Well, by focusing on the leftmost arrows from “implementation” to “risk analysis,” and from “implementation” to “evaluation,” because on these two particular arrows in your cycle, representativeness is not a concern. Stakeholders ineligible to speak are the people who are suffering because of the current implementation. Anyone who is caught between what is in reality and what the current regulations say should be, the reality is ineligible to talk about what is going wrong with the system and what risk there is inherently in the current design and the conditions in which we can make it a better goal or a better realization of the goals, but it does not say anything about system design. It does not say anything about the implementation. It does not say anything about a particular form that it should take to resolve this dilemma. So, basically we are just mapping out the pain points or the subjective feelings, and on the subjective feelings, there is no “quality of debate” issue because everyone is an expert in describing their own qualia or their own subjective experience, and so by focusing on the feelings and letting the feelings to resonate with one another into ideas, and we stop right there. We do not presume to replace the professional public servants or the parliament, for that matter, when taking those ideas into implementation.

Keyboard shortcuts

j previous speech k next speech