Insider and Outsider Groups

Some CSOs are closer to the government than others. This affects the kinds of strategies they use. An important difference is between insider and outsider groups.

Insider Groups

Insider groups have a close relationship with the government. They can regularly speak with politicians because they are very powerful. Insider groups usually represent important sectors of the economy, such as industries, businesses or labour groups. However, other CSOs can also have a close relationship with the government if they deal with social issues that are politically important.

The relationship between insider groups and politicians can be good for them both. Insider groups benefit because they can put direct pressure on policy makers. This allows them to represent their interests and concerns more effectively than groups who cannot communicate with the government as easily.

Having the support of insider groups can also be very important for a government. For example, if the government wants to improve the economy, they will often take the advice of groups that represent important industries. This is also true for individual politicians. If a politician supports policies that benefit these powerful groups, he or she can rely on the support of those groups. Having the support of insider groups can increase a politician’s political power.

Outsider Groups

Outsider groups generally represent groups who have less political power (even though they might have many more supporters). Some examples of outsider groups include peace campaigners, environmental activists or animal rights groups. These groups do not usually have the ability to talk to the government directly. As a result, they need to use indirect strategies to put pressure on the government.

Outsider groups try to gain public support and sympathy for their goals and their activities by carrying out information campaigns, organising demonstrations or creating petitions. Most of these groups try to influence the mass media into giving more attention to the issues they focus on.

Outsider groups might be outsiders because they do not have enough power to have access to the government. However, they could be outsiders because they choose to be — for ideological reasons, for example.

CSO Strategies

Lobbying

A common way civil society actors influence public policy is through lobbying. CSOs try to influence members of the government and political parties through meetings, phone calls or writing letters. Groups whose main (or only) activity is lobbying are known as lobby groups or lobbyists. Politicians often listen to lobbyists to understand the needs and concerns of the group the lobbyists represent. Frequently, lobby groups represent businesses or industries but they can also represent environmental groups, rights groups or other interests. Lobbyists try to persuade the government to make decisions that benefit their group or interest. For example, they might try to convince members of the legislature to vote for or against a proposed law or to get the executive to make or change policies.

Advocacy

Advocacy is when an individual or a group tries to influence government and political party actions and policies by raising awareness about a particular issue or cause. It influences the government and/or political parties indirectly by affecting public opinion on an issue.

There are many strategies used by advocacy groups including media campaigns, speeches and publishing research reports. The main aim of these activities is to increase public support for the kinds of policies that the group wants. It is a strategy that is often used by outsider groups to defend the rights of marginalised groups in society.

Demonstrations

Like advocacy, the aim of a demonstration is to influence the government by making people aware of an issue. However, while advocacy tries to do this by presenting information, demonstrations try to get public support by creating an event that people — and the media — cannot ignore. Demonstrations can be dramatic events, so even a very short video on the television news can have a very big impact on public opinion.

Demonstrations and other kinds of direct action are strategies that require few resources (e.g. money or skilled staff). This makes them popular with CSOs that do not have the power to influence government directly.

Civil Society and Access to Media in the Philippines The Philippines has a vibrant media and civil society. The media and civil society serve as watchdogs, advocating political reform and demanding that political leaders be accountable for their actions. These two institutions played a vital role in the two “people power” revolts that resulted in the ouster of Ferdinand Marcos and Joseph Estrada. Today, the media and civil society play essential roles in encouraging the Arroyo administration to implement its earlier promises of political reform. The 1987 constitution ensures freedom of assembly. The constitution protects the rights of free speech and press, and the Philippine media represents diverse in- terests and political persuasions. To ensure fair coverage of opposition party cam- paigns, the government is prohibited from granting or removing the broadcasting license of any media outlet during the election period. The Philippine media is con- sidered by some to be the freest in Asia. These protections, however, do not ensure the impartiality of the news, and it is frequently alleged that candidates pay journal- ists for coverage. As veteran journalist Malou Mangahas noted, “In the hands of the unscrupulous, press freedom becomes the freedom to sell stories, the freedom to market the news as a commodity, the freedom to turn the mass media into mass mediocrity.” Many argue that corruption in the Philippine media is as endemic as corruption in the country’s politics. Its origins can be traced to the early 1950s, when then Pres- ident Ramon Magsaysay institutionalized “public relations” by treating members of the media to free lunches and dinners and by providing financial support. The impar- tiality and objectivity of the media was further compromised during martial law when the Marcos family used both intimidation and rewards to persuade members of the media to defend the dictatorship. With the end of the Marcos regime, the number of media organizations mush- roomed alongside the explosion of candidates and political parties. Media support became vital for electoral success, and despite bans on media during the election period, political payoffs reportedly continued between candidates and media sourc- es. Source: Political Parties in Asia: Promoting Reform and Combating Corruption in Eight Countries