A city holds a public consultation on policing reform and the room fills with residents who share painful stories, who demand accountability, who express years of frustration - and months later, nothing has changed, the consultation having provided the appearance of participation without any of the substance. A police service announces community input sessions and schedules them at times working people cannot attend, in locations that are difficult to reach, with formats that favour those comfortable speaking in official settings - the process designed in ways that limit who participates. A survey is distributed asking residents about policing priorities and the results are announced - but the questions were framed to produce answers that support existing approaches, the consultation confirming what was already decided. An Indigenous community is consulted about policing changes and their input is received, acknowledged, and ignored, the legal requirement for consultation satisfied without any requirement that the consultation matter. A neighbourhood creates a genuine participatory process where residents have actual decision-making power over local policing priorities, and the relationship between police and community begins to change - real participation producing real results. The gap between consultation as performance and consultation as genuine participation shapes whether community voice actually influences policy.
The Case for Meaningful Consultation
Advocates for genuine public participation argue that communities should have real voice in policies that affect them, that most consultation processes are performative, and that democracy requires more than voting.
Affected communities should have voice. Policing affects everyone but affects some communities more than others. Those most affected should have most voice in policies that shape their lives. Consultation that does not centre affected communities fails its basic purpose.
Most consultation is theatre. Check-box exercises, leading questions, scheduled input that goes nowhere, and acknowledgment without change characterize most public consultation. Communities have experienced enough fake consultation to recognize it. Genuine processes look different.
Participation improves outcomes. Policies developed with genuine community input reflect what communities actually need. Implementation improves when communities are invested in outcomes. Better process produces better policy. Consultation is not just democratic principle but practical improvement.
From this perspective, meaningful consultation requires: accessible processes that reach affected communities; genuine questions without predetermined answers; transparent reporting of how input influenced decisions; and accountability when input is not followed.
The Case for Representative Decision-Making
Others argue that elected representatives make policy decisions, that consultation cannot substitute for representative democracy, and that some limitations on consultation are legitimate.
Elected officials are accountable. In democratic systems, elected representatives make decisions and answer to voters. Consultation provides input; officials decide. Transferring decision-making to consultation processes bypasses democratic accountability.
Consultation can be captured. Those who show up may not represent communities. Organized groups, those with time and resources, and those with axes to grind may dominate consultation while ordinary residents are absent. Input from self-selected participants may not reflect community views.
Some decisions require expertise. Technical decisions about policing - deployment, equipment, procedures - may require expertise that public consultation cannot provide. Community input on priorities is appropriate; community control of operations may not be.
From this perspective, consultation should: inform but not replace representative decision-making; be designed to gather representative input; recognize expertise that communities may lack; and be accountable to voters through elected officials.
The Accessibility Question
Who can participate in consultation processes?
From one view, consultation processes systematically exclude many who are most affected. Working people cannot attend daytime meetings. Those without childcare cannot participate. Those uncomfortable in official settings do not speak. Language barriers exclude. Process design determines whose voice is heard.
From another view, those who care will participate. Multiple formats, online options, and varied timing make participation possible. Those who do not participate may not feel strongly. Efforts to reach everyone eventually become excuses for those who simply will not engage.
How accessibility barriers are understood shapes process design.
The Power Question
Should consultation produce decisions or only input?
From one perspective, consultation without decision-making power is performance. If community input can be ignored, communities have no reason to participate. Meaningful participation requires that participation actually matter - power to influence or determine outcomes.
From another perspective, direct democracy has limitations. Decisions require integration of multiple inputs, constraints participants may not understand, and trade-offs that consultation cannot resolve. Input should inform decisions that officials make responsibly.
Whether consultation includes decision-making power shapes what participation means.
The Follow-Through Question
What happens after consultation?
From one view, consultation without follow-through is worse than no consultation. Raising community hopes, gathering input, and then ignoring it breeds cynicism. Transparent reporting of how input influenced decisions, and explanation when input was not followed, maintains integrity of the process.
From another view, not all input can be followed. Consultation may produce contradictory demands, impossible requests, or minority views presented as consensus. Deciding which input to follow and which to reject is part of decision-making. Not following some input is not failure.
How consultation results are handled shapes whether communities trust future processes.
The Question
When a community pours out its concerns and nothing changes, what was the consultation for? When processes are designed to limit who participates, whose voice is being sought? If consultation can be ignored, why should communities participate? When engagement fatigue sets in because participation never produces results, whose fault is disengagement? What would consultation processes designed to actually transfer power look like? And when we invite community voice but do not give it influence, what kind of democracy is that?