CLASSICAL FORMS OF PUBLIC POLICY ADVOCACY ARE DOOMED TO FAIL

In recent years, the representation of political interests has experienced a fundamental transformation. Political decisions are becoming increasingly complex and require professional knowledge that extends beyond the political level. Governing has become more transparent and is now faced with a critical public that is making increasing use of new forms of communication and mobilisation. The perception of the representation of business interests meaning an unfair form of influence is being strengthened by prominent individual cases with a strong focus on particular interests. The impression is of a power struggle in which the interests of the general public are in conflict with those of the world of business, and only one side can prevail.

The classic approach of representing political interests through economic actors, such as companies, groups, and associations often assumes, in terms of both its perception and self-conception, that asserting one's own interests towards the world of politics is a form of resistance to political decisions which, in the view of the economic actors, generally counters the interests of the company or business. For this reason these concepts of the representation of interest are oriented towards conflict. The representation of the political discourse as a permanent conflict is bringing about two phenomena: On the one hand, the parties to the conflict see themselves legitimised to use all means available to them - on the other, this representation of interests, especially by the general public, and especially due to the choice of methods, is viewed as being an attack on democratic consensus building. The result of this is that the representation of political interests is no longer understood to be an integral component of a democratic political culture, but as a threat to it. The attempt to influence political decisions by the world of business is therefore viewed as being undemocratic per se and conflicting with the public good. To a certain extent, lobbying is seen as being an enemy of democracy, in which majorities and badly organised interest groups shape the world of politics.

This interpretation does not stand up to an objective criticism of democratic systems and rules. A democratic and pluralist community is based on its self-understanding that all interests will flow into its decision making in the best possible way. It is therefore important that all views and opinions can gain access to the committees and people who make decisions within these institutions. On the other hand, these politically active persons are also reliant on as many views being taken into consideration as possible when a decision is made - only in that way is it possible to guarantee that an appropriate arrangement can come to exist.

Interest representations therefore have a constitutive task within a democratic state by participating in the political and social process on their own basis, by providing specialist knowledge, participating in discourse, and ultimately through accepting and implementing consensus.

Little attention is paid to this task in terms of public perception, however. Although interest representation generally takes place according to the legal regulations and political conventions, as is everywhere the case, there are black sheep here as well, who sometimes make use of methods that are external to the basic democratic consensus – and irrespective of the fact that they are suspected of acting in such a way. Individual cases that come to light are, on the other hand, taken up and generalised by a critical general public, which furthermore has an impact on the culture of the representation of interests in the world of business. The world of business has therefore become accustomed to implementing its positions as comprehensively as possible and without taking other interests into consideration, yet nonetheless interpreting these as being in the public interest, while in the media and amongst the public there is now an image of unscrupulous lobbyists putting their interests before the public good and using all means, whether morally or legally available, to achieve their aims. In this area of conflict, political actors are now facing a difficult situation: On the one hand they rely on the fact that business expertise helps them in their decision making, and on the other hand, they must ward off the suspicion of illegitimate influence in the minds of both the general public and also the voters. This area of tension has lead, and is leading, to continuous mistrust between the acting parties: politics, the general public and the world of business.

While in earlier times this form of mutual mistrust was kept in balance because the different spheres were as far as possible separate, at the start of the 21st century, the information society has created a wide ranging sense of transparency regarding all the actors in the political environment. In addition to this, new methods and forms of communication have seen new possibilities for influence coming about. The pluralist system, which in the past often assumed corporatist traits, has now become more viral, open to participation and transparent. Although these framework conditions are changing fast, the forms of interest representation in the world of business have more or less stayed the same - which has strengthened their perception as being old-fashioned actors, and causing them increasing difficulties in the face of stakeholders critical to the business world, who are making widespread use of the new possibilities.

Today's political culture means that classic forms of lobbying are doomed to fail. The rapidly diminishing importance of large scale associations is not the only, but one of the most significant forms of proof for this development. Today, those representing business interests have to join the fight with the best arguments, and make positive use of the political dimensions that are a matter of course in the world of democracy: compromise and consensus. Only those communications strategies which integrate their obvious self-interest in a strategy for the common good, and who see the world of politics and society as partners rather than competitors, will be successful over the medium and long term.

In this context it is important that area of themes and actors has become bigger because of the aforementioned changes in political communication. To achieve a successful lobbying process it is no longer enough to have a clear form of interest and to know a few influential people. On the contrary, people are now finding themselves in a market in which factors are important that business actors know from their day to day work: Comprehensive forms of information, an ability to take rapid action, strong and wide networks and a good reputation are all decisive. As there can be no doubt that public perception is central to reputation and also central to the possibility of putting specific themes on the public agenda, the careful evaluation of public opinion as well as work with and in the media form the basis for all forms of communication. At the same time it should not be forgotten that political decision makers also draw their information and image of a company from the media - and in a far stronger scope than society as a whole, as in general, politicians take a greater amount of media into account.