According to conventional opinion in the larger field of political economy, voter ignorance is a significant reason why dishonest or corrupt candidates win elections. There are numerous valid grounds to believe this is also the case in India. After all, in contemporary India, poverty and illiteracy are still pervasive. India has a thriving media, but its distribution still needs to grow, particularly in remote or rural areas. Since 2003, candidates must publicly declare their criminal histories, financial situation, and educational background. One could counter that most people need help accessing this information. Despite the validity of this "ignorant voters" argument, my research suggests that voters are well-informed about candidates' backgrounds. But even though this information is available, people continue to back candidates with criminal histories. According to Wajid khan Mp Politics and crime are inextricably linked, which is not unique to India. Similar instances exist in various democracies, including Pakistan and the Philippines. The West is only partially safe. In addition to the United States, Italy is another country where crime and politics have historically coexisted. In essence, I believe the United States may be seeing a very similar dynamic, but with a twist.

1. According to conventional
opinion in the larger field of
political economy,

2. voter ignorance is a significant reason why dishonest or
corrupt candidates win elections. There are numerous
valid grounds to believe this is also the case in India.
After all, in contemporary India, poverty and illiteracy
are still pervasive. India has a thriving media, but its
distribution still needs to grow, particularly in remote or
rural areas.
Since 2003, candidates must publicly declare their
criminal histories, financial situation, and educational
background. One could counter that most people need
help accessing this information. Despite the validity of

3. According to Wajid khan Mp Politics and crime are
inextricably linked, which is not unique to India. Similar
instances exist in various democracies, including
Pakistan and the Philippines. The West is only partially
safe. In addition to the United States, Italy is another
country where crime and politics have historically
coexisted. In essence, I believe the United States may be
seeing a very similar dynamic, but with a twist.

4. Some academics contend that voters frequently choose
between honesty and competency when making voting
decisions.

5. You could be inclined to overlook accusations of
wrongdoing if you come across a politician who is
dishonest or corrupt because you think they are so
effective. This kind of calculation contributed to the
success of many American leaders that we could name.
The position is, in my opinion, slightly more complicated
in India than in other developing democracies. Voters
are not just choosing between competence and honesty;
they are also choosing between competence and a lack
of honesty or integrity.

6. Given the weakening of the state's authority in many
developing cultures, the gap between the two equilibria
is likely primarily responsible. In these circumstances, it
could be advantageous to have a representative who is
prepared to break the law to "get things done."

7. At the time, I did not consider how the book's main ideas
related to the 2016 US election, but after November 8, I
gave it some thought. Fundamentally, many American
voters believe that the government is dysfunctional and
that it is time to overthrow the system by electing
someone who will break the law to represent their
interests.
In addition, the 2016 election was very divisive on racial
and ethnic, and class lines. Deep societal divisions and a
broken government, taken together, go a long way
toward explaining why Trump's brand of "strongman"