Author: Nahid Bhuiyan
A public sector job is not a reward for political loyalty; it represents one of the state’s most critical mechanisms for selecting talent and human resources. Ensuring transparency, neutrality, and the highest standard of meritocracy at every stage of the recruitment process is a fundamental responsibility of the state. However, the recent decision to reduce the weightage of written examinations while increasing the marks allocated to oral interviews (viva voce) for Grade 11 to 20 government jobs has brought this core principle under intense scrutiny.
The fundamental question is straightforward: why is the significance of written examinations—where merit can be assessed relatively objectively—being diminished in favour of an evaluation format that inherently allows greater scope for subjective discretion?
A breakdown of the restructured framework reveals the extent of the shift:
Across all three tiers, the pattern remains identical: the emphasis on written examinations is systematically reduced, reliance on oral interviews is expanded, and the qualifying criteria for written tests are significantly lowered.
This shift creates a major area of concern.
Written examinations allow thousands of candidates to be evaluated against a uniform benchmark using identical question sets. The grading process operates under established guidelines, standard structures, and provisions for re-examination. In contrast, viva voce performance—assessing a candidate’s subject knowledge, personality, presence of mind, and communication skills—depends heavily on the subjective judgment of the interviewers. Consequently, the risks of arbitrariness, institutional bias, and personal favouritism cannot be disregarded.
Strikingly, if policy makers themselves acknowledge that oral interviews present greater vulnerabilities to manipulation and selective candidate preference, expanding their weightage appears counter-intuitive. Widening a recruitment channel notoriously susceptible to irregularities naturally validates the growing anxieties among job seekers.
Concerns surrounding political interference in Bangladesh’s public recruitment system are not unprecedented. During the 2001–2006 tenure of the BNP-Jamaat coalition government, allegations of question leaks, administrative irregularities, and political nepotism in public service recruitment were widely documented. The 24th Bangladesh Civil Service (BCS) question leak triggered nationwide controversy, whilst the 27th BCS viva voce results were eventually cancelled by the subsequent caretaker government due to procedural irregularities, prompting a fresh evaluation process. Allegations concerning the wholesale recruitment of Bangladesh Jatiyatabadi Chhatra Dal activists from Bogura’s Azizul Haq College into the police cadre, alongside appointments influenced through Hawa Bhaban, formed a significant part of the political recruitment debates of that era.
If past controversies serve as a lesson for governance, the administration ought to strengthen transparency through objective, examination-led recruitment rather than expanding reliance on viva boards. Public trust in political governments hinges on the expectation that state institutions will uphold meritocracy above all else.
When young candidates dedicate years to academic preparation, their primary assurance rests on a fair, competitive system where performance dictates the outcome. Diluting written exam weightage while inflating viva marks undermines this foundation, raising legitimate questions about the extent of discretionary power concentrated at the final stage. These concerns are further amplified by ongoing debates regarding the appointment of politically affiliated individuals to key positions across various state agencies, boards, corporations, and universities.
This structural shift coincides with broader economic challenges. Despite commitments to large-scale employment creation, recent months have seen factory closures, workforce retrenchment, and heightened industrial uncertainty. Gas shortages disrupting manufacturing output continue to restrict new job creation in the private sector. In this economic climate, where public sector vacancies represent a crucial career avenue for millions of young graduates, minor administrative alterations cease to be mere policy adjustments—they directly impact career prospects.
The primary question facing the government is clear: will it establish a recruitment system anchored strictly in merit, or one where final oral assessments determine entry into public service?
Political administrations alternate over time, but state institutions remain. The recruitment framework established today will shape the quality of public administration for years to come. Converting public employment into a currency for political loyalty poses serious risks not only to job seekers, but to the integrity of state institutions as a whole. Government service is a right belonging to qualified citizens, not a political concession. If that right becomes subservient to the subjective preferences of viva boards rather than demonstrated academic performance, debate surrounding ‘viva politics’ will inevitably persist.
