Public engagement is not just another box to check for governments; it’s a foundation for trust between them and local communities. When done well, it can bring residents, community organizations, businesses and public officials together to collaboratively solve issues that either directly affect or indirectly affect peoples lives. Yet, when it’s done performatively, this can damage trust within the community, thus reinforcing the very disengagement it is meant to solve. So, what makes public engagement effective? How can poor engagement break the bond between governments and people they serve?
Public engagement is more that just surveys or town halls, it’s comprised of:
- Research and innovation
- Knowledge exchange and outreach
- Inclusive policy making
- Business and non-profit involvement
And most importantly, it widens community participation. Effective engagement empowers citizens and stakeholders to have a part in shaping policies that impact them. It can foster transparency, accountability, and more mindful decision making, since public engagement allows for other perspectives to be seen.
Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case. As one of the biggest failings in local governance is no the absence of engagement, yet the illusion of it. Public engagement is like tending a garden, you can’t just throw the seeds in soil with some water and hope for the best. It needs to be nurtured consistently, with sunlight, water, and care. Just like how public engagement needs transparency, communication and genuine listening. Because without these elements, even the most enthusiastic community efforts will wither. When people feel unheard, they become discouraged, often leading to even lower levels of participation and civic trust. This discouragement tends to occur when governments engage with the public for appearances rather than for outcomes, something known as performative consultation.
Here are a few signs of that:
- Decisions being made behind closed doors, especially when residents learn about major decisions only after they’re finalized.
- Poor communication, specifically when public notices are hard to find, town hall meeting dates are inaccessible, and plain-language summaries are rare. This can leave residents feeling in the dark and excluded by design or neglect.
- Tokenized input, brought by the government to host forums or circulate surveys, but their decisions rarely reflect the input they receive. Making the process feeling hollow or manipulative.
Building trust through true engagement requires more than just asking questions, it requires listening, reflecting and addressing issues head on. When governments are being clear with their communities, it’ll be clear through their communication. For instance, when they express future goals and timelines, your input effectively shapes outcomes, diverse and accessible participation is being shown and the feedback they’re provided is addressed or responded to. When local governments prioritize informed decision making and open communication they show respect for their community’s voice. When local governments prioritize informed decision-making and open communication, they demonstrate respect for community voice.