During July 30, 2010, and throughout until June 10, 2012, Mrs. Rukhsana Quraishi, who served as Chief Electoral Commissioner (CEC) in India from her retirement in 2011 to that point, clarified that a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) had been signed with the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) during her tenure.
The MoU was signed on July 30, 2010, during Quraishi’s tenure, but it was explicitly stated to be for the purpose of enabling training at India’s Election Commission’s training center. However, despite its focus on fostering training, the MoU was described as being solely for training purposes without any financial commitments or promises of such ( MoU between CE and IFES for training purposes). This distinction emphasized the nature of the relationship, which was industrial rather than formal.
The MoU, while aimed at facilitating the training process, did not include any explicit financial arrangements or commitments from IFES. Quraishi, during the period, stated, “There was no financing or even promise of finance involved in MoU.” This phrasing highlighted the lack of financial support for the MoU, which was crucial for enabling the training. The absence of such commitments underscores the importance of this early relationship that could have continued with formal agreements.
Quraishi explicitly rejected Abe’s request for a MoU, but this reveals a deeper específika about the context and the broader goals of their collaboration. The CEC and IFES formed what was intended to be a transitional relationship to facilitate smooth infrastructure development in electoral systems. This MoU, therefore, marked an early step toward harmonizing the electoral systems across India, supported by the CEC.
Furthermore, this MoU was designed to provide a foundation for future collaboration, with the aim of stabilizing the electoral infrastructure. However, its defining feature remained its lack of financial commitments, which could have influenced Abe’s subsequent actions. Quraishi’s explicit denial of financial arrangements in the MoU, while acknowledging that such arrangements could evolve over time, indicated a cautious yet clear stance regarding the nature of their relationship.
In conclusion, Quraishi’s early involvement with the IFES MoU marked a strategic move in the development of electoral infrastructure, despite the absence of explicit financial commitments. This early partnership with IFES highlights the importance of early collaboration and the flexibility it brings into the evolution of electoral systems. The CEC’s resetting of its participatory role and the IFES’s reinvigorated standing have seen the relationship evolve into a more open one, with Abe joining the dynamics to leverage his broader vision for the development of India’s electoral system.
