In a world where meaningful citizen participation in governance often seems like a distant dream, Kerala’s experiment with democratic decentralisation stands as a remarkable exception. As we look back on this journey in 2025, it’s worth examining both the impressive achievements and persistent challenges of what remains one of the world’s most ambitious experiments in participatory democracy.The Birth of a Democratic RevolutionWhen Kerala’s Left Democratic Front (LDF) government initiated the People’s Planning Campaign in August 1996, it built upon an already robust foundation of local governance and community involvement. The state had laid this groundwork through decades of progressive policies, including comprehensive land reform, near universal literacy, excellent healthcare systems, and strong protections for workers’ rights. What made the People’s Planning Campaign revolutionary was its ambition to deepen this progressive tradition by radically democratizing governance itself.The most notable aspect of the campaign was the substantial financial devolution it introduced. The government decided to allocate 35 to 40% of the state’s development funds directly to local governments. This was not a mere gesture of involvement; it marked a true transfer of power, allowing local communities to manage significant resources. Equally important was the well-structured process established to ensure citizen participation in deciding the utilisation of these resources.Deep Historical RootsThe People’s Planning Campaign didn’t emerge overnight. Its intellectual foundations can be traced back to the 1930s, when EMS Namputiripad who would later become Kerala’s first Chief Minister wrote about the need to empower local governments. By the 1970s, scholars at Kerala’s Centre for Development Studies, including K.N. Raj and P.G.K. Panikkar, were developing concepts of “planning from below” that would eventually inform the statewide campaign.Civil society organisations had also been experimenting with participatory approaches at the local level for years, creating practical models that demonstrated what was possible. When the LDF government came to power in 1996, it built on these decades of theoretical development and practical experimentation to launch a statewide initiative.The program’s architects, including Dr. T.M. Thomas Isaac (who later became Kerala’s Finance Minister), conceptualised the campaign as an exercise in what scholars would later call “empowered deliberative democracy” combining meaningful citizen empowerment through control over resources with deliberative decision-making focused on solving concrete problems rather than merely aggregating preferences.The Multi-Tiered Planning ProcessThe brilliance of Kerala’s planning process is rooted in its multi-tiered structure, which offers numerous entry points for citizen participation while ensuring that this involvement results in tangible outcomes. The process unfolds through several well-defined stages:Village Assemblies (Gram Sabhas): These open meetings, held in every ward of every local government, invite any resident to participate and voice their needs and priorities. This represents democracy in its purest form, with no barriers to entry.Development Seminars: The needs identified in the gram sabhas are then brought to development seminars. Here, elected representatives, technical experts, and citizen delegates collaborate to prioritize needs and develop comprehensive development strategies. These seminars blend the democratic legitimacy of elected officials with the technical expertise of professionals and the lived experiences of ordinary citizens.Specialised Task Forces: These groups take the broad priorities from the seminars and translate them into formal project proposals. By combining technical knowledge with local insights, they ensure that the projects are both feasible and responsive to community needs.Comprehensive Development Plans: Local elected bodies then integrate these proposals into holistic development plans that balance various sectors and priorities.Implementation Committees: These committees oversee project execution, ensuring continued citizen participation beyond the planning stage.This process balances inclusivity with effectiveness, expert knowledge with democratic legitimacy, and visionary thinking with practical implementation.Investing in Citizen CapacityOne of the standout aspects of Kerala’s approach is its significant investment in training. Understanding that meaningful participation hinges on having the right knowledge and skills, the campaign trained nearly 100,000 resource persons using a cascading model to facilitate the planning process at the local level.This emphasis on building citizen capacity sets Kerala apart from many other participatory initiatives globally, which often concentrate training efforts primarily on officials rather than citizens. By democratising knowledge and technical skills, the campaign has played a pivotal role in reshaping power dynamics at the local level.Three Decades of Significant AchievementsAs we approach the 30-year milestone of this ambitious experiment, Kerala’s People’s Planning Campaign has achieved numerous significant milestones.Institutional SustainabilityMost notably, the campaign has become deeply entrenched in Kerala’s governance framework, withstanding multiple government changes. What started as an initiative has now become a permanent fixture of governance, with no political force in Kerala considering the dismantling of empowered local governments.Democratic Space at the Local LevelDr. Thomas Isaac refers to this as creating a “democratic space at the local level,” where citizens and organisations can directly influence development decisions without having to navigate distant state institutions. This has made governance more accessible to ordinary people, especially those from marginalised groups.Improved Service Delivery and InfrastructureLocal governments have significantly enhanced service delivery, particularly in areas such as housing, infrastructure, education, and healthcare. During recent crises, including the devastating floods in 2018 and the COVID-19 pandemic, local governments demonstrated their capacity for effective crisis response, often outperforming larger governmental units.Streamlined Planning ProcessesA notable procedural improvement in recent years has been the early finalisation of annual