Every four years, during a Chess Olympiad, FIDE has a Presidential election. While the two previous administrations (of Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and Florencio Campomanes) were filled with controversy (especially Ilyumzhinov’s), current FIDE President Arkady Dvorkovich’s tenure (AFAIK) hadn’t been especially controversial until Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Even then, I’m not aware of anything Dvorkovich - a Russian who was formerly very involved in national politics - has done that deserves censure; indeed, I was pleasantly surprised that he did not intercede on Sergey Karjakin’s behalf when the latter was prevented from participating in the recent Candidates tournament on account of his full-throated support of the Russian invasion.
Nevertheless, Dvorkovich is a controversial figure because of his political past, and there is also concern that having a Russian FIDE President poses serious problems for finding organizers and sponsors. Naturally, there was some opposition to him in the recent election on those grounds. The opposition didn’t succeed - he won handily (which has been par for the course for FIDE Presidential incumbents for a very long time, and often reflects the effectiveness of their political machine more than it does genuine enthusiasm) - and was re-elected to a second four-year term. Interestingly, Dvorkovich was able to get Viswanathan Anand to run as his deputy - his #2 man. Given the universal acclaim Anand enjoys as a man (and not only as a chess player), this gave a further shot in the arm to Dvorkovich’s candidacy; critics will no doubt claim that this is just reputation laundering on Dvorkovich’s part, but I think one can make the case that this will help FIDE overcome some of the concerns about finding organizers and sponsors. We’ll see.
At any rate, I have not closely followed FIDE politics for some years now, so those who know (emphasis on know) more about the pros and cons of Dvorkovich’s are invited to weigh in. For the rest of us, there is much more detail on the campaign, the concerns, and the election, here.
Pros and cons of Dvorkovich will always remain a matter of opinion, the 157-16 landslide victory suggests that cons didn't matter to many delegates. BTW various sources (including Dvorkovich himself) say that he will resign if he ends upon a sanction list, then Anand will probably officially take over and there will be new elections within 6 months. Dvorkovich also said that he won't run for a third term, but this statement may have an expiration date.
We might also look at the alternative that remained in the end, after two tickets were withdrawn. Baryshpolets sold his total lack of political experience and being Ukrainian (having Ukrainian roots) as an asset. But in an ACP debate (https://www.chess.com/news/view/fide-presidential-candidates-acp-round-table-discussion) he acted like an American (country where he lives) - "He also noted a personal idea that he wants to push: that FIDE will be sponsoring scholarships for U.S. youth champions."
The designated vice president Peter Heine Nielsen had done most of the campaigning, and may have been widely and plausibly considered the one who would be in charge - with Baryshpolets just a cover ("reputation laundering" may be too strong). Nielsen's obvious ties with Carlsen may be considered a pro by some, and a con by others. It could have had implications for the future of the world championship cycle - drastic changes either to get Carlsen back in, or to devalue the title in order to add credibility to a "world #1 is all that matters" narrative. In the ACP debate, both Kouatly (who later withdrew his candidature) and Baryshpolets had called Carlsen's refusal to defend his title a "failure of FIDE" (not a failure of Carlsen). Kouatly: "find a championship format that can suit the modern trend", Baryshpolets: "FIDE just cannot keep up with the times.".
There may have been more in the mind of the delegates than "fighting Russian influence", main focus of the Baryshpolets-Nielsen campaign. Chess24, part of Play Magnus group/Carlsen business empire, may not be an objective-neutral source.