linked to the private lobbying and funding of political parties. These are corruption as undue influence and corruption as graft. Corporations look for ways of influencing the government through funding political campaigns, donations to political parties, lobbying public officials, the application of media control to support or oppose government policies, and buying political accessibility to public officials. The main ethical issue arising from corporate political funding and lobbying is whether such action undermines democratic principles of government which are popular control of public decision-making as well as political equality in executing the control. The skepticism carried in Weber’s statement about diminishing democracy and society good can be seen through such actions by corporation to gain undue influence using their wealth (Bobbio 2005). Arguments against state funding fortify the position by Weber that the good of society and democracy are threatened when some interest groups much influence as compared to others hence contributing to inequalities. Corporate lobbying and corporate donations present some businesses as having more influence than others according to how moneyed they are. State funding has the ability to undermine the independence of parties hence making them dependent on the state. It makes them to ignore their members as well as the broader civil society (Kelly, 2004). It is not morally permissible for corporations to lobby and go ahead and make financial donations to governments for the purpose of pursuing private corporate ends without considering the public interest. The public interest should not be ignored for the selfish pursuit of private corporate ends. Besides decisions concerning the allocation and amount of funding may be unfair is likely to be unfair to newer, smaller or opposition parties. State funding has the ability of emphasizing the position of the major parties as well as ossifies the party system. Furthermore, opinion polls have indicated that public funding is not popular among ordinary citizens who see it as a political hand-out. Citizens also may not embrace the idea that political parties are a high priority when it comes to public funding. Democracy thrives where different perspectives are being publicly advocated but it is not the same to conclude that the system of lobbying as well as campaign financing that has developed enhances a democracy that is healthy. The public at large is of the view that conscientious politicians have to wrestle with how they prevent themselves from being influenced in unduly manner by private interests. The society is able to point out the ethical issues with regard to good government and is able to articulate comprehensively what is at stake (Bobbio 2005). Lobbyists become successful in influencing the political process since they are successful in being an important part of the entire process. They offer lawmakers with some information that lawmakers are unable to access; lobbyists raise and contribute money that the legislators use for their re-election; they influence staff in revising and drafting legislation, and accompany politicians or legislators to social events (Young & Tham 48). Corporate lobbying and corporate donations can give undue advantage to some businesses than others according to the wealth they have. Equal voting rights is not able to ensure emphatic political equality and a democratic society has to ensure that every individual has the chance to take part in the political process without considering wealth influence. Pursuing private interest is appropriate at times, but frequently or always behaving like a consumer when one should behave like a citizen is a threat to the entire society. The Shaping of public policy is one activity that is interpreted as citizen activity and not consumer activity. Weber explains that it is inappropriate for attempts by business to influence public policy to be determined by the goal of private corporate self-interest. When a business decides to try as shape public policy using lobbying, it becomes engaged in activity where decision making has to be directed by public good than private interest’s interpretation of responsibility. The society is unlikely to enjoy good government if public officials are always faced with the challenge of adjudicating between groups and individuals all of whom are pursuing private interests. It is appropriate when Weber rejects the interest group model of democracy and instead favour the approach that enhances groups and individuals to consider the public good when involved in political activity (Weber 1996). As Weber rightly put it endorsement of one private sector as opposed to another is not the same as working for the public good. Popular control on public decision-making and deliberate democracy requires that there should be transparency with regard to funding of parties. The call for transparency forms the main aim of the disclosure schemes. It is true that modern societies can be democratic only in a sense that is democratic. Being a political leader that is responsible is not only as a result of the personal qualities of the leader but also of the political maturity of the nation. Political maturity is the ability on the part of the electorate of the nation to grasp her long-term interest. The citizens have the ability to exert control on the public administration as well as capitalist influences on the political institutions through the use of investigations and parliamentary committees. Even though groups and individuals having great wealth, power, and prestige have the resources able to impose their values on other parties with fewer resources, nevertheless, the various class divisions in society are normal, acceptable, and inevitable (Kelly, 2004). Whereas business decisions are generally arrived at in the pursuit of private interests, lobbying as well as other political activity have to an extend understood as a different type of activity, the activity has to be governed by the different standards and goals. Conclusion The point raised by Weber in his argument with regard to corporate lobbying and political funding is very important. Inequality in the influence of interest groups is a recipe of weakening democracy and the good of the society. There should be regulations that can be used to control corporate political funding and lobbying so that some interests groups to seem to have more influence as compared to others. Disclosures and government ethics rules can be applied to try and bring sanity in the political process regardless of the vested interest of the corporations. The public interest has to prevail over the private interest when everything is taken into consideration. Government officials need to understand that they have a good to defend public interest without considering undue influence from interest groups. Inequalities in the influence of interest groups perpetuate the same inequality in the society and foregoing of public interest. Work Cited Bobbio N., Liberalism and Democracy. London: Verso, 2005. Kelly D. 2004. “Max Weber and the Rights of Citizens“, Max Weber Studies, Vol. 4, pp. 23-49. Weber, Leonard, J. “Citizenship and democracy: The ethics of corporate lobbying,” Business Ethics Quarterly, 6 (1996) 2, 253-9. Young & Tham, Democratic Audit of Australia, 2006. Read More

