By: Dr. Shahid Hussain Kamboyo
Whenever the creation of new provinces is discussed in Pakistan, the debate quickly turns into a contest over ethnicity, language and politics. Supporters are accused of promoting division, while opponents insist that the existing provincial structure is essential for national unity. Lost in this political contest is a more fundamental question: can administrative arrangements designed for a country of about 65 million people continue to govern a nation of over 241 million effectively?
Pakistan has changed dramatically over the past five decades. Its population has nearly quadrupled, cities have expanded, public expectations have risen and, after the Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment, provincial governments have assumed far greater legislative and administrative responsibilities. Yet the country’s provincial map has remained largely unchanged. The issue, therefore, is not simply whether more provinces are politically desirable. It is whether Pakistan’s administrative structure remains capable of delivering efficient governance, quality public services and sustainable development.
Many of Pakistan’s governance problems are blamed on politics, weak leadership or bureaucratic inefficiency. These are undoubtedly important factors. However, governance also depends on institutional design. Public administration scholar Dennis Rondinelli observed that excessive centralisation weakens responsiveness, complicates coordination and reduces administrative effectiveness. As societies grow and governance becomes more complex, administrative structures must evolve to keep pace with changing realities.
Pakistan’s own experience reflects this challenge. Punjab today administers nearly 128 million people, making it larger than almost every sovereign country in the world. Balochistan covers about 44 percent of Pakistan’s land area, making the delivery of justice and public services across vast and sparsely populated regions a constant challenge. Sindh presents another dimension, where concerns over regional disparities and the concentration of administrative authority have fuelled recurring demands for more accessible governance. Similarly, voices from South Punjab and Hazara have repeatedly called for administrative reforms to improve service delivery and accelerate development. Whether these concerns ultimately require new provinces or stronger regional institutions is a matter for constitutional debate, but they clearly point to one reality: administrative accessibility has become an important governance issue.
The Constitution itself recognises this principle. Article 37(d) directs the State to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice, while Article 140A requires elected local governments with political, administrative and financial responsibility. Together, these provisions acknowledge that government becomes more responsive when authority and services move closer to the people. New provinces cannot replace effective local governments, nor can local governments alone address every administrative challenge. Both should be viewed as complementary instruments for improving governance.
The same philosophy is reflected in the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Former United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki moon rightly observed that while global agreements provide direction, “local environments are central to success.” The Sustainable Development Goals are guided by three simple principles: universality, integration and leaving no one behind. In practice, these principles require governments to ensure that justice, healthcare, education, infrastructure and economic opportunities reach every citizen, regardless of where they live. Sustainable development cannot be achieved through national policies alone. It depends upon effective institutions at the provincial, regional and local levels that are capable of delivering integrated and citizen centred public services.
International experience offers useful lessons. India created Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand to improve administration and address regional imbalances. Their performance has varied, showing that smaller provinces do not automatically produce better governance. Nigeria’s gradual expansion from a few large regions to thirty six states similarly improved administrative access in many areas while also creating fiscal pressures. The lesson is not that new provinces are always the answer, but that administrative restructuring succeeds only when it is supported by capable institutions, sound planning and effective accountability.
Fiscal concerns also deserve serious consideration. Establishing new provincial capitals, assemblies, courts and departments would require substantial resources. However, maintaining overstretched administrative structures also carries significant costs through delayed services, weak oversight, uneven development and slow decision making. The real question is not whether reform is expensive, but whether the long term benefits of better governance outweigh the cost of preserving arrangements that may no longer meet the country’s needs.
This is why decentralisation should be understood as a governance reform rather than merely a political demand. Public finance expert Anwar Shah has argued that decentralisation succeeds only when responsibilities, financial resources and accountability move together. Likewise, the United Nations has recognised that effective governance at the local, subnational and national levels is essential for achieving sustainable development. Administrative restructuring without institutional reform will achieve little. The objective is not to create more provinces for their own sake, but to build institutions capable of serving people more effectively.
The Constitution also provides adequate safeguards against arbitrary restructuring. Under Article 239(4), any proposal to alter provincial boundaries requires the approval of at least two thirds of the concerned Provincial Assembly before Parliament can proceed. This ensures that any future reorganisation must emerge through constitutional consensus rather than political expediency.
The debate, therefore, is not about dividing Pakistan. It is about governing Pakistan better. The Constitution provides a democratic framework for any future restructuring, ensuring that such decisions are made through broad political consensus rather than political expediency. The real question is whether Pakistan’s administrative structure remains capable of delivering justice, quality public services and sustainable development to every citizen in an increasingly complex society.
Pakistan’s future will not be determined by the number of its provinces, but by the ability of its institutions to deliver justice, opportunity and development fairly to every citizen. Administrative boundaries should therefore be judged not by history or politics, but by how effectively they serve the people.
The writer holds a Ph.D. in Public Administration and an LLM from Singapore Management University.
He is the author of the book “Basics of Governance and Public Policy.”
He can be reached at drshahidhussainkamboyo@gmail.com
