Whether it is a good or bad thing to view politics through the lens of political intermediaries and what they do (example: mediation) is a matter of debate. Intermediaries can be defined as a mixed group of actors (political intermediaries, political parties, interest groups, movements) that act as a bridge between two or more levels, social institutions; while mediation, as a process, includes all the medications that these actors make to keep the political system intact. Intermediaries mediate contests across different spheres and areas. These acts and practices of mediation are diverse, multi-level, multi-form and involved.
The study of political change through intermediaries reveals the interrelationships of locality, social power and political intermediaries in policy, politics, public distribution and the multiple roles that intermediaries perform at different scales of these processes. It has become public that the government faces a challenge in appointing the 18th Governor by cutting off the interference of business groups. The chief of the central bank (Nepal Rastra Bank) should be selected from among a group of capable and qualified persons. Party and other interests should not be considered in this. However, there is a widespread opinion that business groups and middlemen are now dominating the selection of the governor, and even that this position has been exchanged with the clan.
Of course, each political party also has its own interests. No one disagrees with the appointment of an independent and capable person as governor because this is a purely technical position and plays the role of an advisor to guide the country. Yes, the country should feel the shift from caste-based and single-caste rule to inclusiveness. When various interest groups lobby for a certain candidate as the governor, this raises questions about the autonomy of the central bank itself. In general, an interest group is any association of individuals or institutions, usually formally organized, that, based on one or more common concerns, attempts to influence public policy in its favor.
Where a think tank differs is that it goes beyond analysis, observation and lobbying, advocacy, debate, and actively provides insights to influence policies at the global, regional and national levels. The job of a lobbyist is to persuade and communicate key points of information to politicians in order to change their minds, vote a certain way or influence policy change. Many lobbyists are professionals, but ordinary people can lobby with their political representatives on issues they feel strongly about.
Some organizations may use their communications team to fulfill this role, rather than employing a professional lobbyist. A lobbyist typically performs this role face-to-face. While it is perfectly legitimate to communicate with politicians about key issues, representing or attempting to persuade them of the views of key stakeholders, unethical lobbyists may seek to persuade them either through overt or covert bribery or other means (such as blackmail).
A pressure group is an organization that attempts to influence decisions. This is a group that engages in lobbying a politician or decision-maker. They employ strategies other than lobbying to try to persuade and influence change. For example, they may engage in media relations campaigns, advertisements, protests, and so on. These should not have undue influence.
Why should one group have more say in policy than others? This may represent a corruption of democracy, in that the government should be in the best interests of the majority of the people. The suspicion is that lobbyists influence policies to the benefit of the few, and that big business gains undue influence as a result of their ability to use such strategies.
But lobbying can be benign and not always professional. Think tanks produce research that attempts to work in the public interest by convincing politicians that wearing seat belts reduces road deaths and that pressure groups formed by victims’ parents will save lives by changing laws.
Are think tanks, lobbyists and pressure groups a threat to democracy? The question arises. Let’s start by understanding what these groups are, and then look at how they affect democracy.
There is no clear definition of what a think tank is. It is a group of individuals whose job is to provide ideas, commentary and sometimes research on a key topic. There are many types of think tanks and their work overlaps with that of industry analysts and researchers within higher education institutions such as universities.
Lobbying is the activity of influencing decision-makers (usually politicians). People who do this are called lobbyists. The job of a lobbyist is to persuade and communicate key points of information to politicians in order to change their minds, vote a certain way, or influence policy changes. Many lobbyists are professionals, but ordinary people can lobby their political representatives on issues they feel strongly about.
Some organizations may use their own communications team to fulfill this role, rather than employing a professional lobbyist. A lobbyist usually performs this role face-to-face. While it is perfectly legitimate to represent or attempt to persuade key stakeholders when talking to politicians about major issues, unethical lobbyists may seek to persuade through either overt or covert bribery or other means (such as blackmail).
Pressure groups
A pressure group is an organization that attempts to influence decisions. This is a group that engages in lobbying a politician or decision-maker. They employ strategies other than lobbying to try to persuade and influence change.
For example, they may engage in media relations campaigns, advertising, protests and so on. These should not be biased in favor or against. Why should one group have more say in policy than others? This can represent a corruption of democracy, which is supposed to serve the interests of the majority of the people.
Indeed, Nepal’s political life is dominated by interest groups that do not communicate with each other. Leaders therefore talk less to each other and to the public than to the media. The political culture of the media, however, is marked by dualism: private media tend to portray the leadership in a very negative light.
Private media, relatively free from government censorship, have fallen into the hands of economic and political tycoons who use them to manipulate public consciousness and provoke leaders to fight each other by exposing illegal practices. It is not a good sign that money is in the hands of middlemen, setting business with politicians.
Politics, administration and even entrepreneurs have fallen into the setting business in recent days. Policy decisions have started to be made according to the influence of middlemen, ie interest groups. Therefore, now it is not a good sign to come to the social network that says, ‘Where is the money?’ It is not a good sign at all. In fact, a scary situation has started to arise in Nepal, setting before decisions. Who will be promoted? Who will be transferred? The opinion that interest groups and middlemen have already set it is becoming more and more popular.
In the private sector, the tendency to make money at any cost rather than being reasonable has started to dominate. In recent days, the private sector has been working to inspire politicians in setting, middlemen and policy corruption.
And, there is also a tendency to discredit politicians and employees who are not cooperative with their plans. In particular, let's develop competitive capabilities, demand equal treatment, regulation and environment from the state, but it is not good to go beyond that and become overly ambitious. The topics of debate about international intermediaries, national intermediaries, local civil society and civil movements have already started to appear in Nepal. With the money given by donors, various international NGOs used to work using their own administrative and technical mechanisms. Services and facilities would reach the people directly.
All this affects those with the most money the most.
Accountability and transparency
Accountability is not always an issue. The best think tanks and lobbyists are clear about where their money is coming from, and what they stand for; but some do not disclose who is paying for their services. We need to know who is paying the bill because it enables us to detect and explain bias.
But in Nepal, it has become a matter of great concern and concern among the public that a very bad culture is developing in which people pay money to get their own decisions and appointments made in their favor. The most ethical firms clearly state who is sponsoring their work, and coordinate their work with policy to keep it correct, such as reviewing it, using methods to ensure independence or accuracy. However, the use of cutting-edge technology to influence politicians and voters is also questionable.