In case where some interest groups have much influence as compared to others public good and democracy is threatened. Interest groups with powerful influence will want to control formulation and implementation of government policies to their own advantage with little regard to the public good of the society. Good governance calls for public servants in the government to have the public good before private interests but the burden should not be placed on the government official (Kelly, 2004). Ethics regulations can help in reminding public servants of the necessity to protect against undue influence from the parties enhancing private interests but it is not easy to expect that officials can act for the good of the society when they are being surrounded by the individuals and groups seeking private interests.

If individuals and organizations reduce citizenship activity to the pursuit of private interests, all regulations on ethics in the world are not likely to result in good government. Corporate influence on government can only be limited through policies of transparency as well as disclosure and through capping or abolishing political parties getting private donations. Disclosure and transparency can help to prevent graft but are less effective in making undue influence less. It is wrong morally for individuals or businesses to induce public officials to get into arrangements that are likely to lead to activities that are corrupt.

The assurance of democracy is that every individual in the society will share equally in terms of political power. Contrary in the setting of a liberal capitalist democracy as well as its attendant economic inequalities, businesses and individuals who are wealthy have the influence to manipulate their economic power into political power since some people with lots of money will often try to speak louder and will often have their way in the process (Young & Tham 7). The influence of money in societies that are liberal capitalist translate to the fact that there is a persistent risk that forms of democracies do not divulge the plutocratic reality of government influenced by the wealthy.

in its more awful forms, the power of money on politics increases the specter of ‘money politics’ which illustrates itself into the democratic polity in many forms but the main presence is manifested in forms political campaigns being financed by private funding. There are two major types of political corruption linked to the private lobbying and funding of political parties. These are corruption as undue influence and corruption as graft. Corporations look for ways of influencing the government through funding political campaigns, donations to political parties, lobbying public officials, the application of media control to support or oppose government policies, and buying political accessibility to public officials.

The main ethical issue arising from corporate political funding and lobbying is whether such action undermines democratic principles of government which are popular control of public decision-making as well as political equality in executing the control. The skepticism carried in Weber’s statement about diminishing democracy and society good can be seen through such actions by corporation to gain undue influence using their wealth (Bobbio 2005). Arguments against state funding fortify the position by Weber that the good of society and democracy are threatened when some interest groups much influence as compared to others hence contributing to inequalities.

Corporate lobbying and corporate donations present some businesses as having more influence than others according to how moneyed they are. State funding has the ability to undermine the independence of parties hence making them dependent on the state. It makes them to ignore their members as well as the broader civil society (Kelly, 2004). It is not morally permissible for corporations to lobby and go ahead and make financial donations to governments for the purpose of pursuing private corporate ends without considering the public interest.

Read More