The 'Democracy Innovationpreneur' as a Key Driver

We want to make citizen participation and dialogue with residents more substantive.

The number of local governments that think this way is increasing year by year. Digital tools (for example, our online platform Liqlid) have also appeared one after another.

What do we mean by 'substantive' here?
Having people answer a survey just once, or attend an information session. Such 'participation' is, of course, important.
But what we truly aim for is for citizens to be continuously involved in the process of planning and policy-making, in other words, to move to the 'creator' side. In other words, I believe that making dialogue substantive means achieving continuous participation in a sustainable manner.

However, having worked on the ground with local governments for over six years, I have deeply felt a very simple truth. It is not enough to simply 'have' good tools, or to simply 'have' excellent systems or plans; citizen participation will not function well. It only starts to move when there is a 'driver' who meshes tools and systems on the ground, roots them in daily work, and expands them not only to citizens but also within the government office (inside the administration).

I would like to propose this driver as a specific role, calling them a 'Democracy Innovationpreneur' (a person who implements innovation in democracy on the ground).

Why it doesn't work with just 'having tools'

First, many of the challenges local governments face no longer have a single 'correct answer.' Regeneration of central urban areas, how to operate service counters, maintaining infrastructure amid population decline, and reviewing welfare. If positions and values differ, the desirable answer changes. Such challenges have originally been called 'wicked problems.'

Nevertheless, if we keep the premise that 'the administration holds the correct answer from the start' and introduce only an online platform without changing anything else, it usually spins its wheels. It is not that the tool is bad, but a problem with how the challenge is perceived (stance). Conversely, what truly works is not the tool itself, but the 'driver's practice' of accepting that difficulty and driving it through on the ground.

Second, tools that only 'listen' are also insufficient. For example, surveys are convenient but not omnipotent; if the administration does not properly respond to the voices collected and connect them to consensus building, it ends at 'having listened.' There is a deep chasm between having a box to collect voices and having those voices properly reflected in policy.

Third, tools are never neutral. The values of the creators are embedded even in the design and presentation of the screen. Therefore, it is necessary to articulate and make visible 'what values are prioritized in the design.'

In short, tools without a philosophy spin their wheels, and philosophies without tools do not spread.

Is it enough to just 'have systems or plans'?

So, is it enough to have excellent systems or plans? No, it is not. Overseas, research on mechanisms to deepen citizen participation (such as deliberation forums and participatory budgeting) has been accumulated. However, what is discussed there is mainly 'what kind of mechanism is desirable,' and the story of the 'driver'—'who brings it to the ground, continues it, and roots it'—is surprisingly thin.

There are also unique barriers in the Japanese context. Initiatives that have just sprouted disappear the following year within single-year budgets and budget reviews. Vertical silos within the administration prevent horizontal connections. Discussions on DX and administrative reform tend to lean toward 'efficiency,' and the other aspect, 'being democratic,' is often put on the back burner. The order in which Article 1 of the Local Autonomy Law lists 'democratic and efficient' is forgotten (and in reality, likely forgotten). Without people to carry them and procedures in place, mechanisms and philosophies can easily disappear with a single personnel transfer.

Therefore, the driver = the Democracy Innovationpreneur

If neither tools alone nor systems alone can move things, what is needed is a driver that bridges the two. I define this as a person who connects the three elements of 'democratic philosophy,' 'technology (platform),' and 'administrative practice,' nurtures one-time participation into continuous participation, roots it on the ground, and expands it. Its value lies not in the tool itself, but in the totality of practice where philosophy, technology, and practice are integrated. There are four main tasks.

The first is to help with translation. Merely talking about the ideals or systems of democracy will not move the ground. Therefore, we translate abstract principles into procedures that staff can use as is. Our platform 'Liqlid' supports everything from information provision to co-creation between citizens and the administration in one continuous flow, with the motto 'talk thoroughly, decide firmly.'
However, it is not a matter of simply having this mechanism. For example, even taking just one 'question' asked to citizens on Liqlid, the language of plans and systems used by the administration and the language rooted in citizens' lived experiences often do not mesh. Translating between these, and delivering this perspective to the administration's people in order to show both sides in an understandable way how and to what extent citizens can engage in a specific case, is also part of the work of helping with translation.

The second is to create opportunities. Citizen participation is difficult to prioritize within the administration on its own. Therefore, we catch the timing when 'windows' open, such as plan revisions or special assignments. The entry point might be the policy context of DX or smart cities, or it might be individual projects such as revitalizing central urban areas or formulating comprehensive plans. In any case, it is the driver's role to effectively link initiatives toward citizen participation to such opportunities and prepare the conditions to take the first step.

The third is to support breaking through vertical silos within the administration. We do not stop after implementation; through training and accompaniment, we run a horizontal thread through the administration and cultivate the ability for staff to operate it themselves. In Higashikurume City (Tokyo), using 'Kururiddo (Higashikurume City version of Liqlid)' for listening to the opinions of children and youth, the Mayor's Bureau and the Board of Education collaborated to allow access from school tablet devices, leading to broad participation. Using such individual initiatives as a stepping stone, we are gradually expanding to utilization across all municipal departments. Expanding from a single case to the entire administration and incorporating citizen participation into the standard work of the administration is the driver's most important job.

