It can be claimed that pluralism makes government more democratic by keeping representative politicians in check between elections. For example, it can be argued that an election isn't enough to ensure democracy, as a voter must chose between two parties neither of which may support a policy that is the voter's priority. An individual can then support the relevant pressure group, adding their voice and using the lobbying system to bring attention to that issue, which should ensure that minority views are heard by decision makers. By this method, pressure groups can aggregate diverse interests and also help to disperse power away from central institutions, ideally giving more power to a wider base.
Some Pressure groups will scrutinise the government, by the close monitoring of all new proposals. If these proposals are contrary to their interests, they can inform the public that the government action may not benefit them and, in turn, inform the government that the proposals may be against the public interest. An example is a group called GeneWatch UK, made up of specialists who monitor legislation and look at the implications of genetic testing and storage of the results. If they feel there is a danger of genetic discrimination, they will campaign against the proposed legislation by raising public awareness and lobbying governmental institutions such as the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE). This performs a very specific but far-reaching task, and with many of these groups scrutinising governmental policy for their specific interest, they can examine new laws much more thoroughly than any generalist group.
Marxists, like pluralists agree that organised groups are important. However, the Marxist view holds that the state is far from neutral and there is a huge imbalance in terms of political power and influence between groups, depending on the specific interests of the government in power.
