Governments at all levels routinely claim to consult the public before making major decisions. Town halls, online surveys, comment periods, and stakeholder meetings are standard features of policy development. Yet citizens increasingly express skepticism about whether these consultations actually influence outcomes. When decisions appear predetermined, when input seems ignored, or when participation is structured to exclude dissent, consultation becomes performance rather than genuine engagement. Understanding the difference matters for democratic health.
The Promise of Public Consultation
In theory, public consultation serves vital democratic functions. It allows affected communities to share knowledge that officials may lack. It surfaces concerns that might otherwise be overlooked. It builds legitimacy for decisions by demonstrating that diverse perspectives were considered. It educates both officials and public about complex trade-offs. At its best, consultation improves decisions while strengthening civic engagement and trust.
These ideals inform legal requirements and policy frameworks across Canada. Environmental assessments mandate public comment. Indigenous consultation is constitutionally required for decisions affecting Aboriginal rights. Municipal planning processes include public hearings. Federal regulations typically involve notice-and-comment periods. The infrastructure of consultation is well-established.
Yet the gap between consultation's promise and its practice has fueled widespread cynicism. Many Canadians have participated in consultations that felt meaningless—exercises in going through motions rather than genuine opportunities to influence outcomes.
Forms of Performative Consultation
Predetermined Outcomes
Perhaps the most damaging form of performative consultation occurs when decisions have already been made before consultation begins. The project will proceed regardless of public input; consultation exists only to create an appearance of democratic process. Participants who invest time and effort in providing thoughtful feedback discover their input was never genuinely sought.
This pattern is particularly evident in major infrastructure and development projects. Environmental assessments may be conducted after fundamental decisions about whether to proceed have already been made. Community consultations may occur when contracts are already signed. The consultation becomes a legitimization ritual rather than a decision-making input.
Narrow Framing
Consultations may be structured to limit what can be questioned. A consultation about how to implement a decision may exclude questions about whether the decision should be made at all. Options presented may all share fundamental assumptions that go unexamined. This framing may be explicit or may emerge from how questions are designed, what information is provided, and which voices are invited.
For example, a consultation about a new highway might invite input on route options while treating the highway itself as a given. Participants wanting to question the fundamental need for the highway, or propose alternatives like public transit, find no space for their concerns within the consultation framework.
Inaccessible Processes
Consultation processes may be technically "open" while being practically inaccessible to many affected people. Meetings held during working hours exclude those who cannot take time off. Venues may be inaccessible to people with disabilities. Technical documents may be incomprehensible without specialized expertise. Online consultations exclude those without internet access or digital literacy. Short timelines may not allow meaningful participation.
These barriers may not be intentional, but their effect is to ensure that only certain voices—typically those already privileged—meaningfully participate. The resulting input reflects a narrow slice of affected communities.
Selective Listening
Even when diverse input is gathered, what happens to it matters enormously. Reports may summarize feedback in ways that minimize dissent. Negative comments may be acknowledged without response. Concerns may be categorized as "noted" without any commitment to address them. The consultation record may show that people participated without showing whether their participation influenced anything.
This selective processing allows governments to claim they consulted widely while ignoring input that conflicts with predetermined directions. The paper trail shows process; it may not show influence.
Token Representation
Consultation processes may include representatives of affected communities in ways that provide cover without power. An Indigenous representative on an advisory committee may be outvoted by industry appointees. A youth delegate may participate in discussions without voting rights. Community members may be invited to observe but not speak. These forms of inclusion perform diversity while maintaining existing power structures.
Why Performative Consultation Persists
Legal Compliance
Some consultation occurs primarily to satisfy legal requirements rather than to genuinely inform decisions. Meeting the letter of consultation obligations—holding the required meetings, accepting the mandated comments—may be sufficient to survive legal challenge, even if the spirit of meaningful engagement is absent.
Political Cover
Consultation provides political protection. Officials can claim they listened to the public, deflecting criticism about ignoring community concerns. The existence of a consultation process creates a narrative of democratic responsiveness regardless of how the process actually functioned.
Bureaucratic Incentives
For officials managing consultation processes, success may be measured by completing the process on time and on budget rather than by the quality of engagement achieved. Genuine consultation is messy, unpredictable, and potentially time-consuming. Performative consultation is more controllable.
Power Imbalances
Those with resources—industry groups, well-funded organizations, professional advocates—can participate more effectively than individual citizens or under-resourced community groups. Consultation processes that treat all input equally may systematically favour those with capacity to participate intensively.
Toward Genuine Engagement
Early and Upstream Involvement
Meaningful consultation occurs before fundamental decisions are made, not after. Engaging communities when options are still genuinely open allows input to shape directions rather than merely modify details of predetermined outcomes.
Adequate Resources and Time
Genuine participation requires that affected communities have resources to engage—time, information, technical support, and capacity to organize. Consultation timelines should reflect the complexity of issues and the capacity of participants, not just the convenience of decision-makers.
Transparent Influence
Governments should explain how input influenced decisions—not just that input was received, but what changed as a result. When input is not followed, explanations of why help distinguish genuine consideration from mere acknowledgment.
Power Sharing
Moving beyond consultation toward genuine co-governance gives affected communities actual power over decisions, not just opportunities to provide input that may be ignored. Indigenous self-governance, community-controlled institutions, and participatory budgeting represent models where power is shared rather than merely consulted.
Accountability Mechanisms
Independent evaluation of consultation quality, complaint mechanisms for inadequate processes, and consequences for performative engagement could create incentives for genuine rather than theatrical consultation.
Questions for Further Discussion
- How can citizens distinguish genuine consultation from performative engagement before investing time in participation?
- What standards should define adequate consultation, and how should compliance be enforced?
- How can consultation processes be designed to include marginalized communities who lack resources for effective participation?
- When, if ever, is consultation inappropriate—when should decisions simply be made democratically through elections rather than through participatory processes?
- How can technology improve genuine engagement rather than simply making performative consultation more efficient?