Washington, D.C. · Published openly · Free to use
Fairness is not a feeling about a government. It is a property of the arrangements people live under, and it can be measured. CARO publishes the standard for measuring it — the method, the formulae, and everything needed to found a body that applies them.
The failure is architectural. It survives elections, outlasts leaders and reappears under new parties, because what produces it is not who holds office but how the office is held. That is not an opinion about politics. It is a claim about structure, and a claim about structure can be tested.
CARO exists to make it testable, and to publish the test.
Three things, all published, all open. CARO runs no programmes and operates in no country.
What structural fairness is, stated once and precisely: the Meta-Right to Structural Fairness, Equitism as the political philosophy that carries it, Fairocracy as the institutional logic, and the Unified Fair Democratic System as the constitutional form.
Read the standard →The Fairness Index: twenty-five questions across five domains, nine formulae, and the rules by which one version succeeds another. Published unabridged, so anyone holding the raw responses can reproduce every figure.
The formulae →Everything needed to found a body that measures and keeps measuring: governing documents, election machinery, oversight design, and the reasoning behind every clause — including the drafts that were wrong first.
Request the kit →The method has been applied in full to one cohort. These are the figures, and these are their limits.
Bangladesh, April 2026. All five domains scored below 2.00 — a broad consistent signal rather than unfairness concentrated in one area. The lowest was public services and welfare, at 1.44.
The cohort was 71 per cent aged 18–25, 62 per cent urban and 54 per cent undergraduate. It is not nationally representative, and nothing above should be read as a measurement of Bangladesh. It is a test of whether the instrument produces differentiated, interpretable results on a real population. It did.
Every question, every distribution, every standard deviation →
Eighty-five per cent answered completely unfair — the clearest consensus anywhere in the instrument. The subject maps directly to Article 17 of the Constitution of Bangladesh, which promises free and compulsory education. Article 17 sits in Part II, which is both judicially unenforceable and, under Article 7B, not amendable by any means.
So the provision exists, the agreement exists, and no route connects them. That is what CARO calls Legal Injustice: a right declared in a form that cannot be claimed. Here it is measured rather than argued.
There is nothing to apply for.
The standard, the method and the kit are published for anyone to use, adapt, translate and instantiate — any population, no fee, no licence, no permission. CARO claims no authority over a body that adopts them, holds no seat on it, and does not certify, endorse or audit it. Adopters are not chapters, branches or affiliates.
CARO uses its own method on the same terms as everyone else.