Commentary
- +1
Sumitra Badrinathan, Devesh Kapur, Andy Robaina, …
{
"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.
- Indian Americans Still Lean Left. Just Not as Reliably.
- Indian Americans in a Time of Turbulence: 2026 Survey ResultsPaper
- +1
Milan Vaishnav, Sumitra Badrinathan, Devesh Kapur, …
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 Russia Eurasia Center
- Tokayev’s New Constitution Is a Bet on Stability—At Freedom’s ExpenseCommentary
Kazakhstan’s new constitution is an embodiment of the ruling elite’s fears and a self-serving attempt to preserve the status quo while they still can.
Serik Beysembaev
- The Kremlin Is Destroying Its Own System of Coerced VotingCommentary
The use of technology to mobilize Russians to vote—a system tied to the relative material well-being of the electorate, its high dependence on the state, and a far-reaching system of digital control—is breaking down.
Andrey Pertsev
- Notes From Kyiv: Is Ukraine Preparing for Elections?Commentary
As discussions about settlement and elections move from speculation to preparation, Kyiv will have to manage not only the battlefield, but also the terms of political transition. The thaw will not resolve underlying tensions; it will only expose them more clearly.
Balázs Jarábik
- Where Does the Split in the Ruling Tandem Leave Kyrgyzstan?Commentary
Despite its reputation as an island of democracy in Central Asia, Kyrgyzstan appears to be on the brink of becoming a personalist autocracy.
Temur Umarov
- In Uzbekistan, the President’s Daughter Is Now His Second-in-CommandCommentary
Having failed to build a team that he can fully trust or establish strong state institutions, Mirziyoyev has become reliant on his family.
Galiya Ibragimova