Fourth, supporting the "genuine reflection" of input. We support internal coordination and the manner in which citizen opinions are reflected to ensure that the voices collected truly live on in policy.
For example, in Kisarazu City, ideas gathered using "Kisarazu Mina Talk (Kisarazu City's Liqlid)" for the formulation of a health promotion plan were not only reflected in the plan itself but also led to operational improvements, such as increasing the number of cancer screening dates. Furthermore, the content of the posts was raised during question-and-answer sessions in the city assembly.
In Toyooka City, "Civic Toyooka (Toyooka City's Liqlid)" is used to solicit broad opinions before final decisions on matters such as shortening office hours and raising the basic sewerage fee. In Nagaokakyo City, "Voice NAGAOKAKYO (Nagaokakyo City's Liqlid)" is used to gather opinions before irreversible hard infrastructure projects, such as the development of the area in front of Nagaoka Tenjin Station and the renewal of the cultural zone (library and central community center). Alternatively, in Sakata City, "Sakapos (Sakata City's Liqlid)" is used to create dual participation pathways, both in-person and online, for tasks such as formulating a central urban area revitalization plan. In all these cases, citizen participation is embedded in the policy formation process not as an idealistic concept, but as a "practical arrangement," and Liqlid is utilized effectively.

And running through these four points is the importance of ensuring that participation does not end with a one-time event, but takes root as continuous engagement.
We aim to leave behind resilience (flexible sustainability) within the organization, so that even when personnel change, the work is handed over and continues, based on an understanding of the region or organization's history and circumstances (context). As long as participation depends on the efforts of specific, enthusiastic staff members, it can be interrupted by a single personnel transfer. It is only when it takes root as a standard work practice and becomes a "culture" that it can continue for the long term.

The professional competencies and uniqueness of the Prens

These four movements are not disjointed tasks, but are exercised on the ground as a continuous set of professional competencies (specialized skills as a professional). To organize this, the competencies of a democracy innovationpreneur are a bundle of the following capabilities.

First, the ability to frame questions. What are the issues, what has already been decided, and what remains undecided? How to prepare the preliminary information provided to citizens. It is the ability to translate vague "solicitations of opinions" into questions that citizens can answer.

Second, the ability to design and facilitate spaces. How to combine in-person and online formats, in what order, who to involve, and at what timing. How to design the stages for broadening opinions and the stages for synthesizing them.

Third, the ability to drive action within the administration. Taking into account the respective positions of the mayor, the responsible departments, and the assembly, it is the power of coordination and accompaniment that pierces through vertical silos and supports staff so they can continue the work on their own.

Fourth, the ability to translate technology and mindset. Being aware of what value judgments are embedded in the platform's design and being able to explain them in words.

Fifth, the ability to see reflection through to the end. How to incorporate the collected voices into plans, projects, and operations. It is the ability to prevent rework and to build up satisfaction.

And I am convinced that this competency possesses uniqueness and singularity.
None of these are the kind of things that can be written out in a single manual and handed to someone to be used as is. They are an accumulation of judgments built up over years in many fields, and they can only stand on the relationships with the counterparties (local governments, citizens, assemblies) and the specific context of that region.
Difficult issues surrounding citizen participation are things where the understanding of the problem and the solutions grow together little by little, so the relationships and context built up to that point themselves become part of the carrier's strength. Just as the value of a lawyer's or architect's work resides not in documents or software but in judgment and experience, the value of a democracy innovationpreneur also resides not in tools, but in the totality of their competency and practice. That is why this carrier is not easily replaceable.

Self-admonition as a practitioner

Even if we define ourselves as democracy innovationpreneur, as a private enterprise, strong self-restraint is necessary when shouldering the foundation of local government, which is citizen participation. Precisely because tools are not neutral, we must continue to bring our "way of thinking" into the open. Efforts to avoid falling into the misconception (technological solutionism) that "simply introducing a platform will solve the problem" are indispensable.
Therefore, we do not measure success solely by the number of participants or posts, but we value "whether voices were reflected (responsiveness)," "whether people from various positions could participate (inclusivity and fairness)," and "whether the process is visible (transparency)." We have set it as our company's mission to draw out the power of citizens through a virtuous cycle where the experience of participation invites further engagement, and we are actively advancing collaborations with academia and diverse sectors.

We are committed to "implementation" itself

Citizen participation does not move forward with good tools alone, nor with a proper system alone. Only when there are practitioners who mesh both together on the ground, prepare the resolve and arrangements, take root, and expand, is citizen participation "implemented." I believe that these practitioners are the democracy innovationpreneur.

We have faced this "implementation" itself together with local governments for over 6 years. We have the confidence to say so. That is why, from now on, we want to continue to be committed to this single point: not just talking about it, nor just selling tools, but "changing one-time participation and taking root as continuous engagement on the ground."

Tools without a mindset spin their wheels, and mindsets without tools do not spread. Only when the resolve and arrangements are in place can local governments "begin to tackle" difficult issues. I will take on the role of witnessing and continuing to accompany this process as a democracy innovationpreneur.

I want to move this implementation forward, step by step, together with local governments, practitioners, and researchers who share the same sentiment.