By Shamsul Haq
Federal Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi’s recent call for a national debate on the creation of new provinces has once again brought one of Pakistan’s oldest constitutional and political questions to the forefront. His argument is that the country’s current administrative structure is no longer capable of effectively serving a population of over 250 million, and that political parties should develop a consensus on administrative reforms.
While the proposal has generated considerable political interest, it also raises a more fundamental question: Is Pakistan’s governance crisis rooted in the number of provinces, or in the failure to devolve power to the people?
Provinces Existed Before Pakistan
The debate over new provinces often overlooks an important historical reality: Pakistan’s provinces predate the creation of the country itself.
Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan and the then North-West Frontier Province (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) were established administrative units before 1947. Alongside them existed several princely states, including Swat, Dir, Chitral, Bahawalpur, Kalat and Khairpur, each enjoying varying degrees of autonomy before acceding to Pakistan after independence.
The process of joining Pakistan also differed from region to region. Sindh became the first province whose legislative assembly voted in favour of joining Pakistan, while the people of the then NWFP expressed their will through a referendum. These historical precedents demonstrate that Pakistan’s federal structure evolved through constitutional and political processes rather than arbitrary administrative decisions.
Does Population Justify More Provinces?
Supporters of new provinces argue that Pakistan had only a few tens of millions of people at independence but now has a population exceeding 250 million. They contend that a country of such size cannot be administered efficiently through only four provinces.
Population growth is certainly an important consideration, but international experience suggests that neither population nor land area alone determines the number of federating units.
India, with a population exceeding 1.4 billion, consists of 28 states and several union territories. The United States has 50 states for a population of about 340 million. Germany operates with 16 federal states (Länder), Nigeria has 36 states, Brazil has 26 states and one federal district, while Australia functions effectively with six states and two major territories despite its vast geographical area. China follows yet another model, combining provinces, autonomous regions and centrally administered municipalities.
These examples underline an important lesson: successful governance depends less on the number of administrative units than on how effectively powers and resources are distributed.
The Real Governance Challenge
Pakistan’s principal governance challenge may not be the number of provinces but the concentration of authority within provincial capitals.
The 18th Constitutional Amendment, passed in 2010, fundamentally transformed Pakistan’s federal system by transferring numerous legislative, administrative and financial powers from the federation to the provinces. It sought to strengthen provincial autonomy and allow decisions to be taken closer to the people.
Financial decentralisation was reinforced through the Seventh National Finance Commission (NFC) Award, which substantially increased the provincial share in the divisible pool of federal taxes. The NFC Award also introduced multiple criteria—including population, poverty, revenue generation and inverse population density—for resource distribution, replacing the earlier population-only formula.
These landmark reforms significantly empowered the provinces. However, the next constitutional step—transferring powers from provinces to elected local governments—has remained largely incomplete.
Article 140-A: The Missing Link
The Constitution itself provides the roadmap.
Article 140-A obliges every province to establish a local government system and devolve political, administrative and financial responsibility and authority to elected local representatives.
In practice, however, successive provincial governments have been reluctant to implement the spirit of Article 140-A. Chief ministers and provincial legislators across political parties have often preferred to retain control over development funds, public services and administrative authority instead of empowering local governments.
As a result, powers that were transferred from Islamabad to provincial capitals have, in many cases, stopped there instead of reaching district, tehsil and village administrations.
Lessons from Local Government
Pakistan’s experience suggests that effective governance is closely linked with empowered local institutions.
During General Pervez Musharraf’s era, extensive administrative and financial powers were devolved to district governments. Although the system remained politically controversial, many observers credit it with improving service delivery and administrative responsiveness.
Similarly, the first Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa introduced a comparatively empowered local government framework. While not without shortcomings, it demonstrated that local representatives could play a meaningful role in addressing community issues. Subsequent amendments, however, reduced financial autonomy, expanded bureaucratic control and weakened elected local institutions, leaving many councils largely ineffective.
Punjab and Islamabad have repeatedly witnessed delays in local government elections, while Sindh continues to operate a limited local government system with constrained authority. Balochistan faces additional challenges arising from its unique geography, sparse population and security environment.
Should Pakistan Create More Provinces?
The creation of new provinces should not be viewed as a political slogan but as an administrative reform.
If new provinces are established, they should be based on governance needs, administrative efficiency, equitable development and improved public service delivery rather than ethnic or partisan considerations.
Proposals such as South Punjab, Hazara or the restoration of Bahawalpur have surfaced repeatedly over the decades. Each deserves constitutional debate based on objective administrative criteria rather than political expediency.
Governance Before Geography
The debate on new provinces is both legitimate and timely. Every federation periodically reassesses its administrative structure to accommodate demographic, economic and political changes.
However, Pakistan’s own constitutional evolution suggests that the country’s greatest governance challenge is not merely the number of provinces. The 18th Amendment strengthened provincial autonomy, the NFC Award substantially increased provincial financial resources, and Article 140-A requires provinces to devolve authority to elected local governments.
The missing link is implementation.
Unless provinces genuinely transfer powers, finances and administrative authority to local governments, simply increasing the number of provinces may not produce better governance. New provincial boundaries alone cannot guarantee improved public services, transparency or accountability.
Ultimately, effective governance is achieved not by drawing more lines on the map but by ensuring that power reaches the people. Pakistan’s constitutional framework already provides the necessary tools; what remains is the political will to implement them.
The writer is senior journalist and former director Information Department Khybar Pakhtunkhwa
