About this project
This project is designed to help people understand political ideas, not to tell them what to believe.
What it is for
Most political self-tests hand you a label and stop. This one is built the other way round: the label is the least interesting output, and the point is the 34 documented traditions, the reasoning behind each question, and the arithmetic that connects your answers to a result. If you leave understanding an argument you previously only had a name for, it has worked.
Why it is not partisan
Not because it has no opinions, but because a tool that nudged people toward a conclusion would be useless for the thing it is meant to do. Every tradition here is described in its own strongest terms, with its best arguments and its most serious criticisms side by side. Where a question touches something genuinely contested, the wording decisions are published so that they can be argued with rather than trusted.
What it gets wrong
Nine dimensions leave things out. The traditions are described as coherent when real political life is messier. The vectors assigned to figures and parties are editorial judgements about documented positions, not measurements, and reasonable people would place some of them differently. The scoring model treats all questions on an axis as interchangeable evidence, which they are not. None of this is hidden: it is why the methodology and audit pages exist.
On India first
The scenarios lean on Indian examples — reservation, personal law, federalism, autonomy movements, coal transition — because the tool was built for Indian readers first and generic examples would have been vaguer and less useful. The framework itself is not India-specific, and the traditions, thinkers and parties span several continents.
What this project will not do
- No voting advice.
- No moral rankings.
- No false precision.