The debate about creating new provinces has returned to Pakistan’s political discussion. Supporters say the present provinces are too large to be governed effectively. They believe smaller provinces would bring government closer to citizens, reduce regional inequalities and improve public services. These concerns deserve attention. However, we should not assume that drawing new boundaries will automatically produce better governance.
Pakistan’s Constitution provides a democratic route for changing provincial boundaries. Under Article 239, a constitutional amendment must be approved by at least two-thirds of the total membership of both the National Assembly and the Senate. When the limits of an existing province are changed, the assembly of that province must also approve the amendment by a two-thirds majority. A new province, therefore, cannot be created through an executive order or political announcement.
This protection is necessary because a province is not simply an administrative office. It has an elected assembly, a cabinet, a bureaucracy, a share in national resources and representation in federal institutions. Changing provincial boundaries can affect political power, development funds, public employment, water, natural resources and community identities. Such a decision should be based on evidence and public consultation.
There is certainly a case for discussing new provinces. Pakistan has about 255 million people and an area of around 796,000 square kilometers, yet it has only four constitutional provinces. Punjab alone has a population greater than that of many countries. Balochistan covers a vast territory, and people from distant districts often find it difficult to reach provincial institutions. Southern Punjab, Hazara and other regions have also raised concerns about representation and development.
A new province could give a neglected region its own assembly, secretariat, budget and political leadership. It may improve representation and encourage attention to local needs. But these benefits depend on the institutions created. A new capital can become as distant and centralized as the old one when authority remains in the hands of a small political and bureaucratic elite.
The experience of South Asian countries offers an important lesson. India has about 1.46 billion people, covers 3.29 million square kilometers, and has 28 states and eight union territories. Its states have been reorganized at different times for linguistic, cultural, and administrative reasons. Some new states have improved regional representation. Yet governance still differs greatly from one Indian state to another. Some perform better in education, health, investment and public services, while others continue to struggle. The number or size of states alone does not explain these differences.
Afghanistan has about 44 million people, an area of nearly 653,000 square kilometers, and 34 provinces. Despite having many smaller administrative units, it has faced conflict, weak institutions, poverty and limited public services. Sri Lanka has about 23 million people and nine provinces, but this structure did not prevent serious political and economic crises. Nepal has around 30 million people and seven provinces, yet it still faces difficulties involving capacity, coordination and financial responsibility.
Bangladesh has about 176 million people within only 148,000 square kilometers. It is a unitary state organized into eight divisions, 64 districts, and lower levels of administration, rather than federal provinces. Bhutan has fewer than one million people and 20 districts, while the Maldives has about half a million people spread across islands and administrative atolls. These systems reflect different histories and geography, and cannot simply be copied by Pakistan.
The regional comparison offers a useful insight: smaller provinces are neither a guarantee of good governance nor a substitute for it. The World Bank describes government effectiveness through the quality of public services, the civil service, policymaking, implementation, and the credibility of government decisions. Provincial size may affect access, but governance mainly depends on competent institutions, clear authority, financial resources, accountability and political commitment.
For most citizens, government is experienced locally. People judge the state by streets, drinking water, sanitation, schools, clinics, public transport, land records, markets and waste collection. These services cannot be managed effectively from Islamabad or the provincial capitals alone. They require elected, capable and properly financed local governments.
Article 140A of the Constitution already requires every province to establish a local government system and transfer political, administrative and financial responsibility and authority to elected local representatives. Yet local governments in Pakistan have often remained temporary, weak and dependent on provincial departments. Elections are delayed, councils are dissolved, financial transfers are uncertain, and local representatives frequently have little control over staff or development planning.
This is the missing link in Pakistan’s system of devolution. The Eighteenth Amendment transferred important responsibilities from the federation to the provinces. However, provincial governments have generally been reluctant to transfer meaningful authority further down to districts, cities, tehsils and union councils. Power moved from Islamabad to provincial capitals, but often stopped there.
Provincial assemblies should make laws, approve budgets and oversee provincial governments. Provincial administrations should manage major infrastructure, regulation and coordination between districts. Local governments should handle municipal services, local roads, sanitation, water supply, building control, parks, markets and neighborhood development.
Real local government requires more than elections. Elected councils need protected terms, clearly defined responsibilities, reliable financial transfers, authority over relevant officials and the ability to raise reasonable local revenues. Their decisions, budgets and contracts must also be open to audit and public scrutiny. Without these powers, a mayor or district chairperson carries responsibility but lacks the authority to deliver.
Creating new provinces would also entail high costs and raise difficult questions. New assemblies, secretariats, departments and public service systems would have to be established. Assets, liabilities, employees, water shares and financial resources would need to be divided. The choice of a new capital could create disputes, while new provincial majorities could produce new minorities whose rights would need protection.
Pakistan should avoid two extreme positions. It should not reject every demand for a new province because some regions may have genuine claims based on distance, underrepresentation, identity and unequal development. At the same time, it should not present new provinces as a simple cure for poor governance.
A responsible approach would be to establish an independent national commission to examine proposals according to transparent criteria. These should include population, area, distance from the existing capital, economic viability, development gaps, public consent, administrative capacity, minority rights and the effect on national resource distribution. Its findings should be published before Parliament considers any constitutional amendment.
Pakistan may need new provinces in carefully selected cases, but it urgently needs strong local governments everywhere. A new boundary may bring a provincial capital closer, but only genuine devolution can bring government to the citizen’s doorstep. Without empowered districts and municipalities, additional provinces may simply create additional capitals, cabinets and bureaucracies. The real test is not how many provinces Pakistan has, but how effectively power, resources and accountability reach its people.
—–
Muhammad Anwar is the Founder and CEO of Freedom Gate Prosperity. He has more than three decades of experience in governance, democratic development, project management and civic education. He regularly writes and speaks on democracy, public policy, local government and social development.