plans before the start of the financial year. Previously, annual plans were completed around August, leaving limited time for implementation. Recent reforms have streamlined planning processes and reduced bureaucratic interference, resulting in more timely plan formulation and allowing local governments the full financial year for implementation rather than just a few months.Disaster Management CapabilitiesLocal governments played a crucial role in responding to the unprecedented floods and mudslides that affected Kerala in 2018 and 2019. Their effectiveness during these crises led to the institutionalisation of disaster management responsibilities at the local level, with every local government in the state preparing dedicated disaster management plans—an initiative unparalleled elsewhere in India.Implementation of State MissionsLocal governments have been central to implementing four major state missions aimed at building a “Nava Keralam”:Aardram Mission: Focusing on public health by converting primary health centers into family health centers and improving access to healthcare.Vidya Kiranam Mission: Enhancing public education in schools.Life Mission: Providing housing for the poor and homeless.Haritha Kerala Mission: Addressing environmental concerns.Food Security InitiativesFollowing the COVID-19 pandemic, local governments coordinated and implemented the “Subhiksha Keralam” program, a multi departmental strategy to increase food production, food processing, and value addition across agriculture, fisheries, animal resources, and traditional industries.Women’s EmpowermentThe establishment of Kudumbashree, a network of women’s neighborhood groups linked to local governments, has created new platforms for women’s participation. More than 200,000 women are now organised through this movement, which has become a powerful force for both women’s empowerment and local development.Specialised Care and Social Justice ProgramsKerala’s local governments have developed several innovative programs addressing social justice needs:BUD Schools: Special educational institutions for children with intellectual disabilities, operated by local governmentsAsraya Program: A comprehensive support system for the “poorest of the poor” (approximately 2% of Kerala’s population)Palliative Care: A globally recognised model of community-based palliative care coordinated by local governments in partnership with civil societyElderly Care Initiatives: Programs addressing the needs of senior citizens, which is increasingly important as Kerala faces rapid demographic agingPersistent Challenges: The Work ContinuesDespite these important achievements, Kerala’s democratic experiment continues to face several significant challenges:Democratic Planning and Bureaucratic CaptureOne recurring issue is the tension between local autonomy and higher-tier oversight. The decision-making space for local governments has been eroded by excessive guidelines, government orders, and training programs, a phenomenon often described as “bureaucratic capture.” This has limited local governments’ ability to respond flexibly to local needs and priorities.While recent reforms have enhanced implementation efficiency, they have also impacted some aspects of participatory planning. This highlights a broader challenge of balancing efficiency with participation in local governance—a challenge that is likely to intensify in the post-pandemic context when rapid response capabilities are crucial.Reimagining Spaces of ParticipationThe Gram Sabha has been a cornerstone of participatory governance in Kerala, but its effectiveness in representing diverse voices has come into question. In many areas, gram sabhas have been reduced to platforms for beneficiary distribution, with ecological concerns sometimes being actively suppressed.There are increasing calls for “carving out coastal panchayats” to better address the concerns of coastal communities, who often find themselves as minorities within mainstream panchayats. Similarly, strengthening forest fringe panchayats could help manage human-animal conflicts and more effectively implement the Forest Rights Act.Beyond spatial reorganisation, there is a need to diversify participation mechanisms. Participation should be viewed as a “multi-dimensional process” that extends beyond the Gram Sabha. Local governments are increasingly organising targeted meetings for specific groups, including farmers, children, and non-resident Keralites.Gender EqualityWhile women’s participation has increased substantially through initiatives like Kudumbashree and the 50% reservation for women in local governments, gender relations in Kerala society remain problematic, with high rates of domestic violence and other forms of gender-based discrimination.Women’s labor has become increasingly “governmentalised” in Kerala, particularly through self-help group networks that are mobilised during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. While this labor has been crucial for implementing government programs and crisis response, it has often been treated as a resource to be drawn upon rather than acknowledged as a social force that “softens” the surveillance aspects of governance.Tribal InclusionThe participation of tribal communities remains inadequate, partly because they constitute minorities in all local government areas, making it difficult for their voices to be heard in general assemblies. New approaches focused on family-level micro-planning are being developed to address this gap, but fully including indigenous communities remains a work in progress.Urban Governance and Spatial PlanningKerala’s decentralisation efforts have focused more on rural areas, with urban governance receiving less attention despite Kerala’s high urbanisation rate. Urban local bodies have received less attention in the decentralisation process compared to their rural counterparts, with urban issues having “overtaken planners in a big way.”The initiatives to integrate spatial planning into development planning represent a “humble beginning” in addressing this gap. The 13th Five-Year Plan mandated a separate chapter on spatial planning in district plans, and selected local governments have developed spatial plans with technical support from engineering colleges. However, these efforts are still “very rudimentary,” particularly in urban areas.Productive Sectors and Economic DevelopmentA significant weakness