DIRA and DenmanWorks?
By Cylon 2036 We/Us
There was a time when “public consultation” meant asking people what they thought before making a decision. That was adorable. Today’s local tax-funded institutions have refined the process into something far more sophisticated. The decision is made first, then the public is invited to participate in the exciting tradition of discovering why it was inevitable. This is known as engagement.
The modern consultation begins by cheerfully announcing that your opinion matters. The local institution proudly proclaims that “information has been made publicly available.” Indeed. Transparency and accountability have apparently become estranged cousins who no longer speak to one another.
Transparency used to mean making things easy to understand. Now it hides in plain sight while explaining even less. This counts as informed consent. Then comes the public consultations, following the announcement of Chair appointments and budget allocations, while the timeline has already been approved.
Questions from residents are warmly welcomed. Answers, however, are another matter. Questioners are thanked, comments are appreciated, concerns are acknowledged, responses are compiled, clarifications are under review, while additional information will be available at a later date. The vote is then taken.
One cannot help admiring the efficiency. Why spend time educating residents before asking them to vote, when you can simply educate them afterward about why the outcome was always the correct one? Nothing calms disappointment quite like retroactive explanations.
This approach has several advantages. First, it saves time. Second, it minimizes awkward public debate. Third, it eliminates the risk that informed citizens might suggest alternatives before tax dollars become invested in a single plan. Flexibility is now considered overrated.
Institutions often reassure residents that “we’re listening.” No one doubts this. Listening has never been the problem. The challenge has always been what happens immediately afterward. Listening, it turns out, is entirely compatible with continuing in exactly the same direction regardless of feedback.
Every proposal contains the comforting phrase, “Please share your thoughts.” It rarely contains the option to reject the premise of the entire project. Instead, participants are invited to rank their enthusiasm for predetermined outcomes.
“Perhaps everyone should slow down for a moment and explain what we’re actually doing” is not an option. That option was eliminated during private discussions about efficiency. The local institution later reports that “public engagement demonstrated community support.” And then the proposal proceeds exactly as planned. Coincidence is a beautiful thing.
Perhaps the greatest achievement is the invention of procedural transparency. Everything hides in plain sight. Every meeting time is made public, on short notice, and with little information available in advance. It is all perfectly visible, much like a submarine with glass windows. You can see everything, but just can’t get inside before it leaves the harbour.
When public trust declines, local institutions claim that they don’t understand why there’s not greater participation in local governance. The irony is exquisite. Perhaps this is all a misunderstanding, and the phrase “public consultation” has simply been redefined. It no longer means asking citizens what should happen, but instead informing them of what has already been decided.
The meeting minutes will read: “Thank you for your valuable input.”
