Bangladesh quota reform sees women lose out on government jobs

A government job quota reserves some positions for particular groups instead of filling every position solely by exam ranking. Governments use quotas to address unequal access, historical exclusion, or regional disadvantage. Bangladesh’s former system applied this approach to Class I, its highest civil service level.

Before 2018, 56% of Class I posts were reserved. Women received 10%, while descendants of people who fought for independence received 30%. Another 16% supported underprivileged regions and people with disabilities. The remaining jobs were filled through merit-based competition.

In 2018, student protests led Sheikh Hasina’s government to scrap the quotas. After further protests in 2024, the current system fills 93% of jobs on merit. About 7% remains for freedom-fighter relatives and smaller groups, but women now have no dedicated share. The change has coincided with a sharp fall in female recruitment.

The most visible change is in the share of women among newly recruited civil servants. Before quotas were scrapped in 2018, women made up as much as 35% of recruits. That figure included both women appointed through the quota and women who succeeded through open competition.

In the latest examination round, women accounted for only 19% of recruits. The article links this decline to the removal of the women’s quota, though recruitment also depends on exam performance and the pool of applicants. The Bangladesh Public Service Commission conducts the process but says its role is limited to holding the examination.

This shift leaves fewer women entering a service that already has limited female representation. One female bureaucrat warned that at least 21 women currently lead districts, but there may not be as many in ten years. The trend could affect leadership and public decision-making.

Quotas became politically explosive because they determined access to scarce, prestigious government jobs. Bangladesh’s Public Service Commission receives about 300,000 applicants each year for only 2,500 to 3,000 Class I positions. Any reserved share therefore affects thousands of hopeful candidates and their families.

Student protests in 2018 opposed the quota system, and Sheikh Hasina’s government responded by scrapping it. In 2024, a proposal to reinstate quotas sparked new student protests. The movement grew into a mass uprising, and Hasina was overthrown. The dispute was therefore not only about hiring rules. It became tied to fairness, opportunity, and opposition to the government.

Today, 93% of jobs are assigned through merit-based selection. Around 7% remains for freedom-fighter relatives and smaller groups, but women have no quota. The result has reopened arguments about whether equal exams produce genuinely equal opportunity.

When fewer women enter public institutions, services may lose staff who understand issues affecting women and children. The article says women’s concerns are reflected in policy when women participate in government. Their absence can therefore narrow the experiences considered in decisions, especially in conservative or underserved communities.

The police figures show the practical effect. Of 2,651 candidates who qualified as constables, only 267 were women. Just six of 184 successful sub-inspector candidates were women, and no women qualified as sergeants. Police stations have dedicated desks for women and children, so an officer said the system cannot continue without female staff. Bangladesh also ended a former 60% women’s quota in primary teaching.

The long-term concern is leadership. A bureaucrat warned that fewer women may lead districts in the future. Fewer female teachers, police officers, and administrators could reduce trust, access, and representation in public services and policymaking.

Bangladesh’s civil service examination is a gateway to a very small number of high-status public jobs. The Bangladesh Public Service Commission, or BPSC, organizes the recruitment examinations for Class I positions. These are the country’s top-ranking civil service and public sector posts.

Competition is intense. Around 300,000 applicants seek only 2,500 to 3,000 Class I jobs each year. Under the current arrangement, 93% of positions are filled through merit-based selection. About 7% is reserved for descendants of freedom fighters and other smaller groups. Previously, women and several other groups also had reserved shares, so exam results operated alongside category-based allocation.

The BPSC says it finds the fall in female recruitment uncomfortable, but its duty is limited to conducting examinations. This separates testing from broader policy choices. The government decides the rules, while the commission administers the competition. Those rules strongly influence who ultimately enters public service.

Support outside the quota system could improve women’s chances in open competition. Better schools, affordable coaching, safe transport, study materials, and guidance can help candidates prepare for difficult civil service exams. These measures target barriers before the exam rather than reserving positions after it.

The article gives one direct example. Former bureaucrat AKM Abdul Awal Majumdar supports merit-based recruitment but advocates coaching to help women compete. He praised his female colleagues as “unparalleled.” Such programs could be especially important for rural women, who may have fewer educational resources and less family or financial support. The article does not provide evidence that coaching alone would restore female recruitment to former levels.

Under the current system, women’s share has fallen from up to 35% to 19%. Targeted support could narrow that gap, but results would need monitoring. Governments could track applications, exam performance, and hiring by gender and location, then adjust programs if equal competition still produces unequal outcomes.

Governments use affirmative action because identical rules can produce unequal results. Candidates may face different access to schools, coaching, transport, income, safety, or family support before taking the same exam. A merit-only process measures performance at one moment, but it may also reflect those unequal starting conditions.

Bangladesh’s former quota system illustrates this reasoning. It reserved 10% of Class I posts for women and additional shares for freedom-fighter descendants, disadvantaged regions, and people with disabilities. The article quotes Tothapi Azad saying that a job can be a survival shield for rural women facing domestic violence. That shows why access may matter beyond career advancement.

Affirmative action can increase representation and bring overlooked experiences into government. Bangladesh’s current merit-based system has coincided with female recruitment falling from up to 35% to 19%. Quotas are not the only solution. Better education and coaching may help, but governments must examine outcomes to see whether formal equality is producing real opportunity.