 role of lobbies and non-state actors. Actually, when we want to talk about the role of lobbies and non-state actors, that basically these are the groups within the institutions, sometimes the non-state actors or sometimes the lobbies, they are the non-institutional structures. And specifically, in context of government, those groups have some common interests and they try to pursue those common interests. Sometimes, in some places, lobbies become very strong and they can pressurize even the government. And in some cases, the non-state actors, they become so powerful that they can influence the decision making of a government. So the presence of such groups actually beautifies and adds to the representative character of democracies. Traditionally, this is a concept that wherever lobbies are present and in terms of pressure tactics, they influence those decisions of the government whose direct relationship is with the people. That is, at the time of budget, traditionally, the lobbies used to see that there is an increase in salary, that the government is not going towards a lot of money, how is its control, sometimes lobbies, they try to pressurize the short-term policy making in the government and sometimes they try to influence the long-term policy objectives. So traditionally, we saw that specifically in the western democracies, the lobbies were very strong and they used to work as a group that influenced the decision making of the government. But we also saw that sometimes the non-state actors they try to pursue their own interests. That is, if this interest is for the common people, then this is positive. But if these non-state groups or actors, they try to pursue and pressurize the governments for their own interests. If a specific group's interest is pursued, then this is used as a negative tactic. Specifically, in the legislative organizations, sometimes these groups become more active. If in some country, a non-state actor or group tries to influence the legislation, or if it is influenced in such a way that whatever the government decides, these groups will be taken care of. In comparison with the larger population of the state. This is what we have to look at and understand that whether they are lobbies or non-state actors, to whom they are representing, whether they are representing the population, the majority of the population, or whether just they are trying to pursue the interest of a specific group on the basis of certain identity. This is very critical and in the context of this debate, in the whole world, the role of lobbies is discussed and the role of non-state actors is also evaluated in different places. Different activities are done and then they are evaluated. In the context of this debate, it is seen that the lawmakers who are influencing them, along with this, in the administration, in the judiciary, in the various components of the administration, wherever there is policy making, policy implementation, or agenda setting, which lobby is strong there, which lobby is pursuing which interest, whether the interest that is being pursued is not in the favor of a specific group. There are many such questions and when we evaluate the role of lobby and non-state actors, specifically with the regarding of a performance of a government, i.e. on the government, how these are affected, what kind of tactics are used, and which actors are influenced by these efforts. This is certainly very critical and important because if the lobby is natural, if the lobby is performing such a role that it represents a particular group, and the interest of that group is being pursued, but its loss is not happening to anyone else. And in the long run, that policy making can be beneficial for the state, then it is fine, then it is performing the duty. In the lobby, and some non-state actors are active in a certain aspect and they are pursuing a specific interest, then it is becoming a negative role.