In Peru’s dysfunctional democratic environment, one of the most significant issues evident in recent electoral processes is that various candidates and individuals ultimately elected to public office at the national, regional, or municipal levels have criminal records or court convictions that place them at odds with the standards of suitability, integrity, and diligence required for public service. This situation reveals a troubling disconnect between the ethical requirements of public service and the decisions made by the electorate. The political rhetoric employed by these candidates highlights the high level of acceptance that populist messages enjoy among a significant segment of the population, even when there is a history that calls into question their fitness for office. As a result, officials are elected who, in many cases, will not carry out public administration in a manner consistent with the community’s expectations, needs, and interests.