Research
- +6
Milan Vaishnav, Sameer Lalwani, Tanvi Madan, …
{
"authors": [
"Milan Vaishnav"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "SAP",
"programs": [
"South Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"South Asia",
"India"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Democracy"
]
}
Source: Getty
Other
Crooks Win Votes
In India, candidates with a criminal record have a higher rate than clean candidates. Parties nominate criminals at least partially because they win.
Published on May 18, 2017
Source: Atlantic
In India, parties across the political spectrum nominate candidates who have criminal cases pending against them. The country’s two truly national parties, the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Indian National Congress, both select a fair number of parliamentary candidates—14 and 11 percent, respectively—who face serious charges, such as assault or murder. In one sense, the answer to why these parties nominate candidates with criminal backgrounds is painfully obvious: because they win. Across the past three general elections, “clean” candidates had a win rate of 6 percent. The win rate for candidates facing a charge of any type, by contrast, was just above 17 percent, and those facing serious charges had an 18 percent chance of winning. While there is some variation in the prevalence of candidates with criminal cases across parties, this is not an issue facing any one political party or type of party: It is clear that criminality in politics is widespread.
This short book excerpt was originally published in the Atlantic.
About the Author
Milan Vaishnav
Director and Senior Fellow, South Asia Program
Milan Vaishnav is a senior fellow and director of the South Asia Program and the host of the Grand Tamasha podcast at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His primary research focus is the political economy of India, and he examines issues such as corruption and governance, state capacity, distributive politics, and electoral behavior. He also conducts research on the Indian diaspora.
- India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era
- Indian Americans Still Lean Left. Just Not as Reliably.Commentary
- +1
Sumitra Badrinathan, Devesh Kapur, Andy Robaina, …
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Who Is Responsible for the Demise of the Russian Internet?Commentary
The Russian state has opted for complete ideological control of the internet and is prepared to bear the associated costs.
Maria Kolomychenko
- Duterte’s Populist Foreign Policy as Illiberal Defiance: Consequences and ProspectsPaper
In the Philippines, Duterte-era discourse emphasizing sovereignty, anti-Western skepticism, and strongman diplomacy mirrors tenets of populist foreign policy around the world.
Aries A. Arugay
- Is Opposition to Online Restrictions an Inflection Point for the Russian Regime?Commentary
After four years of war, there is no one who can stand up to the security establishment, and President Vladimir Putin is increasingly passive.
Tatiana Stanovaya
- Is Frustration With Armenia’s Pashinyan Enough to Bring the Pro-Russia Opposition to Power?Commentary
It’s true that many Armenians would vote for anyone just to be rid of Pashinyan, whom they blame for the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh, but the pro-Russia opposition is unlikely to be able to channel that frustration into an electoral victory.
Mikayel Zolyan
- The Shadow of the Military in Modern South AsiaArticle
Military rule is now a defining political factor in South Asia. Here’s how analysts can understand and account for it.
Paul Staniland
