Omnipartiality. On deliberation in governance for health with the inclusion of emotions, self-interests and expertise 

To what extent it is possible to reconcile the will of the people with expertise? That is the traditional question of democratic policymaking. However, the dilemma outlined in this way is very misleading. It suggests that citizens have no knowledge to offer on any given issue. In addition, it insinuates some peculiar resistance of the expert elite to ignorance, egoism or emotions. A more appropriate question would rather be the following: To what extent policymaking based on expertise is possible at all?  Yet another question follows. Is policymaking based solely on evidence even sound? Is the traditional ideal of impartiality, an exclusion of egoism and passions from policymaking a good ideal? 

Author of the book argues that a good governance for health – and policymaking in general – requires the inclusion and proper balance of the three key inputs of governance: expertise, self-interest and emotions. Considering them requires going beyond typical public debates, bargaining and even beyond expert panels. It requires public deliberation in which the three inputs could engaged in a form of constructive dialogue with each other. In good governance, we should not limit ourselves to evidence insulated from material interests and strong intuitions. We cannot orient ourselves on procedural, neutral impartiality. Rather, we should move towards omnipartiality.