An Open Research Proposal to the People of Kerala

A Prefatory Note to Readers

Kerala is widely recognised as one of India’s most politically conscious and socially progressive states. Its achievements in literacy, social reform, public action, decentralisation and electoral participation have given it a distinctive democratic reputation. Yet no democracy, however advanced, can remain healthy without continuous public scrutiny, critical reflection and institutional renewal.

Democracy cannot be assessed only by the regular conduct of elections or changes in government. Its health is also reflected in the functioning of the legislature, the rule of law, the independence of constitutional and statutory institutions, freedom of expression, media pluralism, transparency in administration, the autonomy of local governments, the professionalism of the civil service and the ability of citizens to question authority without fear.

Even in Kerala, democratic institutions may not always function as effectively, independently or inclusively as citizens expect. Accountability mechanisms may weaken, access to information may decline, local governments may lose real autonomy, and citizens may feel increasingly distant from public decision-making. These concerns should not be reduced to partisan accusation. They require systematic research, reliable evidence and open public debate.

It is in this context that we place before the people of Kerala the paper titled “Why Kerala Needs Citizen’s White Paper on Democratic Health: Toward a Kerala Democratic Health Index.” It proposes the development of a Kerala Democratic Health Index (KDHI)—a transparent, multidimensional and research-based framework for periodically assessing the condition of democratic governance in the state.

This is not presented as a completed model or a final verdict on Kerala’s democracy. It is an Open Research Proposal and an invitation to researchers, universities, legal scholars, public institutions, civil society organisations, journalists, data scientists, local-government representatives, political parties, students and concerned citizens to help refine its concepts, indicators, evidence and methodology.

The KDHI should not become an instrument for defending or condemning any political party. Its purpose is to establish common constitutional standards by which every government—present and future—can be assessed impartially. The initial study may examine the period from 2016 to 2026, with an earlier baseline wherever reliable evidence is available.

The proposed framework covers electoral and participatory integrity, legislative accountability, rule of law and civil liberties, institutional autonomy, transparency, decentralisation, administrative integrity, media freedom and public trust. Its assessment should combine official records, judicial findings, institutional reports, expert analysis and scientifically conducted citizen surveys.

Through its publication in Panthi, we hope this proposal will initiate a wider public conversation. We invite readers to study, discuss and circulate it, and to contribute criticism, data, alternative indicators, methodological suggestions and opportunities for collaboration.

Kerala has pioneered important innovations in social development and democratic decentralisation. It can now take another pioneering step by creating a credible and publicly owned framework for examining the health of its democracy.

1. Introduction: Why Democratic Health Requires a White Paper

The publication of a White Paper on Kerala’s fiscal position demonstrated the democratic value of placing a government’s record before the public in a form that is systematic, contestable and supported by evidence. Fiscal numbers do not end political disagreement, but they discipline it. They oblige governments and oppositions to argue about identifiable assumptions, datasets and accounting choices rather than rely entirely on rhetoric. The same democratic discipline should be extended to the constitutional and institutional condition of governance.

Public finance is only one dimension of governmental health. A government may deliver welfare programmes, construct infrastructure and manage revenue competently while weakening legislative scrutiny, reducing institutional autonomy, restricting access to information or normalising coercive responses to criticism. The reverse is also possible: a government may protect civil liberties and institutional checks while performing poorly in economic management. Fiscal health, welfare delivery, electoral victory and democratic health are therefore related but analytically distinct. None can be inferred automatically from another.

The need for such distinction has become central to comparative politics. Contemporary democratic erosion rarely begins with the formal abolition of elections. It commonly proceeds through executive aggrandizement, selective enforcement, weakening of oversight institutions, pressure on media and civil society, manipulation of information, and gradual conversion of formally neutral institutions into partisan instruments (Bermeo, 2016; Haggard & Kaufman, 2021; Luehrmann & Lindberg, 2019). A polity may remain electorally competitive while becoming less accountable, less open and less protective of rights. Democratic performance must therefore be evaluated across the full life of a government, not only at the moment of voting.

Kerala is a compelling site for this exercise. It has long been associated with mass literacy, social reform, political mobilization, competitive coalition politics, strong trade unions and community organizations, high electoral participation, and pioneering experiments in decentralized planning (Heller, 1999, 2001; Isaac & Franke, 2000). These are substantive democratic achievements. Precisely because Kerala possesses this inheritance, institutional self-examination should be understood not as an accusation against the state, but as an extension of its democratic tradition.

The decade from 2016 to 2026 provides an appropriate first audit period. It represents two consecutive legislative terms under the same political front and is therefore long enough to distinguish institutional trajectories from isolated controversies. Yet the White Paper must not become a prosecution brief against the government that held office during that decade, nor a certificate of democratic virtue for the administration that commissions it. Its credibility depends on reciprocity: the concepts, indicators, evidence rules and procedures created for the first report must bind every subsequent government.

This paper addresses four connected questions. (i)Why does Kerala need a White Paper on Democratic Health? (ii)What constitutional and institutional domains should such a White Paper examine? (iii) How can a Kerala Democratic Health Index (KDHI) provide a transparent method for organizing and comparing evidence? (iv)And what institutional safeguards are required to prevent the exercise from becoming a partisan instrument? These questions move the discussion beyond a proposal for an index alone. Measurement is necessary, but the larger objective is an institutionalized process of public accounting, deliberation and reform.

The paper makes four contributions. First, it connects the literature on democratic quality, backsliding and public accountability with Kerala’s institutional experience. Second, it addresses a major limitation of national democracy indices: they conceal variation across states in federal democracies. Third, it proposes multidimensional and operational architecture for the KDHI. Fourth, it embeds that index within a White Paper process involving independent technical preparation, documentary evidence, public consultation, a right of factual response, legislative scrutiny, periodic publication and follow-up action.

This is a conceptual and methodological paper/research proposal, not a completed scorecard. It does not assume that Kerala became undemocratic during 2016-2026, and it does not treat every conflict, judicial observation or institutional delay as proof of democratic backsliding /decline. Its argument is more modest and more demanding: competing claims about democratic governance should be tested under common rules. The White Paper is the democratic accountability mechanism; the KDHI is its analytical and evidentiary foundation.

