The student-led quota movement emerged as a response to the government's policy regarding quotas in public sector employment. Although the well-intended quota system was originally implemented to ensure diversity geographically, as well as social-economically, the fast-paced changes have led to criticisms regarding its effectiveness and fairness.
In 2018, following widespread protests against the quota system, a government directive abolished quotas for first and second-class jobs. However, on June 5, 2024, the High Court, in response to a writ petition filed by the descendant of a freedom fighter and six others, declared the 2018 directive illegal, leading to the reinstatement of quotas in government recruitment.
One of the central issues raised by the protesters is the allocation of government jobs (approximately 56%). These include 30% for freedom fighters; district- based 10%, women 10%, 5% for indigenous communities and 1% for persons with disabilities. This left 44% of public jobs to be reserved for those qualifying on merit. Critics argue that these quotas have led to inefficiencies, nepotism, and a lack of meritocracy in public sector recruitment.
As the debate continues, the outcome of the quota movement will likely shape future policies and discussions regarding employment practices and social justice in Bangladesh. Here is where I would like to weigh in my two cents on each category:
- 30% quota introduced back in 1972 made perfect sense at the time as it was catering to the families of our beloved freedom fighters. However, 52 years post-independence, very few descendants of freedom fighters remain, and even fewer who desire a government position. For the handful of those (families of freedom fighters) who do seek government position, a special allowance or reference system can be used without a having a large percentage quota exclusively dedicated to them.
- A certain percentage of quotas for district representatives, I believe, is still crucial. Now the arguments against this category have been that, a high scorer from a district with large number of applications can miss out on a position to a low scorer from a district with lower number of applications. These circumstances are undoubtedly unfair -- if you look at the issue in a one-dimensional angle. Required qualities such as knowledge, decision making, critical thinking etc among candidates go far beyond memorization and regurgitation. Institutions can benefit from the addition of individuals who offer diverse viewpoints, knowledge and experience of problems unique to a specific region. Some individuals may possess the qualities of top students, but academic scores or performance in PSC exams alone does not determine their potential. In fact, students who have encountered setbacks or spent time working/volunteering may bring valuable perspectives and insights to the table.
- Now the 10% female quota may seem unnecessary, considering the recent literacy rate of males and females are similar, according to the Labour Force Survey-2022 by Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS). A higher number of female students have received higher scores in SSC and HSC exams compared to their male counterparts. Thus, based on these numbers, women should be able to ace the PSC exams and run head-to-head for a desk at a government office, right? Wrong! The female progression towards both higher education and involvement in the job sector reduces significantly due to many external factors. This can range anywhere from early marriage, children, dependents/familial responsibilities or lack of ability/interest from parents to invest in their daughter’s education. Furthermore, many female students pursuing higher education, or starting a job often struggle with new and unfamiliar with daily commute, aspects of living independently or environmental factors relating to safety.
Fundamentally female representatives, even those less qualified than their male counterparts, in sectors like civil forces, medical, educational and social/family welfare institutions are necessary even if it is to deal with the growing number of female citizens seeking assistance/service from public institutions.
Firstly, diverse representation leads to better decision-making outcomes. Research by the World Economic Forum has shown that gender-diverse teams tend to make more informed decisions and achieve better results compared to homogeneous teams (WEF, 2021).
Moreover, research has highlighted the positive impacts of female representation on organizational culture and employee satisfaction. Organizations with gender-balanced leadership are more likely to foster inclusive environments where all employees feel valued and empowered (Catalyst, 2019). This, in turn, contributes to higher morale, productivity, and retention rates among staff members.
Promoting geographical, gender and social diversity in government jobs is not just a matter of inclusion; it is essential for achieving better governance, advancing social equity, innovation and decreasing bias and discrimination. Bangladesh’s literacy rate is 73%, but the top scoring candidates in SSC and HSC or even higher studies are only around 5-10%.
Worldwide, the top scoring university student usually ranges from 10-20%. Although not abolishing a quota system may be labelled as biased and undemocratic, at the end of the day, it will be the top 10% who get to make decisions for a wider population. So, the question is, do we prefer a system that is based on a horse race or a puzzle where every piece has a place?
Anika Ahmed is a former content writer for a political research institute.
This opinion piece was first published in the print edition of Dhaka Tribune on July 22, 2024.
