MamaWritesSpells

What government messaging gets wrong—and how to fix it

Let’s start with a familiar moment.

Someone opens a government website because they have to.
A form. A deadline. A notice they don’t fully understand.

They read the first paragraph. Then the second. By the third, they’re unsure whether the problem is the policy—or them.

That’s not disengagement. That’s friction.

Government communication doesn’t usually fail because people don’t care. It fails because the language creates distance at the exact moment clarity is needed most.

Plain language isn’t about oversimplifying complex policy. It’s about respecting the reader’s cognitive load.

High-functioning public institutions understand this: engagement begins with orientation.

People need to know:

• What this is
• Why it applies to them
• What action is required (if any)
• What happens next

When that information is buried under jargon, legal phrasing, or abstract structure, citizens hesitate. They delay. They disengage. Or they comply incorrectly—creating more work for everyone downstream.

Plain language removes unnecessary barriers.

It replaces vague phrasing with specific instruction.
It trades passive voice for responsibility.
It organizes information in the order people actually need it—not the order it was drafted internally.

And here’s the part that often gets overlooked: plain language builds trust without asking for it.

When communication is clear, people feel respected. When it’s confusing, they assume the system isn’t built for them. Over time, that perception compounds.

Better citizen engagement doesn’t require louder messaging or more outreach campaigns. It requires fewer moments where people feel lost.

Plain language works because it aligns intent with experience.

It says, “We want you to understand.”
And then it proves it.

That’s not a stylistic choice.

That’s good governance.