2. The Democratic Case for a White Paper

The White Paper is valuable because it places a government account, evidence and proposed remedies in the public domain. Here it means a comprehensive official document on democratic institutions, prepared through an independent technical process and formally tabled for public and legislative consideration. Unlike a commission of inquiry, an election manifesto or a publicity document, it would provide a periodic institutional account rather than investigate a single controversy or defend a party position. The KDHI would supply comparable measures; the White Paper would interpret trends, record disagreements and propose reforms.

The democratic rationale is accountability. Schedler (1999) distinguishes answerability – the obligation of powerholders to explain and justify their conduct – from enforcement, the capacity to impose consequences. Bovens (2007) similarly treats public accountability as a relationship in which an actor must provide information, face questioning and accept judgment. A White Paper cannot substitute for courts, elections, legislatures or statutory commissions. It can, however, strengthen answerability by assembling evidence that enables these institutions and citizens to question public power more effectively.

A democratic-health White Paper must be holistic. It should examine electoral and participatory integrity, legislative scrutiny, rule of law, statutory oversight, transparency, media and civic freedom, local democracy, administrative professionalism, inclusion and public trust. This breadth is necessary because democratic institutions are interdependent: deterioration in one domain can gradually weaken others.

The White Paper should distinguish democratic health from governmental popularity and development performance. Welfare and public services can enlarge substantive citizenship and should be recognised, but they cannot compensate for the erosion of rights or institutional checks. Conversely, civil liberty cannot excuse severe exclusion from basic capabilities.

For the exercise to command confidence, six principles are essential: (i) independent technical preparation; (ii) transparent concepts, indicators and evidence; (iii) plural data sources; (iv) documented right of factual response; (v) public consultation in Malayalam and English; and (vi) fixed periodicity. The inaugural report should review 2016-2026, use a pre-2016 baseline where possible, and create rules that apply prospectively to every subsequent government.

Kerala needs a White Paper because democratic institutions require public accounting comparable in seriousness to fiscal accounting. It needs the KDHI because a White Paper without consistent measurement risks becoming selective narrative. It needs an independent, participatory process because measurement controlled by the incumbent would lack credibility.

3. Democratic Health Beyond Electoral Minimalism

Any White Paper on democratic health must begin by stating what it seeks to assess. Democracy is an essentially contested concept, and measurement cannot be separated from theory. A narrow electoral definition focuses on competitive selection of rulers. Schumpeterian and minimalist approaches are valuable because they identify a clear institutional core: uncertainty of electoral outcomes, meaningful competition and the possibility of removing incumbents. Yet they are insufficient for assessing the quality of constitutional government throughout a political term.

Dahl’s concept of polyarchy broadened the focus to public contestation and inclusive participation. Competitive elections require freedoms of expression, association and access to alternative information; otherwise, citizens cannot form preferences or organise opposition (Dahl, 1971). Schmitter and Karl (1991) similarly stressed that democracy is not reducible to elections and majority rule. Elected rulers must remain accountable, citizens must retain rights and organised groups must be able to influence public life without being subordinated to the state.

Democratic-quality literature develops this insight further. Morlino (2004) treats a good democracy as one in which citizens enjoy freedom and equality, can evaluate government through lawful institutions, and receive responsiveness from rulers. Merkel’s (2004) model of embedded democracy identifies interdependent partial regimes: an electoral regime, political participation, civil rights, horizontal accountability and the effective power of elected representatives to govern. A defect in one partial regime can damage the others even if elections continue. For example, elections can be formally competitive while media dependence narrows the information available to voters; legislatures can exist while failing to constrain executive power; and rights may be guaranteed in law while administrative practice discourages their exercise.

Horizontal accountability is particularly important at the state level. O’Donnell (1998) used the term to describe the capacity of state agencies legally empowered to oversee, investigate, sanction or correct other public authorities. Legislatures, courts, audit bodies, information commissions, human-rights commissions, vigilance agencies, ombuds institutions and election authorities are not peripheral to democracy. They are part of the constitutional infrastructure through which power is limited. An elected executive that faces no effective scrutiny may retain vertical legitimacy from voters while becoming less accountable in its daily conduct (Moolakkattu & Chathukulam, 2022).

The backsliding literature explains why periodic measurement is necessary. Bermeo (2016) distinguishes contemporary erosion from the classic military coup. Modern backsliding often occurs through executive aggrandisement and strategic manipulation within formally legal processes. Waldner and Lust (2018) describe it as a deterioration in the qualities associated with democratic governance rather than a single regime-changing event. Haggard and Kaufman (2021) emphasise the role of elected leaders who attack checks, opposition and civil society incrementally. Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) similarly show how democracies may be weakened from within when elected governments gradually erode institutional guardrails and unwritten democratic norms. Luehrmann and Lindberg (2019) demonstrate that the contemporary wave of autocratisation is commonly gradual and begins in democracies.

This literature should be applied cautiously. Democratic backsliding is a comparative concept, not a label to be attached to every dispute between government and opposition. Strong executive leadership is not automatically authoritarian; judicial criticism does not by itself prove systematic institutional decay; and changes in administrative procedure can have legitimate policy explanations. The function of an index is precisely to avoid premature classification by separating anecdote from pattern. Recent scholarship also emphasises that conclusions about democratic backsliding are highly sensitive to conceptual definitions, baseline selection, indicator construction and aggregation procedures (Knutsen et al., 2024). A decline would be inferred only where multiple indicators, observed over time and supported by independent evidence, point in the same direction.

For the purpose of the KDHI, democratic health may be defined as the extent to which public power in Kerala is acquired through inclusive competition, exercised under law, constrained by autonomous institutions, open to public scrutiny, decentralised where constitutionally required, and responsive to citizens who can participate, organise and dissent without unreasonable fear. This definition has six implications.