in Kerala’s decentralisation experience has been in promoting productive sectors—agriculture and industry. While local governments have performed well in welfare and infrastructure development, they have struggled to stimulate local economic development.Addressing these challenges requires innovative institutional mechanisms that involve industry, agriculture, private capital, and farmers, with local governments playing a significant interventionist role. Some local governments have experimented with collaborative institutions like Kudumbashree, which involves both individual producers and local government support. These experiments suggest the potential for a new model of local economic governance that goes beyond direct production or regulation to facilitate coordination between producers, markets, and support services.Ecological Governance and Climate AdaptationKerala faces emerging ecological challenges that require stronger local governance responses, particularly the vulnerabilities of coastal and forest communities to climate change. The increasing incidence of human-animal conflicts has been described as “the biggest challenge at the moment in Kerala,” exemplifying these ecological pressures.A significant challenge facing Kerala’s local governments is “natural resource predation”, the exploitation of natural resources by powerful economic interests that often flout regulations, capture local institutions, and cause environmental degradation. Examples include quarrying operations that affect micro-climates beyond panchayat boundaries, aluminum companies with excessive influence over local governments, and coastal developments controlled by commercial interests.The ward as a unit based planning and implementation has proven inadequate for addressing ecological concerns that transcend administrative boundaries. New institutional mechanisms are needed that can address environmental issues at the appropriate ecological scale rather than being constrained by administrative boundaries.Capital Penetration and Institutional CaptureThere is now substantial penetration of capital into rural areas from corporate sources in Kerala. This capital takes various forms, including corporate interests. In many cases, these economic interests have captured panchayat institutions or operate through proxies, undermining democratic processes.Accommodating Newly Emerging GroupsKerala’s dynamic civil society has seen the emergence of new marginalised groups asserting their identity and demanding inclusion. These include LGBTQI+ communities, women workers in the informal sector, and “biosocial communities” formed around specific health conditions or disabilities. While some progress has been made, particularly regarding transgender rights, a more systematic approach is needed to integrate these groups into the local governance framework not merely as welfare beneficiaries but as active participants with meaningful voice.Complacency and RoutinisationSeveral innovative social justice programs that began as best practices have experienced “routinisation” and in some cases “trivialisation.” This process involves the loss of original enthusiasm and purpose, with programs becoming bureaucratic exercises rather than transformative initiatives. The Asraya program, despite winning national recognition, has shown signs of this phenomenon.Suboptimal Performance for Specific Marginalised GroupsWhile Kerala’s local governance model has achieved substantial success in many areas, performance has been “suboptimal” for certain marginalised communities, particularly Scheduled Tribes and fishing communities, who remain “outliers to the Kerala model.” For Scheduled Castes, basic minimum needs have been addressed, but there are signs of alienation among educated Dalit youth. Services for persons with disabilities show good intentions but require improved capacity.Reimagining Local Governance for the FutureAs Kerala looks toward the future of its democratic decentralisation experiment, several key directions emerge for reimagining local governance:Governance and Administrative ReformsStreamlining governance frameworks: While some guidelines and government orders are necessary for coordinating different tiers of government, these should be minimised to maximise local decision making space.Redefining autonomy: Developing a more nuanced understanding of autonomy that balances local decision making with broader developmental objectives and cross jurisdictional coordination.Strengthening own source revenues: Encouraging local governments to enhance their own source revenue while maintaining appropriate levels of intergovernmental transfers.Developing regional approaches: Creating frameworks for coordination across local government boundaries to address issues that transcend administrative divisions.Differentiated governance structures: Recognising the distinct needs of urban areas by developing governance structures specifically designed for urban contexts.Enhancing Participation and InclusionDiversifying participation mechanisms: Beyond the Gram Sabha, local governments should develop targeted approaches to engage different stakeholders, including marginalised groups in coastal and forest areas.Spatial reorganisation of panchayats: Consider creating specialised panchayats (coastal, forest-fringe) to better address the distinct needs and vulnerabilities of communities in specific ecological zones.Integrating emerging marginalised groups: Developing systematic approaches to include LGBTQI+ communities, informal sector women workers, and biosocial communities in governance structures beyond welfare beneficiary status.New forums for ecological concerns: Creating new participatory spaces that transcend panchayat boundaries where citizens can raise ecological concerns, particularly regarding activities that affect broader ecosystems.Acknowledging women’s governmentalised labor: Recognising and appropriately compensating the essential role of women’s networks in crisis management and program implementation.Spatial Planning and Urban GovernanceStrengthening spatial planning: Urban local bodies, particularly city corporations, need enhanced planning capabilities and better integration with state-level planning frameworks.Integrating spatial and development planning: Building on earlier initiatives to fully integrate spatial considerations into development planning processes.Capacity building for