Quotas in govt jobs should not be treated as a binary problem

Once again, university campuses are protesting the recent quota reinstatement decision. The feeling of pessimism is palpable among young job seekers, who had been hopeful as their chances increased without quota. It seems like the result of the 2018 Quota Reform Movement has been lost. 

In 2018, amidst a defiant student movement, the Ministry of Public Administration issued a gazette abolishing quotas for first and second class government jobs. For several years, recruitment has been carried out accordingly, without quotas.

Recently, in response to a writ petition, the High Court declared the circular abolishing quotas as illegal and ordered the reinstatement of quotas. In response, the protesters issued an ultimatum seeking a proper settlement by 30 June.

Meanwhile, the government has appealed against the High Court's decision and the court has scheduled a hearing for 4 July, keeping the reinstatement of quotas in effect until then.

The Attorney General argued that abolishing the quota system was a government's policy matter, so the High Court should not interfere with it.

Historically, Bangladesh implemented a quota system to ensure representation of marginalised groups in public service, including a 30% quota for the children and grandchildren of freedom fighters and additional quotas for women, ethnic minorities, and disabled people. Quota holders reserved a total of 56% of the vacancies before 2018.

The loopholes are here because the government hastily abolished the quota to pacify the students in 2018. Back then, the demand was quota reform, not abolishment. Such loopholes must not be repeated again.

So unsurprisingly, the dissatisfaction was rife among job seekers, and it culminated in nationwide protests in 2018, demanding a reformation of this system perceived as discriminatory and outdated.

In response, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina announced the abolition of all quota privileges in public service recruitment. This decision was seemingly a move to quell the protests swiftly and restore public order.

A gazette notification formalised this abolition in October 2018.

However, it is important to note that back then, not all protesters were asking for the full abolition of the quota system. They wanted the number of quotas in government services to be reduced.

Many experts at the time perceived the abolition as a blanket solution, disregarding the historical injustices and socio-economic disparities that the quotas aimed to mitigate.

These abolition left ethnic minorities, women, and the children of freedom fighters feeling marginalised and betrayed. This has resulted in the recent High Court decision.

In court, the dependents of the freedom fighters argued that the government abolished the freedom fighters' quota in violation of a High Court verdict that on 12 February 2012 directed the government to maintain a 30% quota for the offspring of the freedom fighters in every appointment, and the High Court verdict was later upheld by the Appellate Division.

What now?

The High Court's decision to reinstate the quota system sparked fresh protests among students and job seekers who had rallied against it in 2018.

Demonstrations erupted across Dhaka University and other educational institutions, with students demanding the cancellation of the reinstated quotas.

Rifat Rashid, an organiser of the recent student protest, said, "We are not demanding abolishment or reform of the quota system. We just want the 2018 gazette to be reinstated."

"Our point is, why would the court write off the 2018 gazette without talking to all stakeholders?" He added, "We, the people and the student community of Bangladesh, believe that the decision is anti-people."

He argued the same point as the Attorney General: "The government is in charge of all decision-making regarding the quota system, and so the High Court should not interfere with the decisions."

The renewed movement of 2024 may very well be a consequence of the government's failure to engage in comprehensive policy analysis and stakeholder consultation before abolishing the quota system in 2018. The decision aimed for immediate relief from protests, rather than long-term stability and justice.

Rifat Rashid said, "The loopholes are here because the government hastily abolished the quota to pacify the students in 2018. Back then, the demand was quota reform, not abolishment. Such loopholes must not be repeated again."

Barrister Shahdeen Malik, a prominent lawyer, eminent jurist, constitutional expert, and legal activist, said, "I think the government should not have abolished the quota system in a hurry back in 2018."

He added, "Quota reservations are needed for groups who have not gotten fair chances historically. A quota is needed to uplift marginalised groups. After considering all aspects, a quota system should be put in place. Which group would get what percentage of quota should be fixed after detailed, well-thought-out discussions."

Quotas for women, ethnic minority communities, and other backward communities are necessary to promote social equity and ensure representation in government jobs and education.

Quotas empower the disadvantaged groups, enabling them to contribute more effectively to society. Therefore, quotas are necessary for them, at least for the time being.

According to the protesters, the absence of a structured dialogue with all relevant stakeholders before making such a significant policy shift is what they are really aggrieved about.

The quota system affected various groups differently, and a balanced approach would have necessitated input from ethnic minorities, women's groups, freedom fighters' associations, legal experts, policy analysts etc.

Rifta said, "Form a board comprising representatives from all stakeholder groups. This body should be tasked with reviewing the quota system and proposing balanced reforms."

When asked about the inclusion of students' and job-seekers' representatives in the dialogue, Barrister Shahdeen Malik replied, "Every stakeholder must have a say in the decision making process. Whether the government will take their opinion into consideration is up to them."

However, Ali Imam Majumder, the former Cabinet Secretary of Bangladesh, disagreed with the argument that the quota abolition was done in haste.

"I do not think it was done in haste. The movement was going on for a while. They presented their demands in many places. The government formed a committee, the committee submitted their recommendations, then the Prime Minister said to abolish the quota system at the parliament. So, in my opinion, it was not a hasty decision."