First, democratic health is multidimensional. No single variable, including voter turnout, government popularity or the number of court cases, can capture it. Second, it is institutional and experiential. Formal rules matter, but so do their implementation and citizens’ encounters with public authority. Third, it is temporal. The index must detect change rather than offer a static moral judgment. Fourth, it is relational. Institutions are democratic partly because they constrain and correct one another. Fifth, it is subnational. State governments exercise substantial authority over police, public order, local government, education, health, universities and administration; national indices cannot reveal how these powers are used in a particular state. Sixth, democratic health is distinct from, though related to, development performance. Basic welfare can enlarge citizens’ effective capabilities and political equality, but welfare delivery cannot substitute for rights and accountability.

Health metaphors are useful if handled carefully. Health is not the absence of all conflict. Democratic conflict is legitimate and often productive. A healthy democracy contains intense disagreement but regulates it through rights, procedures and institutions. Nor does health imply a perfect score. Every democracy has defects, delays and inequalities. What matters is whether corrective mechanisms function: can information be obtained, criticism voiced, decisions reviewed, officials questioned, grievances remedied and governments changed? The KDHI should therefore measure both institutional performance and self-correcting capacity.

4. Why Democracy Must Be Measured Below the Nation

Most prominent democracy datasets use the country-year as their unit of analysis. This is understandable for global comparison, but it creates a serious problem in federations. National averages merge political environments that may differ sharply in electoral competitiveness, policing, media pluralism, local autonomy, bureaucratic professionalism and access to justice. A citizen’s actual democratic experience is often shaped as much by a state government, municipality or police station as by the Union government.

The literature on subnational authoritarianism demonstrates that democratic national institutions can coexist with undemocratic territorial practices. Gibson (2012) shows how provincial incumbents can preserve local dominance through boundary control, resource concentration and links to national political actors. Gervasoni (2010) explains how fiscal structures can reduce accountability and sustain less competitive provincial regimes. Giraudy (2015) identifies institutional and political pathways through which subnational undemocratic regimes persist inside nationally democratic states. Behrend and Whitehead (2016) similarly emphasise territorial variance in large federal democracies.

Kerala is not being equated with the authoritarian enclaves examined in this literature. The relevance lies in the unit of analysis. If subnational institutions can vary meaningfully, democracy should be assessed at the level at which public authority is exercised. This is especially important in India, where states control major areas of everyday governance and where party systems, civil society traditions and administrative cultures differ widely. A national rating of India cannot indicate whether a journalist, protester, local elected functionary, information seeker or civil servant faces the same institutional environment in Kerala as in another state.

Subnational measurement also improves causal and policy analysis. When all Indian states receive one national democracy score, researchers cannot examine whether variations in legislative scrutiny, decentralisation or administrative integrity influence service delivery, trust, investment or social peace. State-level indicators create the possibility of comparative research across time and territory. They can reveal whether democratic institutions are resilient under different parties, fiscal conditions or crises.

Yet a state-level index must respect constitutional boundaries. Kerala does not control the entire judicial system, all criminal legislation, national media regulation or central investigative agencies. Some outcomes result from overlapping Union and state authority. The KDHI must therefore measure matters substantially attributable to state institutions and clearly mark shared jurisdictions. It should not assign the state government responsibility for every national democratic trend. This attribution rule is essential for fairness.

The goal is not to produce competitive league tables among states before reliable data exists. Premature rankings can reward data availability rather than democratic quality and encourage governments to manage indicators rather than institutions. Kerala should begin with a longitudinal self-audit and transparent publication of methods. Once comparable frameworks are adopted elsewhere, cross-state comparison may become possible. The immediate scholarly contribution is to establish that democratic federalism requires democratic measurement below the nation.

5. Kerala’s Democratic Legacy and the Case for Institutional Self-Examination

Kerala’s suitability for a democratic health audit arises from its history as well as its data environment. Social reform movements, anti-caste mobilisation, organised labour, peasant politics, public education and competitive electoral coalitions produced a distinctive pattern of social democracy. Heller (1999) linked Kerala’s redistributive achievements to the organisational power of subordinate groups and their capacity to influence the state. This relationship between mobilisation and public action is central: Kerala’s development was not merely a technocratic achievement but a democratic one.

The People’s Plan Campaign launched in the mid-1990s deepened this tradition by attempting to transfer planning authority, resources and participation to local governments. Isaac and Franke (2000) presented it as a large-scale experiment in local democracy and development. Heller (2001) compared Kerala’s decentralisation with participatory experiences in South Africa and Porto Alegre, arguing that democratic decentralisation requires both institutional design and organised civil society. Heller, Harilal and Chaudhuri (2007) found that decentralisation could strengthen local democratic participation and accountability, though effects varied across social and institutional contexts (Tharamangalam & Chathukulam, 2022).

This history should not be romanticised. Studies of participatory planning identified uneven capacity, bureaucratic resistance, political mediation, local elite influence and variation in the quality of participation (Chathukulam & John, 2002; Kannan, 2000, Törnquist, 2021, Chathukulam & Tharamanagalam, 2021). Decentralization is not self-executing. Local Governments may be elected but fiscally dependent; gram sabhas, ward sabhas, and ward committees   may meet but exercise limited influence; participatory forums may be numerically active but socially unequal. These tensions make measurement more, not less, necessary.

Kerala also has a dense institutional record from which a state-level audit can be built. The Legislative Assembly publishes calendars, questions and answers, bills, proceedings, committee reports and historical material. The State Election Commission maintains information on local elections, electoral rolls, delimitation, reservations, elected members and election administration. The State Planning Board publishes economic reviews, plans, working-group reports and material on decentralised planning. Statutory bodies such as the State Human Rights Commission, State Information Commission, Women’s Commission, Public Service Commission and Lok Ayukta generate orders, reports or administrative records of varying quality and accessibility. Audit reports, government orders, court judgments, procurement portals and social-audit records add further sources.

This documentary ecosystem is a major methodological advantage. Many democracy indices depend heavily on expert perception because comparable administrative data are unavailable. Kerala can use a more balanced design in which observable records carry substantial weight. Assembly -sitting days, committee reports, vacancies in commissions, RTI disposal times, fund-release delays, tenure of officials and publication of audit reports are measurable. Expert assessment remains necessary for less directly observable features such as self-censorship, informal political pressure and institutional autonomy, but it need not dominate the index.

Kerala’s political structure also makes a longitudinal audit meaningful. Government has historically alternated between two broad coalitions, and the 2016-2026 period was an unusual decade of continuous rule by one front. A completed decade offers enough time to distinguish episodic events from institutional tendencies. It also provides a democratic reason for the new government to commission an audit: the assessment would concern a predecessor, but the rules created would bind the incumbent and its successors. That reciprocity is the strongest protection against revenge politics.

A KDHI should recognise Kerala’s democratic strengths rather than begin with a presumption of decline. Competitive elections, peaceful transfers of power, high political awareness, strong associational life, extensive local government and active media are assets. The index asks whether these strengths are being sustained, whether formal institutions are performing their constitutional functions and whether democratic inclusion reaches groups that may remain marginal despite aggregate social achievements.

The relevant democratic inequalities are not only economic. Gender representation, caste and tribal inclusion, religious security, migrant workers’ access to public institutions, disability access, regional disparities and the urban-rural distribution of voice should appear across the dimensions of the index. A high average score should not conceal systematic exclusion. Accordingly, wherever data permits, indicators should be disaggregated by gender, social group, region and type of local government.

Kerala’s democratic identity creates an additional reason for self-examination. Public pride can produce complacency. A state known for political awareness may assume that mobilisation automatically guarantees accountability. Yet intense party competition can coexist with partisan capture, and a politically saturated public sphere can discourage independent voices when every criticism is assigned to a camp. The democratic challenge is not to depoliticise Kerala, but to ensure that institutions remain larger than parties and that citizens need not obtain partisan sponsorship to exercise constitutional rights.

The proposed White Paper should therefore be understood as a renewal of Kerala’s democratic tradition. Its purpose is not to discredit the Kerala model, but to update it. The twentieth-century model connected social mobilisation, welfare and citizenship. A twenty-first-century version must add institutional autonomy, digital transparency, administrative fairness, civil-liberties protection, inclusive local democracy and measurable accountability.

6. What Existing Frameworks Contribute – and What a Kerala White Paper Must Add

The White Paper and its KDHI should not replicate a global index mechanically. International frameworks are designed for cross-national comparison, often under severe data constraints. Their value for Kerala lies in their conceptual architecture, evidence rules and methodological discipline.

V-Dem offers the most elaborate multidimensional framework. It distinguishes electoral, liberal, participatory, deliberative and egalitarian principles and measures hundreds of attributes through factual variables and expert-coded judgments. Its methodology uses multiple coders, measurement models and uncertainty estimates because many democratic qualities are latent rather than directly observable (Coppedge et al., 2011; V-Dem Institute, 2026). The lesson for Kerala is fourfold: disaggregate democracy; separate concepts from indicators; document coding decisions; and report uncertainty. The lesson is not that Kerala requires hundreds of variables or a complex Bayesian model from the outset.

International IDEA’s Global State of Democracy framework is especially useful for architecture. It defines democracy through popular control and equality of voice, and organises measurement under Representation, Rights, Rule of Law and Participation. It also includes effective parliament and local democracy, both essential for a state-level framework (International IDEA, 2024, 2025). Unlike a single headline ranking, IDEA emphasises category and factor scores. This supports KDHI’s diagnostic approach.

The World Justice Project (WJP) provides detailed treatment of constraints on government power, absence of corruption, open government, fundamental rights, regulatory enforcement and justice. Its reliance on household and expert surveys demonstrates how institutional performance and lived experience can be combined (World Justice Project, 2025). For Kerala, WJP is particularly relevant to rule-bound administration, access to justice, open government and the consistency of enforcement.

Freedom House provides a more parsimonious political-rights and civil-liberties framework. Its strength is public intelligibility: scores can be communicated readily, and its questions direct attention to practical freedoms rather than constitutional text alone. Its limitations include dependence on expert judgment, contested thresholds and a national unit of analysis (Munck & Verkuilen, 2002). KDHI should borrow its clarity but avoid compressing complex institutions prematurely into a single label.

The OECD’s governance work expands the democratic lens to public integrity, trust, multi-level governance, public procurement, regulatory quality, digital government and citizen participation (OECD, 2023, 2025). These domains are sometimes treated as merely administrative, but they determine whether citizens experience government as predictable, transparent and fair. The KDHI should incorporate them without conflating governmental efficiency with democracy. Fast service delivery is valuable, but a digital system can be efficient and opaque. The democratic question is whether decisions are reasoned, reviewable, inclusive and accountable.

The Democracy Barometer is another useful reference because it organises democratic quality around freedom, equality and control and relies substantially on observable indicators (Buehlmann et al., 2012). Its experience illustrates both the attraction and danger of comprehensive indices. Large indicator sets can improve coverage but obscure normative choices. Every weighting rule embodies a judgment about whether weaknesses in one domain can be compensated by strengths in another.

Table 1 summarises these design lessons. The central conclusion is that the White Paper should present a multidimensional and disaggregated account; combine administrative records, legal evidence, expert coding and citizen surveys; report uncertainty and missing data; and prioritise domain profiles over a headline rank. The KDHI supplies this measurement structure, while the White Paper adds institutional interpretation, public reasoning and reform.

7. The Kerala Democratic Health Index: Analytical Foundation of the White Paper

The KDHI should serve as the analytical foundation of the White Paper, not as its substitute. It should contain eight dimensions adapted from international democratic-quality frameworks and Kerala’s constitutional and institutional setting. Each dimension should be scored separately on a 0-100 scale and supported by an indicator dashboard, documentary notes and qualitative interpretation. An overall score may be published as a summary, but it should never replace the dimension profile or the institutional narrative.

7.1 Electoral and participatory integrity

This dimension evaluates whether citizens can choose representatives through inclusive, competitive and well-administered elections and can participate meaningfully outside election periods. For Assembly elections, many core functions lie with the Election Commission of India; for local elections, the State Election Commission has direct constitutional responsibility. Indicators should include voter registration completeness, turnout, rejected ballots, uncontested seats, candidate diversity, election-related complaint disposal, transparency of delimitation and reservation, accessibility for persons with disabilities, and the timeliness of local elections and by-elections. Participation outside elections should include the regularity and inclusiveness of gram sabhas, ward sabhas, ward committees, public consultations, and social audits.

Turnout must not be treated as a direct measure of democratic quality. High turnout can coexist with coercion or limited choice, while lower turnout may reflect dissatisfaction rather than exclusion. It is one indicator among several. The focus is on freedom, fairness, inclusiveness and institutional quality of participation.

7.2 Legislative accountability

The Assembly is the principal institution of horizontal accountability within representative state government. Indicators should include sitting days; time devoted to legislative business; functioning of Question Hour; number and answer rate of starred and unstarred questions; opportunities for opposition business; committee meetings and reports; referral of bills to committees; time available between bill introduction and passage; use of ordinances; financial scrutiny; and executive response to committee recommendations and audit findings.

Counts require qualitative interpretation. A long session can be unproductive; numerous questions may receive formulaic answers; and rapid legislation may sometimes be necessary. The score should therefore combine objective activity measures with structured coding of deliberative quality, procedural fairness and governmental responsiveness. A random sample of debates and committee reports could be coded annually under a published rubric.

7.3 Rule of law, rights and civic freedom

This dimension assesses whether law constrains power and whether civil liberties can be exercised in practice. State-relevant indicators include compliance with final court directions; use and review of preventive detention and public-order powers; custodial-death and police-misconduct reporting; protest permissions and restrictions; case disposal and compliance before the Human Rights Commission; protection of freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly; and access to legal aid and grievance redress.

The index must distinguish allegations from established findings. Newspaper reports may identify cases for investigation but should not determine scores by themselves. Greater weight should be given to judgments, statutory commission findings, official records, verified datasets and triangulated documentation. The aim is not to count criticism of government, but to examine the institutional response to lawful dissent and rights claims.

7.4 Autonomy and effectiveness of oversight institutions

Formal independence does not guarantee practical autonomy. This dimension covers the State Information Commission, Human Rights Commission, Women’s Commission, Public Service Commission, Lok Ayukta, vigilance institutions, State Election Commission, universities and other bodies/institutions whose credibility depends on insulation from improper interference.

Indicators should include vacancy duration; transparency and diversity of appointments; security of tenure; budget and staffing adequacy; publication of annual reports and reasoned orders; compliance rates with recommendations or decisions; judicial findings concerning appointments or interference; and evidence of selective inactivity. De jure and de facto autonomy should be scored separately. A commission may have strong statutory protection but weak capacity; another may be active but dependent on discretionary resources.

7.5 Transparency, information and open government

This dimension measures whether citizens can know how decisions are made and resources allocated. Indicators should cover proactive disclosure under Section 4 of the Right to Information Act; RTI pendency and disposal time; vacancy and case backlog in the Information Commission; publication of cabinet-relevant policy decisions where legally permissible; access to government orders, datasets and evaluation reports; procurement and tender transparency; disclosure of beneficial ownership and contract changes where available; social-audit publication; and open, machine-readable data.

Digitalisation should be assessed for democratic quality, not merely adoption. Portals should be reliable, searchable, accessible in Malayalam and English, usable by persons with disabilities, and designed to preserve rather than displace offline access. Algorithmic or automated public decisions should be explainable and appealable.

7.6 Decentralisation and local democracy

Kerala’s democratic distinctiveness requires a separate local-government dimension. Indicators should include the proportion and predictability of plan and maintenance funds transferred to local governments ; delays in release; share of functions supported by staff and administrative authority; local fiscal discretion; frequency and attendance of gram sabhas , ward sabhas, and ward committees  ; inclusion of women and marginalised groups; quality of local planning; functioning of district planning committees; metropolitan plannings committees  ; public access to local budgets; and grievance disposal.

Formal devolution should be distinguished from operational autonomy. A function listed in law may remain controlled by line departments through staffing, approvals or tied funds. The dimension should therefore track the three Fs – functions, finances and functionaries – and participation. It should report separate rural and urban scores because Kerala’s urban governance challenges differ from its panchayat experience (Chathukulam, 2026).

7.7 Administrative integrity and professional autonomy

Democratic government requires a bureaucracy that is responsive to elected authority but not reduced to partisan service. Indicators should include average tenure in key posts; frequency and timing of transfers; proportion of ad hoc appointments; recruitment delays; compliance with merit and reservation rules; conflict-of-interest disclosure; procurement red flags; disciplinary processes; whistle-blower protection; and documented political instructions inconsistent with law or procedure.

Transfer data needs careful interpretation. Administrative rotation may be necessary, and long tenure can also facilitate capture. The concern is arbitrary, punitive or strategically timed transfer. Coding should consider reasons, patterns and deviations from tenure norms rather than assume that every transfer is improper.

7.8 Public trust, media pluralism and civic climate

Institutions ultimately depend on legitimacy. A biennial Kerala Democratic Experience Survey should measure trust in the Assembly, Local Governments, police, civil service, courts, commissions and election authorities; perceived fairness; experience of corruption or discrimination; ability to obtain information; willingness to criticise government; fear of retaliation; satisfaction with grievance mechanisms; and confidence that elections can remove governments.

The media component should assess pluralism, access to official information, distribution of government advertising, exclusion from press interactions, legal or administrative pressure, and journalists’ perceptions of interference or self-censorship. Ownership concentration and platform dependence should be documented, though regulation may lie partly outside state jurisdiction. The index should avoid judging media content or political orientation. Its concern is whether diverse media can investigate public authority without discriminatory state pressure.

The eight dimensions are deliberately overlapping at their boundaries because democratic institutions are interdependent. To prevent double counting, each indicator should have one primary dimension, with cross-references recorded in the codebook. The dashboard should also display a small set of equity disaggregations so that strong statewide averages do not conceal weaker democratic access among Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, religious minorities, migrant workers, women, transgender persons, persons with disabilities or residents of remote regions.

8. Methodology: Data, Scoring and Validation

The credibility of the KDHI will depend less on the elegance of its categories than on the rules through which evidence becomes a score. Munck and Verkuilen (2002) distinguish conceptualisation, measurement and aggregation. Recent debates on measuring democratic backsliding further demonstrate that findings may vary depending on the indicators selected, the period used as a baseline, the treatment of uncertainty and the aggregation method adopted (Little & Meng, 2024). A defensible index must therefore justify each stage openly.

8.1 Indicator selection and evidence hierarchy

Indicators should satisfy five criteria: (i) conceptual relevance, (ii) state attribution, (iii) observable direction, (iv) temporal availability, and (iv) resistance to manipulation. The first version should favour a smaller number of high-quality indicators over an expansive but unstable list. Approximately 40-50 indicators across eight dimensions would be manageable.

Evidence should be classified into four types. Type A consists of official administrative data: sittings, questions, vacancies, disposal times, transfers, fund releases and publication dates. Type B consists of legal and institutional records: statutes, rules, judgments, audit reports and reasoned orders of commissions. Type C consists of structured content coding: samples of legislative debate, appointment procedures, protest restrictions, media access and institutional responsiveness. Type D consists of citizen and expert surveys.

No type is sufficient alone. Administrative counts can be gamed or stripped of context. Judicial findings are authoritative but selective. Expert assessments can be affected by ideology or information gaps. Citizen perceptions reflect experience but may be influenced by partisanship and media exposure. Triangulation is therefore a design principle, not an optional refinement.

8.2 Normalisation

Each indicator should be converted to a 0-100 scale with the direction clearly stated. For continuous indicators with normatively meaningful benchmarks, fixed targets should be used. For example, statutory time limits can define full compliance. For indicators without natural thresholds, scores may be normalised against Kerala’s own historical range and, later, a cross-state reference range. Historical normalisation should not make a poor past performance the standard of success; expert-defined normative anchors are preferable where available.

Binary coding should be avoided for complex practices. A four- or five-point rubric can capture gradations, provided each category is anchored in observable evidence. For instance, institutional appointment transparency could range from no public criteria or process, through partial disclosure, to published criteria, independent scrutiny and reasoned selection.

8.3 Aggregation and non-compensation

In the pilot version, indicators within each dimension may be equally weighted after stakeholder review. Dimension scores should also initially receive equal weight. Equal weighting is not value-free, but it is transparent and avoids false precision. Sensitivity analysis should show how results change under alternative weights derived from expert surveys, principal-component analysis or public consultation.

A major normative issue is compensation. Should excellent electoral participation offset severe rights violations? A purely arithmetic average would allow it. The KDHI should therefore use a limited non-compensation rule. The overall score may be the arithmetic mean of eight dimensions, but no polity should be classified in the highest democratic-health category if either Rule of Law and Rights or Electoral and Participatory Integrity falls below a specified floor. This recognises that some democratic components are foundational.

The overall score should be accompanied by a radar profile, trend graph and confidence band. Public communication should lead with dimension trends rather than a rank. A movement of one or two points should not be presented as a meaningful change unless it exceeds the indicator’s measurement uncertainty.

8.4 Missing data and uncertainty

Missingness must be visible. Institutions sometimes fail to publish data precisely when performance is weak. Treating missing data as neutral would reward opacity. The codebook should distinguish genuine non-applicability, unavailable historical data and non-disclosure. Persistent failure to publish legally expected information can itself become a transparency indicator, but missing values should not otherwise be automatically scored as zero.

Expert-coded indicators should have at least three independent coders with varied disciplinary and ideological backgrounds. Coders should disclose conflicts of interest and provide written evidence notes. Inter-coder reliability should be published. Where disagreement remains, the score should include wider uncertainty intervals rather than conceal the dispute.

8.5 Citizen survey

The Kerala Democratic Experience Survey should use a stratified multistage sample representing districts, rural and urban areas, gender, age, social groups and income categories. Oversamples may be required for Scheduled Tribes, migrant workers, transgender persons and other groups whose experiences would be invisible in a conventional statewide sample. Questions should distinguish trust from satisfaction and general opinion from personal experience. For example, respondents should be asked both whether they believe the police act fairly and whether they or a household member experienced discriminatory or politically influenced treatment.

Question wording, translations, sampling frames, response rates, weights and anonymised data should be published. An independent survey organisation should conduct fieldwork. The government should have no access to respondent identities.

8.6 Validation and pilot application

Three forms of validation are required. Content validation asks whether the indicators adequately represent the concept. It should involve constitutional scholars, political scientists, administrators, journalists, civil-society representatives and former officials from different political backgrounds. Convergent validation examines whether related indicators move together, such as RTI delays and citizen-reported difficulty obtaining information. External validation examines relationships with theoretically relevant outcomes without assuming that correlation proves causation.

A pilot should retrospectively code three benchmark years – for example 2016-17, 2020-21 and 2025-26 – before annual reconstruction is attempted. This would test data availability and coding reliability. The methodology should be revised after public comment, and all revisions should be versioned so that historical scores are reproducible.

9. Institutionalising the White Paper: Mandate, Process and Periodicity

The government should own the duty to account but not control the evidence or scoring. The White Paper should be commissioned and tabled by the state while technical preparation is entrusted to an independent Kerala Democratic Audit Commission established through legislation or a broadly supported Assembly resolution. Its mandate should include the inaugural retrospective, annual data publication, end-of-term reports and monitoring of follow-up reforms.

The commission’s governing council should be plural and professionally credible. Government and opposition nominees may participate, but neither should hold a majority. Constitutional scholars, political scientists, data specialists, local-government practitioners, former statutory-office holders, journalists and civil-society representatives should be selected under public criteria and conflict-of-interest rules. A professional secretariat should be openly recruited, and the commission should receive a transparent protected budget and a legal right to obtain relevant records, subject to privacy and security safeguards.

The White Paper should follow a stable architecture: an executive summary; constitutional principles and methodology; a chronology of major developments; chapters on the eight KDHI dimensions; a cross-cutting assessment of inclusion; selected case studies; the index dashboard and uncertainty notes; institutional responses; a reform matrix; and data annexures. This prevents the headline score from overshadowing institutional detail.

The first report should cover 2016-2026 but include a limited pre-2016 baseline wherever data permit. Without a baseline, the audit may confuse inherited weaknesses with deterioration during the review period. The report should distinguish three types of finding: (i)long-standing structural deficits that cross administrations; (ii) changes reasonably attributable to the government under review; (iii) and data gaps that prevent a reliable conclusion. This classification is indispensable for fairness.

Before publication, each institution should receive the factual extracts and indicator data relevant to it and be allowed to correct demonstrable errors or submit a written response. The commission should publish these responses and explain its decisions. A draft should then be released in Malayalam and English for district hearings and submissions from parties, universities, unions, professional bodies, media organisations, local governments, social movements and citizens. Dissenting methodological notes should be publishable.

The final White Paper should be tabled in the Legislative Assembly and referred to a committee for scrutiny. The government should publish an action-taken report (ATR) within six months. A comprehensive report should appear at the end of every government’s term, supported by annual KDHI dashboards and, where needed, a mid-term institutional warning note. Methodological changes should be versioned and ordinarily apply prospectively.

The report should avoid sensational classification. Terms such as ‘authoritarian’ or ‘democratic breakdown’ should be used only where defined thresholds and comparative evidence support them. Categories such as strength, resilience, vulnerability, decline, improvement and data deficiency are usually more informative. The objective is institutional correction rather than stigma.

A reform matrix should assign responsibility and timelines. It may address minimum Assembly sitting norms, committee scrutiny of specified bills, statutory vacancies, proactive RTI disclosure, publication of commission reports, government advertising, transfer-tenure rules, predictable local-government fund release and accessible grievance systems. Annual updates should track both implementation and early-warning indicators such as RTI pendency, committee inactivity, repeated vacancies or declining local participation.

Finally, the exercise should connect Kerala’s experience to Indian federalism. A transparent state-level methodology could be adopted by other states, universities or an inter-state research consortium. Kerala has previously influenced national debates through social policy and decentralisation. It can now pioneer a model of constitutional self-audit that demonstrates how a state can subject its own democratic institutions to regular, evidence-based scrutiny.

10. Risks, Limitations and Safeguards

No democracy index is politically innocent. Choices about concepts, indicators and thresholds reflect normative judgments. Quantification can create an illusion of objectivity, and a headline score may be used selectively by government or opposition. The answer is not to abandon measurement but to make judgment visible through codebooks, evidence notes, uncertainty ranges and open data.

The most immediate political risk is retrospective weaponisation. A government may commission the report principally to discredit its predecessor, select a politically convenient time / period or publicize adverse findings while ignoring its own obligations. The safeguards are pre-period baseline, evidence hierarchy, publication of institutional responses, prospective application to the incumbent, fixed periodicity and independent technical ownership. The report should assess achievements and institutional improvements with the same care that it documents decline.

Data quality is another limitation. Some institutions do not publish consistent annual records. Historical reconstruction may be incomplete, and changes in definitions can create false trends. The first report should therefore include a data-quality score for every indicator and resist filling gap with unsupported estimates.

Attribution is difficult in a federation. Policing is mainly a state subject, but criminal law and courts involve multiple authorities. Universities may be shaped by state law, national regulators and internal governance. Media freedom is affected by private ownership and national law as well as state action. Each indicator should state the channel through which Kerala institutions can reasonably be held responsible.

Perception data are vulnerable to partisan polarisation. Supporters of the government may report greater trust regardless of institutional performance, while opponents may report less. Surveys should record party identification and test whether institutional experiences predict responses beyond partisan preference. Perceptions should supplement, not override, documentary evidence.

There is also a danger of bureaucratic compliance replacing democratic substance. Departments may learn to publish reports without becoming more accountable. The index should therefore include outcome and experience measures alongside procedural compliance. Independent qualitative case studies should accompany the numbers.

The strongest safeguard is reciprocity across governments. The methodology must be fixed through a plural process, revision rules must be public, and no incumbent should be able to alter indicators immediately before assessment. A democratic audit becomes credible only when those who create it accept that it will later be used to judge them under the same constitutional standards.

11. Conclusion

Kerala’s democratic reputation rests on social reform, organised citizenship, competitive politics, welfare expansion and decentralised participation. That inheritance is valuable but not self-protecting. Institutions can weaken even in politically alert societies, and development achievements cannot by themselves guarantee liberty, accountability, transparency or institutional autonomy.

Kerala therefore needs a periodic White Paper on Democratic Health. The White Paper would provide the comprehensive public account: documenting institutional trajectories, acknowledging achievements, identifying vulnerabilities, publishing disagreements and proposing reforms. The KDHI would supply analytical discipline through eight dimensions covering elections and participation, the legislature, rights and rule of law, institutional autonomy, transparency, decentralisation, administrative integrity, and public trust and civic climate.

The distinction between the two instruments is essential. The KDHI organises and compares evidence; the White Paper converts evidence into public reasoning and institutional responsibility. An index without a White Paper may become a technocratic score. A White Paper without an index may become selective narrative. Combined, they can shift democratic debate from isolated accusation to cumulative evidence and from party-specific judgment to constitutional comparability.

The 2016-2026 decade is an appropriate first audit period, but the report will be credible only if it uses a pre-period baseline where possible, distinguishes structural deficits from government-specific change, recognises positive performance, publishes institutional responses and binds the initiating government to future scrutiny. The same questions must be asked of every administration: whether the Assembly scrutinized the executive, oversight bodies acted independently, citizens obtained information, local governments exercised real authority, administration remained rule-bound, and criticism could be expressed without unreasonable fear.

The proposal is neither a declaration that Kerala’s democracy has failed nor an invitation to political score-settling. It asks that democratic claims become verifiable. Kerala has pioneered social policy and decentralisation; it can now pioneer a subnational democratic audit. Public finance reflects the fiscal capacity of government, while democratic institutions reflect society’s constitutional capacity to govern itself while limiting power. Both require regular accounts, and Kerala has every reason – and a democratic obligation – to examine them with equal seriousness.

