- By: Mohsin Yaseen Soomro
Every few years, Pakistan witnesses a renewed debate over the creation of new provinces and administrative units. Yet, despite repeated political discussions, the debate rarely reaches a meaningful conclusion. Instead, it becomes entangled in political interests, regional sensitivities, and institutional development. Consequently, the complex governance system, struggling to achieve sustained growth and overcome socio-economic challenges, further diminishes the desire of political stakeholders. Before reaching the question of an administrative reset, Pakistanis first must ask a fundamental question: Is this current setup capable enough to provide basic service delivery or meet the threshold of solving citizens’ concerns?
Pakistan’s constraints regarding administrative problems are specifically shadowed and ambiguous in nature. The answer may not necessarily lie in creating new provinces; it may instead require a broader administrative reset focused on decentralization, institutional capacity, accountability, and effective service delivery. Pakistan is a federal state, units make the federating state strong by mutual responsibilities and defined obligations enshrined in the constitution. Legally, the aspiration for the creation of new provinces is detailed in provisions. Constitutional statutes are clear and provide room for territorial restructuring. However, doing so requires political consensus. Article 239 of the Constitution states that, “a bill to amend the Constitution which would have the effect of altering the limits of a Province shall not be presented to the President for assent unless it has been passed by the Provincial Assembly of that province by the votes of not less than two-thirds of its total membership.”
Supporters in favor of the creation of new provinces argue that small administrative units make governance easier and more approachable. Institutional availability across health, education, sanitation, transportation, and basic amenities- essential to grassroots democracy-can materialize into a functional state. More importantly, proponents articulate the idea that this shift will bring about drastic structural improvements in Pakistan’s growth model.
On the other hand, political, provincial, and nationalistic backlash are among the most concerning impediments to territorial restructuring. Opponents feel that behind this movement lie elite interests that threaten identity, culture and history of respective provinces. They argue that provinces made Pakistan, not that Pakistan made the provinces. Prior to the independence of Pakistan, these units were independent states; they had their own assemblies, laws, bureaucratic systems, institutional machinery, and, more essentially, had different identities. Similarly, nationalist groups warn the federal government against new experiments in dividing provinces. Severe backlash is being witnessed particularly in Sindh. They eloquently speak against the government’s rhetoric of good governance by presenting the question: How would smaller units solve fundamental questions of the people? They argue that many nations in the world have small states, including the states of Southern African regions, where plague and hunger still limit their potential to enhance indigenous lives and solve day-to-day difficulties.
Furthermore, reorganization of units in Pakistan’s federal framework cannot remain merely a well- intentioned desire. However, understanding the smaller units in full context is necessary. What does an administrative reset in Pakistan actually mean? Does it mean to change the boundaries of provinces? Or, by changing them, resolving the issues that ordinary people face in their usual lives?
This alone is not an established principle that smaller units will perform well, will function better, and will make the provinces prosperous. However, this will only mean a change in the physical shape of province instead of making it more democratic, more people-centric, and more of a human rights provider. The objectives of restructuring units are not visible, and serious political discussion over them is still nebulous. In such an environment how can public view this is a serious discourse? Pakistan already has a devolution model incorporated in the supreme law through the 18th Constitutional Amendment. This course of transferring power to provinces from the federal government is still controversial, where provinces frequently allege the federal government engages in an unfair distribution of power and resources, making it difficult for provincial governments to function. On the other hand, concurrently, the provincial administrative setups face controversy regarding local governance. While Article 140-A of the Constitution guarantees strong grassroots governance rights, provincial governments remain reluctant to devolve financial resources, authority and decision-making power.
Additionally, Pakistan’s governance issues do not lie in another experiment of division or simply in changing the structure of provincial boundaries. Instead, the central challenge is one of good governance and an efficient democratic framework. Pakistan has witnessed recurring shifts in its political architecture, none of which have offered sustainable stability or demonstrated the potential to pull the country out of its institutional morass. Furthermore, creating new provinces means new assemblies, chief ministers, secretariat buildings, high courts, Chief Justices, judges, a bureaucratic framework, and moreover, a bulk of resources and finance. By creating them, the government has to adopt a new National Finance Commission (NFC) model and has to render economic resources to the provinces, which are still vulnerable to meeting the shares of the four provinces.
Numerous experts have discussed at length that Pakistan faces severe economic distress. Recent reports indicate that state debt has surged to 99.6 trillion rupees in total in FY2024-25, showing persistent fiscal pressure and debt-servicing liabilities. In that environment, renewing a debate for more financing couldn’t be in the best interest of Pakistan’s economic stability.
Governance issues are manifold, but providing a single solution to them does not end the debate. Rather, it opens more voices within the system. In order to make the problems more understood, the government must approach the subjects of the country. It must share a concise and comprehensive mechanism to address the issues. Firstly, in doing so, government has to communicate the plan directly. Opposition parties and dissenting voices must be listened to. Understanding the problem itself further paves the way for genuine solutions. Policy decisions should be grounded in political reconciliation and aimed at directly addressing public grievances.
Ultimately, if the government is serious about systemic reform, the way forward lies in broad consultation, meticulous planning, respect for opposing viewpoints, and public-centric policy design. Simply altering established provincial boundaries will not resolve governance challenges; it will merely serve elite interests.
- Mohsin Yaseen is an aspiring law student with a keen interest in constitutional and human rights law, geopolitical dynamics, national crises, and Pakistan’s political history. He is passionate about legal research, critical analysis, and understanding contemporary national and international affairs.