Wow, that's interesting. And definitely in line with the idea of insiders and outsiders. I have seen this in churches, politics, and other organizations. In regards to churches, one of the most common ways church members will describe their church is that it is a family. I have found that description, while well intended, is often harmful. How does one become part of a family? Only by birth into it or through marriage. It doesn't matter how much you identify with a family, or what you do, you can't become a part of the family unless you are born into it or marry into it. That becomes a huge problem when you have church members who have spent decades as part of a church, but are never considered a part of the family and are easily discarded if they step out of line.

Likewise, in politics, it can be cultish. I'm currently reading "The Cult of Trump" by Steven Hassan and he talks about cultish aspects of politics. The in-group and out-group is an essential part of the Trump cult. Only those who are in the in-group are deemed worthy or having value. Others only have value if they confirm the established party line. Otherwise, they are to be dismissed.

In your example, the people who complained are not heard because they aren't supporting the "party" line which maintains the status quo of power. They are not seen to even exist because the only people that exist are the ones who have the "correct" belief. How could anyone disagree with what those in power have deemed "correct?" You are a persona-non-grata if you disagree. You are obviously not part of the in-group, and thus not "correct" and thus you deserve to be ignored.