Rethinking governance in Pakistan

EVERY few years, Pakistan revisits the debate on creating new provinces. The interior minister’s recent proposal to establish smaller administrative units has again raised an important question. Yet the real issue is not how many provinces Pa­­kistan should have. It is whether government is close enough to serve its citizens effectively. Adm­inistrative boundaries matter only because they influence how quickly people receive education, healthcare, justice, infrastructure and disaster relief. If governance remains distant and unresponsive, merely redrawing maps won’t improve lives.

With over 240 million people spread across nearly 796,000 square kilometres, Pakistan is one of the world’s largest federations. Its administrative challenges vary enormously — from the mountains of Gilgit-Baltistan to the deserts of Thar and the vast expanse of Balochistan. A governance model suited to Lahore or Karachi cannot automatically meet the needs of Kech, Upper Kohistan or Astore. The real challenge is one of state capacity rather than geography alone.

Pakistan’s history reflects repeated efforts to balance national unity with effective administration. At independence in 1947, West Pakistan comprised Punjab, Sindh, the North-West Frontier Province, the Chief Commissioner’s Province of Balochistan, princely states — including Kalat, Bahawalpur and Swat — and the Tribal Areas. The 1955 One Unit scheme attempted to centralise administration; instead, it deepened regional grievances. Its abolition in 1970 and the federal framework established by the 1973 Constitution reaffirmed the importance of provincial autonomy. More recently, the merger of Fata into KP demonstrated that Pakistan’s administrative structure can evolve when necessary. Yet demands for South Punjab, Hazara and Bahawalpur continue because many citizens still feel distant from provincial capitals.

The case for smaller administrative units is fundamentally administrative rather than political. Punjab’s population exceeds that of many countries, while Balochistan covers almost 44 per cent of Pakistan’s territory but contains only a small share of its population. Administering such contrasting regions through similar institutional arrangements limits efficiency.

Have power, resources and decision-making been devolved enough to serve citizens effectively?

Governments perform best when decision-makers are close to the communities they serve. Greater administrative proximity improves supervision of schools, hospitals, roads and development projects while strengthening transparency and public accountability. The devastating floods of 2022 illustrated the value of capable local institutions. Where local administrative capacity was stronger, relief reached affected communities more quickly.

At the same time, creating new provinces is neither simple nor inexpensive. Constitutional ame­n­­dments require broad political consensus, while new provinces need legislatures, secretariats, ju­­d­­icial institutions and sustainable financial res­o­u­­rces. Without careful planning, administrative re­­organisation risks creating additional bureaucracy without significantly improving governance.

International experience offers useful lessons. India has repeatedly created new states — including Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand and Telangana — to improve governance in historically neglected regions. Although disputes over assets and water accompanied these reforms, smaller states enabled governments to focus more closely on local priorities. Bangladesh adopted a different approach.

Rather than creating provinces, it strengthened districts, upazilas and union parishads. Improvements in rural healthcare, primary education and disaster management owe much to effective local administration. Indonesia embarked on one of the world’s largest decentralisation programmes after reforms in 1998, transferring substantial authority and financial resources to districts and municipalities. Nigeria, by contrast, demonstrates the risks of expanding administrative units without fiscal sustainability; while political representation improved, the country developed an expensive state structure heavily dependent on federal revenues. France provides yet another model, devolving significant powers to departments and municipalities without repeatedly altering regional boundaries.

Despite their different political systems, these countries illustrate one common principle: successful administrative reform depends less on the number of administrative units than on whether authority, financial resources and accountability actually reach local institutions.

Ironically, Pakistan already possesses the constitutional foundation for this approach. Article 140A requires provinces to establish elected local governments and devolve political, administrative and financial responsibility to them. Yet successive governments have implemented this provision unevenly. Pakistan’s own experience supports stronger LG. The 2001 Local Government Plan transferred significant responsibilities for education, healthcare and local development to elected district governments. Although politically controversial, it demonstrated the benefits of bringing decision-making closer to citizens. After the 18th Amendment, provinces gained substantial autonomy from Islamabad, but meaningful decentralisation often stopped at the provincial level. Many districts and municipalities remained dependent on provincial governments for authority and funding. Thus, the debate over new provinces and LG should be seen as complementary rather than competing.

Where there is broad public consensus, administrative necessity and economic viability, new provinces should remain a legitimate constitutional option. But such reforms must be guided by transparent criteria and accompanied by agreed arrangements for finance, water, civil services and transitional administration. At the same time, meaningful LG reform should begin immediately. Provinces should guarantee predictable financial transfers to elected LGs, devolve responsibility for primary education, basic healthcare, water supply, sanitation and local infrastructure, conduct regular local elections, and protect local institutions from arbitrary dissolution. Devolution without financial autonomy cannot succeed.

For nearly eight decades, Pakistan has alternated between centralisation and decentralisation, often expecting structural changes alone to resolve governance failures. Experience at home and abroad suggests otherwise. Institutions matter more than boundaries. The purpose of administrative reform is not to redraw maps but to improve lives. When a child in Rajanpur, Tharpar­kar, Upper Kohistan, Kech, Astore or Neelum Valley enjoys the same access to education and healthcare as one in Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar, Quetta or Islamabad; when a mother in Dera Bugti can obtain timely medical care; and when citizens across Punjab, Sindh, KP, Balochistan, GB and Azad Kashmir experience responsive public institutions, Pakistan will know that administrative reform has achieved its purpose.

A federation’s true strength is measured not by the number of provinces on its map, but by the confidence of its citizens that their government is never too distant to serve them.

The writer is a retired inspector general of police and former DG FIA.

Published in Dawn, August 5th, 2026