The exclusionary dynamics of the Quota System in Bangladesh: a Foucauldian analysis

The affirmative action of ‘quota policy’ has been adopted in Bangladesh, following the ‘distributive’ and ‘compensatory’ justice, to ensure ‘equal distribution’ and ‘representation’ in the public services, preventing prevailing discrimination and correcting past injustice to any ‘disadvantaged’ section. However, the historical evolution and practical application of the ‘quota system’ portray it to promote further discrimination and ‘exclusion’ within the underprivileged groups, thus to broaden the gap in the social block of the country as well as crafting cleft in the national aspirations of ‘participatory governance’. The present study therefore questions and accordingly examines this anomaly within the quota system in Bangladesh, considering this issue of ‘power’ influenced ‘exclusionary dynamics’ of the very system as the central research question. Hence, to substantiate the arguments and extract the ‘power’ dynamics from the findings, this paper applies the Foucauldian lenses of ‘power/knowledge’ and ‘genealogical’ study along with a specific discourse analysis method. With the conceptual framework and methodological strategies, the paper divulges the ‘power’ based ‘selective’ approach of the quota system in the application of different categories of quotas claiming that, this has been aiding more the national disintegration than reinforcing the ‘bond’- enormously needed for the ‘development’ of the country. Acknowledging and examining the existence and extent of ‘exclusionary dynamics’ within the quota system, the study nevertheless tries to propose several resolutions to reform the system. For instance, rectifying the selection criteria, taking additional affirmative actions to lessen the gap between different beneficiaries that has been increased by this system, introducing a new ‘class’ based preference system etc., believing that these can help to make the public service more ‘equitable’, ‘representative’ and ‘participative’ ensuing all the hallmarks of ‘democratic’ governance.