Public consultation: shaping a text before it is written

A consultation, meaning what?

A public consultation is a procedure through which an authority gathers the observations of the people concerned before settling a text or a decision. It does not arbitrate: it informs. But it happens at a point where the options are still open, which gives it a particular value.

In France, consultations preceding a regulatory text are listed by Vie publique, while the State's citizen participation schemes are gathered on Agora. Within the European Union, the Commission opens its consultations on the Have your say portal. Formats, durations and follow-up vary, but the logic is the same: to produce a record before the decision.

What it changes, and what it does not

A consultation replaces neither the vote, nor negotiation, nor a balance of power. It does not guarantee that the best-argued case will prevail. Nor does it give access to the decision: it opens a window during which a position can be heard, contested and, sometimes, taken up.

What it changes is more precise. It obliges the administration to set out a draft, to justify it and to plan how observations will be handled. It creates a public space where arguments must be formulated in a verifiable way. For an organisation, it is often the first opportunity to make its analysis known before the text is frozen.

What it does not change is the responsibility of those who take part. A consultation is not a poll. The number of responses does not make the decision, and a late or off-topic contribution is lost.

Where and when to intervene

Three levels deserve to be distinguished.

The public consultation on a draft text. It concerns a document already written, sometimes accompanied by an impact assessment. This is the moment to discuss modalities, thresholds, deadlines and exceptions.

The upstream consultation on options. It is more open: the authority wants to know which problems arise and which solutions are conceivable. This is where the room for manoeuvre is greatest, and often where organisations arrive too late.

The public debate or the concertation. It concerns a development project or a policy, with its own rules. It is not the same as a regulatory consultation, even when it later feeds the decision.

The timetable governs everything. A contribution filed on the last day is read in a hurry, sometimes after the administration's position has already settled. Conversely, early contact with the right counterparts allows questions to be raised before the text takes its final shape.

What distinguishes a useful contribution

Four criteria make the difference.

Answer the questions asked. A contribution that addresses another subject, even an important one, is hard to use. Structured consultations ask precise questions: they must be answered, in order, in the same terms.

Bring dated, sourced facts. A figure without a period, a scope and a source carries no weight. A documented field observation, a detailed experience or a verifiable public dataset is more useful than a general statement.

Propose wording. The best way to have a text amended is to propose alternative wording, showing what it changes and what it costs. A criticism that proposes nothing leaves the administration to imagine the solution.

State who you are and which interest you represent. Transparency is not a formality: it allows the drafter to place the contribution and to treat it for what it is. An anonymous or opaque contribution is easier to set aside.

The ladder of participation

Research on public participation carries a simple message, often forgotten: taking part is not influencing. In a now classic article, Sherry Arnstein describes a ladder of citizen participation running from manipulation to citizen control, through information and consultation (Arnstein, 1969). Her thesis is that participation without a redistribution of power remains a staging.

Archon Fung extends the argument by showing that participatory schemes vary according to who takes part, how exchanges are organised and what weight is given to the conclusions (Fung, 2006). In other words, the right question is not only "was there a consultation?" but "what could actually change as a result of it?".

That grid is useful for choosing how much effort to spend. A consultation whose conclusions are known in advance deserves a short, traceable contribution. A consultation open on options deserves heavier work, with original data and proposed wording.

After the consultation: track the text

The filed contribution is not the end of the work. What becomes of the text has to be tracked: the published summaries, the amendments made, the opinions issued, then the final text and its implementing decrees.

This follow-up has two virtues. It shows whether the arguments were taken up, and it allows that to be said to those who contributed. It also prepares what comes next: a provision misunderstood at the drafting stage will still be misunderstood when applied, and another channel will then be needed.

What it changes for an organisation

Taking part in a consultation is not a communication exercise. It is substantive work, which requires choosing the right moment, identifying the right counterpart, producing verifiable facts and accepting to follow the file after it closes.

Three questions help decide whether the effort is worth it. Can the text still change on the point that concerns us? Do we hold an element the administration does not already have? Are we ready to make our position public, with what that implies?

If the answer is no to all three, an internal note is enough. If it is yes to at least two, the contribution deserves to be prepared as a working document, not as an opinion piece.

On this ground, see influence communications. For the transparency framework surrounding this work, see Influence: what French law requires to be made public.