Pitfalls of referendum

THE plot thickens. What the ubiquitous interior minister said makes at least one thing clear: restructuring the existing administrative framework is inevitable. It was apparent that he was not voicing the view of the civilian dispensation but that of the powers that be. “New administrative units will have to be created. No one can stop it,” he declared. There was also a clear hint that a referendum might be held to determine the “will of the people” on the issue.

Mohsin Naqvi, a man of all seasons, appears to have been handed yet another political project — added to a portfolio that already ranges from overseeing internal security to running cricket affairs and occasional diplomatic troubleshooting. What makes him so powerful is that he answers to neither the prime minister nor parliament. His new assignment, however, looks exceptionally challenging. The proposed ‘administrative restructuring’ plan — its contours still unclear — has generated a political maelstrom that threatens the existing political order.

It has not only divided the federal cabinet but also ruptured the ruling alliance. The PPP has already launched a campaign against any attempt to divide Sindh under the pretext of administrative restructuring. A strongly worded resolution against the plan, passed by the Sindh Assembly last week, offers some insight into the volatility of the situation in the country’s second-largest province. The brewing conflict between the province and the federal government has now exploded, threatening to bring down the present political set-up. The rupture is hard to mend.

More intriguing, however, is the response of the prime minister and the ruling PML-N on the proposed administrative restructuring — said to be floated by the establishment. While there is no word from the PM, the differing voices from the PML-N and other cabinet ministers on the proposed plan presented by the interior minister make the entire issue extremely complicated. It is a house divided on a proposed plan whose framework remains obscure.

No move to restructure governance should be separated from the democratic process.

There seems to be complete confusion in the ranks of the ruling party. While some PML-N cabinet members and party officials appear supportive of the administrative restructuring, the party’s top leadership has maintained a conspicuous silence over the proposed plan. A big question also hangs over whether the PML-N leadership is prepared to support a plan to divide Punjab — its main power base.

Matters are getting murkier, with the establishment appearing adamant to go ahead with its plan with or without political support, as Naqvi has warned. With its governments in Islamabad and Lahore fully dependent on the establishment’s support for survival, the PML-N has no choice but to toe the line.

As for the PTI — the main opposition party, arguably the most popular in the country, which also governs the troubled province of KP — it may not oppose administrative restructuring on principle, but it will not support any imposed plan. With its mandate stolen and its leaders imprisoned, one cannot expect the party to accept any proposal that would strengthen the establishment’s control.

In this scenario, it will be extremely hard for the establishment to push through a plan requiring a two-thirds majority in both parliament and the provincial assemblies, as the Constitution demands. Even a constitutional amendment would need a two-thirds majority in both Houses, and with the PPP refusing to come on board, things could get messier.

Yet it seems the powers that be are not willing to back down. Their only choice, then, would be to go for a referendum, as Naqvi has hinted. With the PML-N and other coalition partners on board, it may not be difficult to get a referendum resolution passed by parliament with a simple majority.

Pakistan has a history of referendums being used by military dictators in an attempt to legitimise their unconstitutional rule. Who can forget the infamous referendum held by Gen Ziaul Haq to perpetuate his illegitimate government? Interestingly, the question was not whether Zia should stay as president, but whether voters would like an Islamic system to be established — a ‘yes’ vote was to count as validation of Ziaul Haq as president. Ballot boxes were stuffed to cover up the thin turnout, and the mockery further exposed the illegitimacy of military rule.

Gen Pervez Musharraf held a similar referendum to legitimise his rule, though there it directly asked voters to approve his presidency. While turnout remained low, the official statement declared massive support for the military ruler. Will the present dispensation resort to the same kind of fraudulent exercise to carry out its so-called restructuring plan? There is also a strong apprehension that a referendum could be used to enshrine a constitutional role for the security establishment in the power structure — a recent bill passed by parliament has only reinforced that speculation.

There are no two views that the country needs major restructuring to improve governance, but it cannot be separated from the democratic process. In a situation where the legitimacy of the entire system is questionable, no measure, however feasible it may sound, can be acceptable. Indeed, devolution to the lower tier of local government is essential if the system is to deliver, but in the absence of democracy, any administrative restructuring would likely strengthen authoritarian rule. No referendum can confer legitimacy on an imposed administrative structure. The proposal, though still unclear, has already polarised the country, and any referendum will only intensify chaos and instability.

The best thing for the country is to hold free and fair elections and let an elected parliament decide on the critical issues of administrative restructuring and devolution of power to local governments. The present establishment-backed rule, with its questionable mandate, cannot be expected to bring democracy to the grassroots. The lessons of the past must not be forgotten — of authoritarian regimes that tried to strengthen their control in the name of reform. A reminder to the interior minister who referred to Zohran Mamdani and Sadiq Khan: the two mayors are the products of democracy, and no leader like them can emerge under semi-authoritarian rule.

The writer is an author and journalist.

[email protected]

X:@hidhussain

Published in Dawn, September 9th, 2026