Public consultation is meant to embody democratic governance. It is the means through which citizens, experts, and stakeholders are given the opportunity to voice concerns, provide input, and, ideally, influence the decisions that will shape the country's future. Yet the government's recent approach to consultation reveals a selective and inconsistent commitment to this principle - one that raises questions about transparency, urgency, and intent.

Within the same month, government announced two separate consultation exercises: a one-month period for the controversial Planning Laws Bill and a three-month period for media reform. The contrast is striking and telling. Professor Kevin Aquilina, a respected legal scholar, rightly highlighted the inconsistency in his article on The Malta Independent on Sunday: when it comes to laws that expand state powers and could have far-reaching consequences for citizens' property rights and the environment, the public is given only one month - August no less, traditionally a holiday period - to scrutinise, digest, and respond. But when it comes to reforming media law, a reform that has been languishing on the government's agenda for three years, suddenly the public is afforded a generous three months to engage.

The conclusion is difficult to avoid: government is anxious to push the planning laws through, despite opposition. Initially, the plan was to rush the bill through Parliament with minimal public input. When resistance surfaced, a consultation was announced - but with such a short time frame and such awkward timing that the gesture smacks of tokenism rather than genuine engagement.

Contrast this with the media reform process. Here, government is content to play the long game. Three months have been allocated, and given the lack of urgency with which media reform has been treated over the years, there is little likelihood that the bill will be steamrolled through Parliament anytime soon. Indeed, it has been evident for years that government harbours little appetite for reforms that would enhance the independence of journalism, improve protection for media workers, and strengthen the public's right to information. Where planning reform is fast-tracked despite its controversy, media reform is delayed despite its necessity.

This is not an isolated incident either. Earlier this year, the government rushed through magisterial inquiry reforms with little concern for the long-term implications. Professor Aquilina himself had described that reform as "the fatal torpedoing of the rule of law." That reform, too, was rushed through in the face of warnings from legal experts and civil society.

A troubling pattern is emerging: consultation and legislative pace are tailored not to democratic principle, but to political convenience. When the government wants something done quickly, consultation is compressed, bypassed, or reduced to a token exercise. When the reform is one that might strengthen democracy, accountability, or the rule of law, suddenly there is no rush at all.

Citizens should not be fooled by the rhetoric of consultation. The true test of democratic governance is not whether consultation occurs, but whether it is meaningful. A one-month exercise during August on laws of such magnitude cannot be called meaningful. Nor can three years of delay on media reform be considered a genuine commitment to free expression and transparency.

Democracy demands consistency. It demands that governments respect process as much as they respect outcomes. If consultation is reduced to a cynical instrument then the principle itself is devalued. Consultation should not be political theatre, but a genuine democratic practice.