The case against certainty

Why consultation is even more necessary in 2022

One of the main arguments against consultation has always been that it happens too late and is a tokenistic exercise, having little influence because the decision-maker’s mind has already been made up. In the UK alone, there are hundreds of consultations each year that will have no impact on the consultor, who has already in effect decided what to do. It is a colossal waste of everyone’s time, and a breach of the Gunning One principle – that consultations should only take place at the ‘formative stage’ of the decision-making process. Much of the work of the Consultation Institute has been a campaign to eliminate this abuse.

Yet it continues to happen …often for understandable reasons. Politicians get elected after making promises and are naturally in a hurry to implement them. Voters traditionally respond best to clarity of message, personal conviction, and certainty. And time is always short in politics. Hesitate, and the momentum can falter. Think twice … and the window of opportunity can close abruptly. No wonder there is pressure either to by-pass a consultation – if politically possible. Make it as brief as one can, or to narrow its scope to avoid the main question and restrict the scope of the consultation to ‘How we do it” rather than “What should we do”.

This is what may have happened in the DCMS consultation on the privatisation of Channel Four. Many critics felt that the consultation was deeply flawed, as it offered very little by way of alternative options to the kind of privatisation that the Secretary of State was openly advocating. Key stakeholders – including Channel Four itself - clamoured for better evidence of the work that led to eliminating some of these alternative scenarios. They wanted to know why the Government argued that having access to future funding could only be done by leaving the public sector. But on this, they came up against the Minister’s personal conviction. No analysis. No debate. Just certainty.

There are times when this is commendable. The public value simple truths and simple choices. Yes/No was not really a problem for most people taking part in the EU or other referendums. They complain about politicians verbally gyrating on the media to try and avoid answering a simple question. They loathe fudge; they mistrust ambiguity. Does it not, in part, explain the admiration of Donald Trump, and other populists?

But here is the paradox. Certainty may be popular, but most of us have never lived in an age of greater uncertainty. Just consider recent events. A largely unforeseen BREXIT in the UK was followed by a worldwide pandemic that turned most of our lives upside down. What transport planner foresaw the wholesale cessation of flying, the halving of commuter traffic or the rapid destruction of High Streets? Then came inflation…and the war in Ukraine. Wholesale shocks to social and economic expectations. And, coming soon to anywhere close by are the likely impacts of energy crises, food shortages and net-zero policies. Any politician who tries to predict the future is whistling in considerable darkness.

So how long will it take society, and in particular voters in democratic societies, to figure out that, for most things, certainty is no longer possible? And can public engagement and consultation help?

Right now, policy-makers, whether national or local face more complexity – and overlapping impacts. The choices are greater, but their impacts may be trickier to predict. Trying to work out the implications of one approach on other activities is much harder, especially when those other processes or systems are themselves subject to change. Moving parts and interdependencies have become almost impossible for policy-makers to forecast. Only a consultation that encourages a wide range of stakeholders to offer their perspectives on what’s proposed can help.

It may not need to be a formal consultation. Issues such as climate change require a sustained effort to educate, persuade and motivate communities – whether geographic or thematic. Where, however, there are tough decisions and hard choices, it is best to share the pain – to opt for a transparent dialogue with an honest exchange of views on the pros and cons of competing options. In other words, a proper best practice consultation.

We need a culture of greater candour. A greater willingness, by politicians, civil servants, civil society, and the mass media to admit what we don’t know. Consultation is far more effective when it openly seeks views, rather endorsement of existing preferred policies. Admitting to uncertainty should release imaginative new ideas and unlock creativity, free from the constraints of more orthodox thinking. Involving a wider range of stakeholders as consultees should similarly broaden the agenda and add value to the output.

Certainty will not disappear sometime soon. But surely, we should learn that unexpected events have a massive destabilisation effect on public policies, economic activity and the health and wellbeing of communities. Such seismic changes increase anxieties and make people worry about their interests. The honest response is to engage with them by facing future uncertainties and involving them as fully as possible in determining likely implications and the best ways to meet them.

TRIGGER POINTS

1. The Channel Four consultation can be found here, and the Government’s response here
2. Can you encourage a culture of candour in your organisation?
3. Do your consultations adequately admit to the uncertainties of each situation?
4. Have you placed more efforts into the growing challenges of impact analyses?

This is the 377th Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement