Addendums · The People's Model — Manifesto v2026

Party Operating Principles

Every position in this party — from booth volunteer to elected representative — is a responsibility taken on, not a power claimed. Office is something you…

Read this chapter in the interactive reader, or download the full 601-page manifesto (PDF).

The People’s Model

Manifesto Addendum — Party Operating Principles

Caste · Religion · Imports · Leadership selection · Future-policy deliberation

P.0 · Power vs Responsibility — the founding principle

We do not believe in power. We believe in responsibilities.

Every position in this party — from booth volunteer to elected representative — is a responsibility taken on, not a power claimed. Office is something you owe back to citizens, not something you possess. The day a representative starts treating the role as power, the recall mechanism (Vol III Ch 19) exists to take it back.

P.0.1 What this means in practice

The five non-negotiable commitments (Vol I Ch 1) are responsibilities, not slogans. The Service Charter (Vol I Sec. 3.3) is a written promise — a responsibility owed. The Open Ledger (Vol I Ch 4) makes that responsibility verifiable. The Standard Escalation Ladder (Vol I Sec. 3.3) makes default unacceptable. The 30-month recall window (Vol III Ch 19) makes default reversible by citizens.

P.0.2 Why this principle comes first

Every other principle in this addendum — caste-blind operation, religious neutrality, no political defectors, the nine-axis leadership rubric, the binding Code of Conduct — is downstream of this one. If a member or a candidate treats office as power, no procedural rule will hold them. If they treat it as responsibility, every procedural rule becomes a tool they themselves want to honour.

The principle’s clearest internal consequence is The Oath Boundary (Sec. P.6 below): we develop candidates as party members up to the day of the oath; the moment they are sworn in, they hold public office under the Constitution and cease to act as party members. The party never possesses representatives; it develops them, releases them to government, and stays loyal to citizens — not to incumbents.

P.1 · On caste and community

Three layers must be kept separate. Mixing them produces the contradictions that have undermined every previous attempt at a caste-blind politics in India.

P.1.1 At the party level — caste-blind by binding rule

The People’s Model does not recognise caste, sub-caste, jati, or community as a basis for any internal party function. This means specifically:

This is a structural rule, not aspiration. It does not relax under electoral pressure. The Volunteer Code of Conduct makes infractions enforceable up to and including expulsion.

P.1.2 At the government level — existing constitutional reservations fully respected

Reservations enshrined in the Constitution of India and in Karnataka state law — for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Economically Weaker Sections, and others — are not disrupted by this manifesto. Their substantive purpose is real: closing inherited gaps that the open market does not close on its own. The State Equity Commission (Vol II Ch 18) audits whether reservation outcomes actually materialise in admissions, hiring, and contract awards, and triggers gap-closing programmes where they do not.

This is not a contradiction with P.1.1. The party as a private organisation operates caste-blind in its own functions. The government as a constitutional authority discharges its constitutional duty to remedy historical disadvantage. Both can be true. They are different layers.

P.1.3 On future policy changes — by public deliberation, never by party fiat

Any future change to reservation policy is decided through structured public deliberation. The party may have a position; the party does not have the right to impose one. Specifically:

P.1.4 The principle stated plainly

P.2 · On religion

P.2.1 At the party level — no religious test

P.2.2 At the government level — constitutional secularism

Article 25–28 of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of religion. Karnataka state law respects this fully. The government does not endorse or oppose any religion’s public expression. It does not fund religious institutions on a religion-specific basis. It does not impose religious tests for public service.

The government discharges its constitutional duty to protect minority rights, prosecute communal incitement under existing law, and ensure equal access to all public services regardless of religion. These are constitutional matters, not party platforms.

P.2.3 The principle stated plainly

Constitutional secularism is the law of the land. The party operationalises it internally by refusing to deal in religious categories at all. The government operationalises it externally by treating every citizen as a citizen.

P.3 · No imports, no parachutes — on current political leaders

The People’s Model does not import sitting or former politicians from other parties. We do not borrow legitimacy from former MLAs, MPs, ministers, or party functionaries who decide their existing party is no longer convenient.

P.3.1 The rule

P.3.2 Who can join, and under what process

If a politician resigns from their current party and wishes to join the People’s Model:

P.3.3 Why this rule exists

Defector-driven politics has produced predictable patterns in Indian state-level outcomes: the defector retains their existing patronage networks, brings their unresolved conflicts of interest into the new party, and operationally subordinates the new party’s discipline to their own continuity. The People’s Model is built to be different from those patterns at the structural level, not just at the rhetorical level. The no-import rule is one of the load-bearing pieces of that structure.

Many politicians in existing parties are decent people doing their best inside imperfect organisations. They are welcome as voters, as citizens, and as commenters on the manifesto. The party itself is built by the people who built it, not stitched together from convenience-driven crossovers.

P.4 · Leadership Selection Rubric — nine-axis evidence-ranking

Leadership roles are filled by scoring candidates against a published, multi-axis rubric. Selection is evidence-based and visible. Score-sheets, panel composition, and final tallies stay on the public record. If no applicant clears the role’s minimum thresholds, the role remains vacant until one does.

P.4.1 The nine axes

Each axis is scored on a 0–10 scale by a published panel of assessors. The aggregate score is a role-specific weighted sum of axis scores. Different role levels carry different rubric depth (P.4.4).

P.4.2 How the rubric becomes a decision

P.4.3 Anti-capture safeguards on the selection process itself

P.4.4 Role-specific rubric depth

Not every role uses all nine axes. Depth scales with stakes.

P.4.5 What “vacant” means in practice

When a role goes unfilled because no applicant clears its rubric thresholds, the responsibilities of that role do not stop. They are handled, on a temporary basis, by the next-tier-up role (ward role responsibilities flow to the district coordinator; district to the state office-bearer). The vacancy is published and reopened on a quarterly cycle until filled. There is no “we needed someone, so we lowered the bar” pathway. The bar is the bar.

P.4.6 Founding Cohort Selection Protocol — the first cycle

At founding, no applicant has an internal track record: no meeting history, no contribution log, no Code-of-Conduct record. This protocol governs the first selection cycle only. It collects the same nine axes (P.4.1) through a staged process with published elimination gates, then hands over: from the second cycle onward, P.4.1–P.4.5 apply as written.

For the first cycle, the observation windows under axis 2 are satisfied by the supervised field trial below. From the second cycle, the standard windows apply.

Depth by role tier (first cycle), consistent with P.4.4:

Founding-cycle provisions, published with every first-cycle role card:

P.5 · What the Code of Conduct must make enforceable

The Volunteer Code of Conduct must include the following rules to make them procedurally enforceable. Each rule below specifies its enforcement mechanism.

Binding rules to add

P.6 · The Oath Boundary — candidate to public office-holder

P.6.1 The principle stated plainly

We separate party from government by the oath of office. Before election: a candidate is a party member, developed and accountable through party processes. After election: the representative is a public office-holder — bound to the constitution, the law, and the people of their constituency, not to the party. The party does not use elected representatives for its own publicity. The party stays loyal to citizens, not to incumbents. When a representative we helped elect fails to deliver, the party becomes their opposition. The party’s permanent posture is consulting, not commanding — a vision-setting, citizen-engaging, candidate-developing, accountability-holding body for government, never an extension of it.

P.6.2 Operational rules

Before election. The candidate is a party member. The nine-axis Leadership Selection Rubric (P.4) produces the candidate. Party processes — vetting, training, campaign discipline, the Code of Conduct (P.5) — apply in full. The party is accountable for the candidate it puts forward.

The oath. The moment of swearing in is the boundary. From that moment, the representative is a public office-holder under the Governance Autonomy Charter (Vol III Ch 20.2) and the Anti-Interference Log (Vol III Ch 20.2). Party direction to the representative on government matters is structurally blocked: an instruction not on the log is not an instruction (Vol III Ch 20.3).

After election. The party does not use the representative for its own publicity, fundraising, or rallies. Public visibility of the representative belongs to their role in government, not to the party. The representative’s loyalty is to the constitution, the law, and the people of their constituency.

If a representative fails. The party becomes their opposition. We have no incumbency to defend. The 30-month recall window (Vol III Ch 19) is available to citizens regardless of party — if a representative we helped elect is failing, the party publicly supports the recall.

P.6.3 What the party becomes, permanently

Four permanent functions: policy vision (the next manifesto, sector deep dives, evidence and research); citizen engagement (door-to-door, ward-level forums, public consultations on draft legislation); candidate development (the next cohort, trained through the rubric); and political accountability to the electorate (visible record of what we promised, what we delivered, and what we got wrong). The party is a consulting body to government — never an extension of it. When it must, it functions as the opposition to its own elected representatives.

P.6.4 Why this differs from the common party incentive

Many party systems create the opposite incentive: the party comes to treat its incumbents as organisational assets, party visibility flows from incumbent visibility, and party fundraising flows from incumbent influence. This design attempts to reduce that risk — including in this party. The Oath Boundary breaks that loop by design. The party survives loss of incumbency without identity crisis — because the party’s identity was never about who holds office, it was about what citizens are owed.

P.6.5 Graduated by tier of office

The Oath Boundary’s strictness scales with the power potential of the office, but the ethical test is identical at every tier.

Tier 1 — High office (MP, MLA, MLC, Cabinet minister, Mayor of a major city). FULL separation: internal party rights suspended on oath day, no party publicity, Cabinet Rule applies (Vol III Ch 20), party may publicly become opposition.

Tier 2 — Local body (Corporator, Zilla Panchayat member, Taluka Panchayat member, Mayor of a small city). MODIFIED separation: rep stays party member for community work but recused from any party process that touches their ward / district funds, contracts, or transfers. Charter + Anti-Interference Log apply in full.

Tier 3 — Panchayat / village (Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat ward member). EMBEDDED model: rep is unavoidably a community member. Light structural separation. Same Charter + Log apply to panchayat funds. Party affiliation openly disclosed; party identity lightly worn. Same ethical test applies.

P.6.6 Party internal structure mirrors elected structure

The party has a formal body at every level where an election happens. Each party body develops candidates only for elections at its level. State Council develops MP / MLA / MLC / Cabinet selections. District Committee develops Zilla Panchayat and Tier-1-city Corporator candidates. Block / Taluka Committee develops Taluka Panchayat candidates. Ward / Village Committee develops Gram Panchayat and Sarpanch candidates. A Policy & Accountability Council exists at each level — drawn from the Citizen Wing — to interface with the Government Wing on policy direction (legitimate) and to publicly criticise on delivery (also legitimate).

P.6.7 The Candidate Accountability Agreement

At nomination, every candidate signs a binding Candidate Accountability Agreement with the party. This is the private legal instrument that makes the Oath Boundary enforceable without statutory amendment. Eight clauses: Sec. A Performance commitment to manifesto + Service Charter. Sec. B Recall trigger — citizens may petition the party from month 30 of taking oath, signature threshold = 70% of the candidate’s original winning vote count (a candidate who won by landslide is well-protected; one who won narrowly is more easily challenged). Sec. C Party-run vote-back at physical booths (locations published in advance) + online via party website and party app. Sec. D Binding resignation within 7 days if vote-back results in 51% recall-yes with turnout floor (50% Tier 1, 45% Tier 2, 40% Tier 3). Sec. E Independent observation mandatory at every gate. Sec. F Party bears the cost of the resulting by-election conducted by the Election Commission. Sec. G Liquidated damages — refusal to resign forfeits 10× election deposit + party costs, recoverable in civil court. Sec. H Party expulsion + public censure on refusal.

Clause Sec. A2 — Manifesto Execution Obligation. The candidate accepts that the manifesto is the binding contract between party, candidate, and citizens. On taking oath, the elected representative is bound to execute what was promised. Any deviation from manifesto commitments requires consultation with the appropriate Policy & Accountability Council and written, time-bound party consent before implementation, with the consent decision published on the party portal within 7 days. Unilateral deviation without consent is a breach of Sec. A and a recall trigger under Sec. B. See Sec. P.8 for the full Manifesto Execution + Course-Correction Protocol.

P.6.8 The six gates of recall (party-run, government-by-election)

Gate 1 (time): 30 months from oath, automatic. Gate 2 (petition): constituency citizens collect signatures equal to 70% of the candidate’s original winning vote count; submit to relevant party body. Gate 3 (verification): party verifies signatures against the electoral roll within 30 days, with independent observer access. Gate 4 (notice + response): if verified, incumbent gets 30 days of published-airtime to respond publicly; petitioners get equal airtime. Gate 5 (vote-back ballot): party conducts vote-back via party website + party app + physical booths at locations published in advance; civil society + other parties + media observe; counts livestreamed. Gate 6 (resignation): if 51% recall-yes with turnout floor, the candidate must resign in 7 days per the Accountability Agreement. The Election Commission then runs the formal by-election under existing law, funded by the state as for any vacancy. The party is liable for re-election cost only on a court order — see Sec. P.7.

Government’s role in the recall mechanism is limited to running the formal by-election once the seat is vacated by resignation. No new statute required. The state funds the resulting by-election as it would for any vacancy; no public money funds the party-internal recall process. The Election Commission of India (for Lok Sabha MP, MLA and MLC) and the Karnataka State Election Commission (for Mayor, Corporator, ZP, TP and GP) handle the by-election as they would for any other vacancy.

P.7 · By-election cost — state-borne by default; party-borne only on court order

When a recall succeeds and the candidate resigns, the seat is vacant. The Election Commission of India (for Lok Sabha MP, MLA and MLC) or the Karnataka State Election Commission (for Mayor, Corporator, ZP, TP and GP) then runs the formal by-election under existing law, funded by the state, exactly as it would for any vacancy arising from death, resignation, or court-ordered disqualification. The party does not maintain a permanent escrow for this purpose and does not preemptively bear the by-election cost.

Operating rule: The party is liable for the re-election cost ONLY if a court of competent jurisdiction rules — after the recall and by-election — that the party or the candidate is liable, for example where bad faith, fraud, or wilful breach of the Candidate Accountability Agreement is established. The court order names the amount. The party pays from its ongoing voluntary monthly donations, published on the party’s Open-Ledger-style portal at the same transparency level as government spending.

Two structural consequences follow: (a) the recall mechanism does not depend on party fund liquidity — the mechanism can run regardless of the party’s financial state, because the state-funded by-election is not contingent on the party; (b) the cost discipline lives in the courts, not in party self-policing — a court must adjudicate before any party money is owed for re-election cost.

P.8 · Manifesto Execution + Course-Correction Protocol

P.8.1 The principle stated plainly

Before election the party sets the manifesto, selects candidates through the nine-axis Leadership Rubric (P.4), and participates in elections under the published manifesto. After election the elected representative is bound by oath to execute what was promised in the manifesto — Service Charter timelines, Open Ledger commitments, sector roadmaps, all anchored to the document citizens voted on. Course corrections are possible but require consultation and party consent. Unilateral deviation is a breach.

P.8.2 The party’s role, before and after election

Before election: (1) develop the manifesto through public consultation and the editorial cycle (per Vol 0c MethodNote, ’How the manifesto is reviewed’ + ’How readers can engage’); (2) select candidates through the nine-axis Leadership Rubric (P.4) and the Candidate Accountability Agreement (P.6.7); (3) campaign on the published manifesto. The manifesto IS what citizens are voting for; the candidate is the person who will execute it.

After election: the party transitions to its permanent posture (P.6.3) — policy vision, citizen engagement, candidate development, accountability to the electorate. The party does not direct the elected rep on day-to-day government matters (those are bound by the Cabinet Rule, Charter, Anti-Interference Log, dual-line officer accountability — Vol III Ch 20). But the party guards the manifesto — the citizen contract the rep was elected on — and processes course-correction requests.

P.8.3 The elected representative’s role

Execute the manifesto. This is the substance of the oath. The rep operates the government within the manifesto’s commitments — Open Ledger, Service Charters, sector roadmaps, KPIs, timelines, all anchored to the document citizens elected them on. The Manifesto Delivery Dashboard on the People’s App (Vol III Ch 22) makes delivery (or non-delivery) visible to every citizen in real time.

P.8.4 Course-correction protocol

Where the elected representative finds that a manifesto commitment requires modification — because reality shifted, conditions changed, evidence emerged, or fiscal constraints bind — they must follow four steps before implementing the modification:

Step 1: Consult the appropriate Policy & Accountability Council. State Council for MP / MLA / MLC / Cabinet matters; District Committee for Zilla Panchayat / Corporator matters; Block Committee for Taluka Panchayat; Village Committee for Gram Panchayat / Sarpanch. The consultation is on record, with written submission of the proposed modification and its rationale.

Step 2: Obtain written, time-bound party consent before implementing the modification. The Policy & Accountability Council either consents, refuses, or asks for further work. Consent is time-bound — usually to the next manifesto-update cycle. Consent does not transfer party authority over operations; it only validates the deviation from the citizen contract.

Step 3: Publish the consent decision on the party’s Open-Ledger-style portal within 7 days, with the council vote breakdown, the rationale, and the new commitment.

Step 4: Publish the revised manifesto commitment, the new timeline, and the rationale on the People’s App’s Manifesto Delivery Dashboard. Citizens see the change, can compare it against the original, and can register feedback that feeds the next manifesto-update cycle.

P.8.5 What is non-negotiable — never available for course correction

The party will not consent to course corrections that abandon: (a) the five non-negotiable commitments (Vol I Ch 1) — total transparency, time-bound delivery, citizen control of data, anti-capture safeguards, equity by outcome; (b) The Oath Boundary itself (P.6); (c) any of the eight named anti-capture safeguards (Vol I Sec. 1.7); (d) the published Code of Conduct (P.5); (e) the People’s App / Party App architectural separation (Vol III Ch 22 Sec. 22.0). These are alterable only by a new manifesto issued under a new electoral mandate. They are the citizen contract’s structural minimum; the course-correction protocol cannot weaken them.

P.8.6 Recall consequence of unilateral deviation

Unilateral deviation from manifesto without party consent is a breach of the Candidate Accountability Agreement (P.6.7, Sec. A and Sec. A2). It is, by itself, a recall trigger under Sec. B. The party may publicly support the recall; citizens may collect the 70% petition; the six gates of recall (P.6.8) apply. The structural consequence is the right one: the rep took the oath on the manifesto; deviating without going back to the party + citizens for consent breaks that oath.

P.9 · Party Funding — voluntary donations only, ₹1,000 monthly cap, full transparency

P.9.1 The rule

Party funding is sourced from voluntary donations only, capped at ₹1,000 per person per month (equivalent to ₹12,000 per year per donor). The cap applies universally; there is no premium tier or any structure that lets a donor exceed it. Donations are accepted in Indian rupees, only from verified Indian citizens. The party does not levy mandatory membership dues — donating is voluntary. The party may also pay its members for party-related work performed, so expenses flow OUT to members in compensation for work, not only donations IN.

P.9.2 Bright-line bans

No corporate donations under any structure — no Limited Liability Partnerships, no trusts, no Political Action Committee–style intermediaries, no business-controlled NGOs. No anonymous donations of any size. Every donor is named, every donation is published.

P.9.3 Foreign-donation posture

Donations accepted in INR, only from verified Indian citizens. Practical effect: Non-Resident Indians can donate from NRE / NRO accounts (already legal under FCRA as Indian citizens). Indian residents donate normally. Foreign nationals without Indian banking presence are effectively excluded by the currency requirement. FCRA caveat: even INR donations from non-Indian citizens technically count as ’foreign contribution’ under FCRA Sec. 2(1)(h). The manifesto pledges to push for FCRA amendment recognising INR-channel donations as domestic (Vol III App I legislative agenda).

P.9.4 Beyond donations — merchandise and events

The party may also generate income through (a) merchandise sold at cost-plus-fifteen-percent margin, with the margin going to party operations; (b) big ticketed events with a maximum of ₹500 per ticket; (c) small events with FREE ENTRY, where party members and the public interact directly without monetary barriers. No fundraising dinners or any event where the ticket cost exceeds cost-plus-margin. Event tickets and merchandise are commercial transactions, not donations, and do NOT count against the ₹1,000 monthly donation cap.

P.9.5 By-election cost rule (cross-ref to P.7)

By-election cost after a successful recall is borne by the state (normal Election Commission channel, as for any vacancy). The party becomes liable for re-election cost only on a court order — for example where a court finds bad faith, fraud, or wilful breach of the Candidate Accountability Agreement. Recall-process costs internal to the party (citizen-petition verification, vote-back ballot logistics, dispute resolution) are funded from ongoing voluntary monthly donations alongside the party’s other operating costs, published on the party’s Open-Ledger-style portal. No permanent escrow fund is maintained for either purpose.

Architecture cross-reference

Architecture cross-reference

Vocabulary aligned with Vol I Ch 2: ’Open Ledger’ = financial-spine OCDS-aligned surface (App D); ’Karnataka Open Data Portal’ = time-series/dataset surface (App H sheet H.233); ’Citizen Data Trust’ = personal-records surface; ’Karnataka State Service Log (KSSL)’ = mediation and cryptographic-anchoring layer (App H sheet H.230); ’JANATA’ = citizen front door (one of four — Officer Console, Business Portal, Civil Society Interface). Statutory institutions: Karnataka Cyber Security Operations Centre (CSOC, App H sheet H.231), Citizen Consent Ledger (App H sheet H.232), Civil-society Independent Audit Board (Vol I Ch 6). Statutory backing in App I.

P.9.6 Transparency cadence — live per transaction, quarterly per balance

Every party transaction is published LIVE on the Party Open Ledger — donor name, amount, date, source category, every single transaction. Total party treasury balance is published QUARTERLY (not live). This combination keeps every rupee transparent while avoiding the political theatre of week-to-week ’how much money the party has’ coverage. Annual independent audit. Quarterly comparison against other registered parties (where they disclose).

Why hold both halves Most parties pick one of two patterns, both unhelpful. Some operate openly on caste and religious lines while claiming to be secular at the government level — the contradiction is corrosive and visible. Others claim caste-blindness everywhere, including at the government level, which results in ignoring real disparities that demand intervention. The People’s Model deliberately holds both halves: rigorously caste-blind as a party, rigorously caste-aware as a state. Measuring disparity is not the same as operating on caste lines.

# — Axis — What is scored — Who scores

1 — Debate performance — Structured policy debates with peers. Substance, clarity, ability to defend a position under challenge, willingness to update a position when the evidence demands. Sessions recorded and published. — Peer review by relevant tier, recorded; secondary review by a domain panel.

2 — Meeting contribution — Attendance plus quality of contribution over an observation window. 6 months for ward roles, 12 months for district and office-bearer roles. Track-record, not promises. — Meeting chairs (rotating) maintain attendance + contribution log on the spine.

3 — Practical contribution — Concrete work done for the project — volunteer hours, deliverables shipped, problems solved, citizens supported. Verifiable, with named witnesses. — Volunteer coordinator + named witnesses sign off on records.

4 — Manifesto understanding — Tested. Written examination on the volume(s) most relevant to the role, plus an applied case study where the candidate must reason through a fresh situation using the manifesto’s framework. — Editorial committee for the relevant volume.

5 — Ideation — Submitted proposals, gap identifications, mechanism suggestions. Quality of new thinking the candidate brings. Reviewed by a domain panel for substance and feasibility. — Domain panel (per sector for sector roles, cross-sector for general roles).

6 — Psychological assessment — Independently administered psychometric study. Covers integrity, emotional regulation, decision-making under stress, conflict-resolution style. Signal-only for role fit, never pass/fail on personality. Results shared with the candidate before being used. — Independent licensed clinical psychologists or equivalent professionals.

7 — Conflict-of-interest disclosure — Financial, family, professional. Full, verified, published. Quality of disclosure (completeness, proactive flagging of grey areas) is itself scored. — Compliance committee + open public review window.

8 — Code of Conduct history — Any infractions during membership? How handled? Pattern matters more than any isolated incident. Members in good standing for the full observation window score full marks; recent infractions weighted heavily. — Ethics committee with reference to the public CoC record.

9 — Sector or constituency expertise — Domain knowledge for specialist roles (sector coordinators, policy spokespeople). Verified citizen-engagement record for elected and quasi-elected roles. Distinct from “understanding” (axis 4) which is general manifesto fluency. — Domain panel or constituency-level citizen review (for elected roles).

Role — Axes used — Observation window

Ward coordinator — Axes 2, 3, 4, 7 (4 axes) — 6 months. Meeting contribution + practical contribution + manifesto understanding + COI disclosure. Light psychometric optional.

District coordinator — Axes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 (7 axes) — 12 months. Adds debate performance + ideation + CoC history. Psychometric still optional but recommended.

Sector / domain spokesperson — Axes 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (7 axes) — 12 months. Heavier on debate, ideation, sector expertise. Full psychometric.

Candidate for elected office (MLA, MP, city corporation councillor, etc.) — All nine axes — 12 months minimum. Full nine-axis assessment. Constituency expertise axis becomes weighty.

State office-bearer — All nine axes — 24 months. Full assessment, with axis 8 (CoC history) and axis 6 (psychometrics) weighted highest.

Stage — Window — What happens — Axes scored — Eliminated if

0 · Apply — Week 0 — Role card (axes, weights, thresholds) published before the window opens. Application: identity; verification consents; full asset and conflict-of-interest declaration; criminal-record consent; two-page intent note; three referees. — 7 opens — Incomplete pack. Court-framed corruption or moral-turpitude case. Any false statement in the application is a permanent bar.

1 · Verify — Weeks 1–3 — Independent verification of education, employment, litigation, and assets against declared income. The panel additionally interviews two references of its own choosing. — 7 — disclosure quality: completeness, proactive grey-area flagging — Material misstatement. Refusal of any verification step.

2 · Capability — Weeks 3–6 — Written manifesto examination and applied case study. A 90-minute live problem clinic on a real Karnataka case. Recorded public debate. Independent psychometric study (signal-only). An Open Ledger anomaly exercise drawn from the Red Flag Catalog. — 1 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 9 — Below the published threshold on axis 4 or the case study. Refusal to be recorded.

3 · Field trial — 60–90 days (30 for ward roles) — Supervised real work: a ward listening drive; one shipped deliverable with named witnesses; weekly logged contributions; handling of small trial expenses. A trial stipend is provided; evening and weekend windows are guaranteed. — 2 · 3 · 8 begins — Unexplained absence pattern. Credit claimed without witnesses. Any Code-of-Conduct violation. Irregular expense record.

4 · Integrity — Week 14 — Scenario dilemmas from a published dilemma bank. A red-team disclosure session: the panel presents its verification findings against the candidate’s declarations and scores the gaps. Review of declared temptation simulations from the trial. Covert integrity stings are prohibited. — 7 · 8 deepened — A concealed material conflict. Accepting a simulated inducement.

5 · Slate and vote — Weeks 15–16 — The nine axis scores aggregate by the pre-published weights. The top three (top one for small roles) form the slate; the relevant membership tier votes. Score-sheets, panel composition, and tallies are published 14 days before the vote. — All nine totalled — Not selected is not elimination: reapply next cycle; marks carry for 12 months.

6 · Probation — 12 months — The role is held provisionally. Quarterly public scorecard: attendance, deliverables, decision log. The full rubric re-runs at month 12 on real internal history. — 2 · 3 · 8 re-scored — A Class-A Code-of-Conduct violation triggers immediate ethics review. Two failed quarterly scorecards reopen the role under the rubric.

Role tier — Stages applied — Trial length — Slate

Ward coordinator — 0, 1, 2 (examination and clinic only), 3, 5, 6 — 30 days — Top 1

District roles — 0–6 in full — 60 days — Top 3

State office-bearers and election candidates — 0–6 in full, plus the Candidate Accountability Agreement (P.6.7) — 90 days — Top 3

← Appendix H — Program Atlas · State Manufacturing Catalog →

This is a chapter of The People's Model manifesto for Karnataka — published in full for public review. Every claim may be challenged: write to [email protected].