Table 1: Design Lessons from Major Democracy and Governance Frameworks

Table 2: Proposed Architecture of the Kerala Democratic Health Index

Table 3: Proposed Institutional Architecture of the White Paper

Table 4: Proposed Scoring and Quality-Control Protocol

The authors can be reached using the contact details below:  joschathukulam@gmail.com, Ph: 8086093363, amjose@ggn.amity.edu, Ph:9495884527

References

Behrend, J., & Whitehead, L. (Eds.). (2016). Illiberal practices: Territorial variance within large federal democracies. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bermeo, N. (2016). On Democratic Backsliding. Journal of Democracy, 27(1), 5-19. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2016.0012

Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447-468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x

Buehlmann, M., Merkel, W., Mueller, L., & Wessels, B. (2012). The Democracy Barometer: A new instrument to measure the quality of democracy and its potential for comparative research. European Political Science, 11(4), 519-536. https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2011.46

Chathukulam, J., & John, M. S. (2002). Five years of participatory planning in Kerala: Rhetoric and reality. Economic and Political Weekly, 37(49), 4917-4926.

Chathukulam, J., & Tharamangalam, J. (2021). The Kerala model in the time of COVID-19: Rethinking state, society and democracy. World Development, 137, 105207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105207 

Chathukulam, J. (2026). Kerala Urban Policy 2026–2050: Vision, Transparency, and the Need for a Rights-Based Urban Future. Mainstream Weekly Vol.64, No.6. 

Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Altman, D., Bernhard, M., Fish, S., Hicken, A., Kroenig, M., Lindberg, S. I., McMann, K., Paxton, P., Semetko, H. A., Skaaning, S.-E., Staton, J., & Teorell, J. (2011). Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: A new approach. Perspectives on Politics, 9(2), 247-267. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592711000880

Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. Yale University Press.

Freedom House. (2026). Freedom in the World 2026: The growing shadow of autocracy. Freedom House.

Gervasoni, C. (2010). A rentier theory of subnational regimes: Fiscal federalism, democracy, and authoritarianism in the Argentine provinces. World Politics, 62(2), 302-340. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887110000067

Gibson, E. L. (2012). Boundary control: Subnational authoritarianism in federal democracies. Cambridge University Press.

Giraudy, A. (2015). Democrats and autocrats: Pathways of subnational undemocratic regime continuity within democratic countries. Oxford University Press.

Haggard, S., & Kaufman, R. R. (2021). Backsliding: Democratic regress in the contemporary world. Cambridge University Press.

Heller, P. (1999). The labor of development: Workers and the transformation of capitalism in Kerala, India. Cornell University Press.

Heller, P. (2001). Moving the state: The politics of democratic decentralization in Kerala, South Africa, and Porto Alegre. Politics & Society, 29(1), 131-163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329201029001006

Heller, P., Harilal, K. N., & Chaudhuri, S. (2007). Building local democracy: Evaluating the impact of decentralization in Kerala, India. World Development, 35(4), 626-648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.07.001

International IDEA. (2024). The Global State of Democracy Indices: Methodology and codebook. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.

International IDEA. (2025). The Global State of Democracy 2025: Exploring democratic resilience in an era of radical uncertainty. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.

Isaac, T. M. T., & Franke, R. W. (2000). Local democracy and development: The Kerala People’s Campaign for Decentralised Planning. LeftWord Books.

Kannan, K. P. (2000). People’s planning: Kerala’s dilemma. Seminar, 485, 92-97.

Kerala Legislative Assembly. (2026). Business, questions, legislation, committee reports and digital archives. Government of Kerala.

Kerala State Election Commission. (2026). Electoral administration, local elections, electoral rolls and delimitation portal. Government of Kerala.

Kerala State Human Rights Commission. (2026). Mandate, orders and institutional information. Government of Kerala.

Kerala State Planning Board. (2026). Economic reviews, plans and decentralised planning resources. Government of Kerala.

Knutsen, C. H., Marquardt, K. L., Seim, B., Coppedge, M., Edgell, A. B., Medzihorsky, J., Pemstein, D., Teorell, J., Gerring, J., & Lindberg, S. I. (2024). Conceptual and measurement issues in assessing democratic backsliding. PS: Political Science & Politics, 57(2), 162-177.

Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die. Crown.

Little, A. T., & Meng, A. (2024). Measuring democratic backsliding. PS: Political Science & Politics, 57(2), 149-161.

Luehrmann, A., & Lindberg, S. I. (2019). A third wave of autocratization is here: What is new about it? Democratization, 26(7), 1095-1113. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2019.1582029

Merkel, W. (2004). Embedded and defective democracies. Democratization, 11(5), 33-58. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510340412331304598

Moolakkattu, J. S., & Chathukulam, J. (Eds.). (2022). Challenges to local governance in the pandemic era: Perspectives from South Asia and beyond. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Morlino, L. (2004). What is a ‘good’ democracy? Democratization, 11(5), 10-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510340412331304589

Munck, G. L. (2009). Measuring democracy: A bridge between scholarship and politics. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Munck, G. L., & Verkuilen, J. (2002). Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: Evaluating alternative indices. Comparative Political Studies, 35(1), 5-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/001041400203500101

O’Donnell, G. (1998). Horizontal accountability in new democracies. Journal of Democracy, 9(3), 112-126. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1998.0051

OECD. (2023). Government at a glance 2023. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/3d5c5d31-en

OECD. (2025). Building trust and reinforcing democracy: Main findings from the 2024 OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions. OECD Publishing.

Schedler, A. (1999). Conceptualizing accountability. In A. Schedler, L. Diamond, & M. F. Plattner (Eds.), The self-restraining state: Power and accountability in new democracies (pp. 13-28). Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Schmitter, P. C., & Karl, T. L. (1991). What democracy is … and is not. Journal of Democracy, 2(3), 75-88. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1991.0033

Tharamangalam, J., & Chathukulam, J. (Eds.). (2022). Deepening democracy: Comparative perspectives on decentralization, cooperativism and self-managed development. Routledge India.

Törnquist, O. (2021). In search of new social democracy: Insights from the south – implications for   the north. Bloomsbury Academic.

V-Dem Institute. (2026). Democracy Report 2026: Unraveling the democratic era? University of Gothenburg.

Waldner, D., & Lust, E. (2018). Unwelcome change: Coming to terms with democratic backsliding. Annual Review of Political Science, 21, 93-113. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050517-114628

World Justice Project. (2025). Rule of Law Index 2025. World Justice Project.