urban governance: Developing specialised training and resources for urban local bodies to address their distinct challenges.Economic and Environmental SustainabilityEnhancing ecological governance: Local governments require additional powers, responsibilities, and resources to address climate vulnerabilities and human-animal conflicts.Regulating capital: Developing mechanisms to regulate and hold accountable the various forms of capital operating in rural areas, ensuring their participation in governance goes beyond tokenistic corporate social responsibility.Exploring productive roles for panchayats: Investigating the suggestion of positioning panchayats as entities engaged in production for local needs rather than solely administrative bodies—a vision of panchayats (or groups of panchayats) as productive units that own and control production.Addressing inequality: Developing targeted approaches to address growing inequality, with local governments playing a central role in identifying and implementing interventions.Building a Caring StateProfessor Prabhat Patnaik has proposed moving beyond the welfare state to a “caring state” that combines welfare benefits with active engagement of communities in providing care. This approach recognizes the unique position of local governments at the interface between citizens and the state apparatus, creating opportunities for democratic deepening that are less available at higher levels of governance.The shift from a welfare state to a rights-based caring state would involve not only material support but also recognition of the dignity and agency of all citizens, particularly those from marginalised communities. Local governments would play a central role in this transition, serving as the institutional foundation for a more inclusive and participatory democracy.Innovation and AccountabilityData-driven participatory planning: Combining hard data with participatory processes to enable evidence-based local priority setting.Community Resource Persons: Developing a cadre of local facilitators from marginalised communities to serve as intermediaries between panchayats and citizens.Independent evaluation: Implementing regular, professional assessment of social justice actions and outcomes.Balancing regulatory powers and accountability: Devolution of regulatory functions should be accompanied by mechanisms to ensure transparent and accountable decision-making.The Global Significance of Kerala’s Democratic ExperimentAs Kerala nears three decades of its decentralisation experiment, its experience provides valuable lessons for democratic theory and practice worldwide in regard to,Political MobilisationDemocratic decentralisation requires not just technical reforms but political mobilisation that generates demand from the grassroots. In Kerala, a robust civil society and political movements, such as the Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishad (KSSP), created the conditions for effective decentralisation by raising awareness and mobilising public support for local planning.Inclusive ParticipationWell-designed institutions and processes are essential to ensure that participation goes beyond elite groups and that dissenting voices are heard. Kerala’s multi-tiered planning process, with its emphasis on Gram Sabhas and ward level committees, provides numerous opportunities for inclusive participation, though challenges remain in ensuring that all voices are equally represented.State-Civil Society SynergyKerala’s experience demonstrates the potential for productive synergy between state institutions and civil society organisations, combining the resources of the former with the mobilizing capacity of the latter. Rather than viewing state and civil society as adversaries, Kerala’s experience suggests they can collaborate for democratic deepening. The Kudumbashree program is an example of this synergy, leveraging self-help groups to implement government programs and address poverty.Capacity BuildingSubstantial investment in training citizens and local officials can transform power relations by democratizing knowledge and skills. When ordinary people acquire technical capacity, they can engage more effectively with experts and officials. The Kerala Institute of Local Administration (KILA), the State Institute for Rural Development have played crucial roles in this regard.Social TransformationFinally, conceptualising governance reform not as a technical exercise but as a movement for social transformation can generate the sustained political will needed for institutional change. Kerala’s experience suggests that democratic reforms are most likely to succeed when they are embedded in broader movements for social justice.In his book co-authored with Professor Richard Franke, “People’s Planning: Kerala, Local Democracy and Development,” Dr. T.M. Thomas Isaac situates Kerala’s decentralisation experiment within a broader vision of 21st-century socialism. They argue that by empowering elected bodies at the local level, the People’s Planning Campaign helps create institutional foundations for a more democratic form of socialism that avoids the excessive centralisation and authoritarianism characteristic of earlier socialist experiments.The relevance of this vision extends far beyond socialist movements. In an era where democracy is increasingly threatened by authoritarian populism, corporate dominance, and state surveillance, Kerala’s experience provides valuable insights for reimagining democratic governance. It presents a potential model for fortifying democracy in diverse political and economic contexts, especially in the face of rising authoritarianism and economic inequality.This Kerala experience proposes an alternative vision of democracy—one that transcends periodic voting in competitive elections and emphasizes continuous citizen engagement in governance; one that goes beyond formal rights on paper to ensure substantive capabilities to exercise those rights; and one that moves past mere procedures for registering preferences to grant real power to shape communities and futures.This article builds on the work of Dr. T.M. Thomas Isaac, Professor Richard Franke, and insights from Patrick Heller, Harry Blair, S.M. Vijayanand, Aruna Roy, J. Devika, R. Ramachandran, and Prabhat Patnaik whose work I have been following through their scholarly articles, lectures and discussions I have had the privilege of attending.