Dr. Md. Shairul Mashreque :
The Bangladesh Public Service Commission (PSC) has recently advocated simplification of quota system in recruitment process. For there are existing complexities in applying quota. “The application of the existing quota related rules is complicated and a matter of multidimesional restrictions. Sometimes it becomes impossible to select suitable candidates accurately by applying the quota system.” It does appear that this system is not working well for recruiting rights persons in the right position. Cadre service or even non-cadre services are important for policy implementation in a proper manner. If recruiting agencies are careless about proper recruitment as if it were like square peg in a round hole the whole thing become disastrous.
Under the circumstances PSC and the ministry of Public Administration will not be able to ensure entry of qualifies personnel in civil service Distressingly 55 percent posts in civil service are filled on the basis of quota system . Only 45 percent post belong to merit system. This is simply ridiculous. If posts are filled mostly from quotas and sub-quotas civil service will be occupied by the inefficient official. This is not ideal type of bureaucracy based absolutely on merit as Max Weber visualized. Under the circumstances the whole system of recruitment is bound to degenerate into spoil system.
Partisanization or politicization will find its way into the quota system by way of manipulation. There are various streams of quota and sub quotas. They are intended to safeguards the rights of the minority and weaker sections of the community. Nevertheless the system should be usd judiciously and rationally so that mediocrity overtakes excellence. We can set a reference from other countries so far as quotas are concerned:
One of the sticks used to beat gender quotas with is the argument of meritocracy. This is being repeated time and again; the use of gender quotas in Ireland and the appointment of a gender-balanced cabinet in Canada are two recent examples. The argument is underpinned by three fundamental assumptions. The first is that recruitment without gender quotas is meritocratic. The second is that there is a clear, objective definition of meritocracy in political recruitment. And the third is that gender is an inherently unmeritocratic criterion for political representation. I argue that none of these assumptions is true, and hence that the argument is fundamentally flawed.
Firstly, recruitment without gender quotas is not meritocratic. Rather, it is based on (male) gender, privilege, and an uneven playing field. It is rather insulting actually to suggest that the reason why elite, wealthy, middle-aged white men dominate politics and other echelons of power is because they deserve to – because of their greater merit. This suggests, by inference, that under-represented groups, including women, ethnic minorities and people from less privileged backgrounds, are relatively absent from politics because they don’t deserve to be there. If we are basing this assessment on inherent talent, then we are saying that rich white men are naturally superior to everybody else. That’s a pretty bold (sexist, racist) assertion. If we use a justification of qualification and experience, rather than inherent talent, then we must ask ourselves whether we are using good criteria, given that the criteria serve to exclude a large part of our talent pool. This leads to my second point.
The criteria that we use to determine merit are problematic. Firstly, we don’t really know what the criteria are. They vary depending on whom you ask. Secondly, they don’t necessarily reflect what it actually takes to do the job. If you ask political parties what they are looking for in a candidate, they want someone who is loyal, available, and capable of winning. Fair enough, you might say. Loyalty to the party is certainly useful in the sense that it allows voters to base their decisions on a national party manifesto rather than the idiosyncrasies of the local candidate. But at the same time, if you are just voting for a lackey who will toe the party line, what makes one candidate more “meritorious” than another? Wouldn’t any lackey do?
And what about availability? Is it reasonable to make politics the reserve of people with lots of spare time on their hands? This limits politics to certain groups: people with enough disposable income to forgo full-time employment, people beyond working age, people without any caring responsibilities. That is hardly a representative sample of society. And the adage goes, “if you want something done, ask a busy person”, precisely because people with multiple demands on their time are often the best equipped to multitask and get things done. We should not exclude candidates simply because they are busy. Women often have less free time than men because they shoulder a greater proportion of domestic burdens, but this makes them adept at juggling multiple commitments and delegating where necessary. These are skills that would serve them well when facing the many demands made of a politician. As for capable of winning, there is no evidence of voter bias against women candidates so a woman is less capable of winning only if a man places deliberate obstacles in her way
Thinking about quota system on perpetual basis is not based on sound rationale. This may spell disaster in terms of providing public services and decision making This is an apprehension that it will b be an irreversible burden to the administration. Civil service cannot be expected to ignore merit system. It should not compromise with quality. Only think to invite creams and real experts in public service. All modern computer technologies in the age of information and communication must be at their finger ends. Thing is political environment prevailing in our country cannot justify abundance of posts reserved by quota system. Public service will be brimful with ghost appointments through deceptive manipulation Thing will turn into a corrupt practice. Mind this is public service. We should opt for official contingent full of generalists based on meritocracy.
[Dr. Mashreque teaches public Administration in Ctg University. He Writes regularly for The New Nation]
