Basically, in such decisions any content is valid, except those that conflict with the procedural rules of democracy itself. In other words – any political decision that goes against the expectations of a given Democratic State (that is outside the meta rules established for changing this regime itself) should not be considered legitimate, regardless of the values it carries and the ideologies it embraces.
On the other hand, lobbying can be understood as “any organized activity, carried out within the law and ethics, by a group with defined and legitimate interests, with the objective of being heard by the public authorities in order to inform them and obtain certain measures, decisions and attitudes from them.” (Said Farhat).
In other words, we lobbyists seek to influence decisions made by the Executive and Legislative Branches (and in a certain sense, some would say, by the Judiciary Branch) through participation in the political decision-making process.
It is also no coincidence that the transcribed definition refers to hong kong mobile database legitimate interests and the ethical and moral limits of the claims presented. Publicity has been a characteristic of lobbying since its inception. Lobbying does not involve shady deals, secrets, or arrangements. Since 1640, when claims were presented in a lobby that connected the House of Commons to the central hall of the Palace of Westminster, until today, such interactions must be made public, keeping confidential only what is strictly necessary (whether for legitimate public or even private interest – such as in cases of possible competitive impacts).
It is important to emphasize that lobbying is done in the open not only to ensure that the community is aware of and is focused on the common good, but also to protect government agents and the individuals who have relationships with them. People are less susceptible to undue pressure when their claims and justifications are made public, as is the case in lobbying and all government relations.
Although publicity is necessary to ensure that political decision-making is in line with the collective interest, it is not sufficient. If there are no defined procedural rules for this decision-making, as we have previously analyzed, it is vulnerable to all sorts of deviations.
The existence of clear rules for the government to politically implement its options – always in favor of the common good, as Dalmo de Abreu Dallari emphasized, based on the encyclical Pacem in Terris, by Pope John XXIII – is something that guarantees equal treatment for the various interests defended before a given body or agent. This is what guarantees that any interest (as long as it is legitimate) can be defended, regardless of permission or license and often anchored – simply but firmly – in the right of petition.