In 1973, Pakistani politicians agreed on a new social contract. The purpose of this contract, or constitution, was to ensure that the federal units remain united and that there was an increase in mutual agreement and unity among them. Unfortunately, neither the provinces managed to unite, nor was there any possible agreement and unity among the different regions within the provinces.
It is clear that the social contract under which Pakistan’s governance system runs has failed to foster love and unity. Federal units, which should be economic partners for each other, have become economic rivals.
Calls for the creation of new provinces emerge periodically, and there has been some progress in this direction. However, some people still have complaints about this proposed division. People refuse to accept it with slogans like “division of Sindh land.” Similarly, some people view Khyber Pakhtunkhwa as an indivisible entity, and the idea of its division offends their pride.
Global economic data reveals that large economies have numerous benefits. Except for oil-based economies, all billionaires live in large economies. Even a small business in a large economy, if successful, can change fortunes overnight. Therefore, from a purely economic perspective, a large economy is advantageous. However, the smaller units within the economy must also be economically strong; without this, the existence of the central government remains in jeopardy.
I believe there is another excellent solution to this issue: introducing a new social contract that establishes divisions, rather than provinces, as the basic federal units. Provinces should remain in their old positions, but the role of the Chief Minister should be transferred to the division level. Assemblies should be divisional instead of provincial, and financial powers should be assigned to 35 divisions rather than the four provinces. The local division’s right to natural resources should be recognized, and each division should be authorized to buy and sell its resources with any other division according to market mechanisms. If divisions are recognized as financial and political units, conflicts such as the Urdu-Sindhi dispute, Hindko-Pashto dispute, Pashto-Balochi dispute, and even the Multan-Bahawalpur issue can be resolved amicably.
Small political units are not a unique concept to the world; in fact, most developed countries prefer smaller political units. The United States, with a population of 330 million, has 52 autonomous states, while Pakistan, with a population of 240 million, has only four provinces. Germany, with a population of 80 million, has 16 provinces, while Japan, with a population of 110 million, has 47 provinces. In our neighboring Afghanistan, with a population of 40 million, there are 34 provinces, while Iran, with a population of 90 million, has 31 provinces.
Each division should have a separate assembly, Chief Minister, and cabinet. The four governors, according to the existing provinces, should act as representatives of the federal government, overseeing the governance system with the assistance of deputy governors. There should be a deputy governor appointed by the federal government in each division.
The federal government should completely cease its interference in resource distribution. Whatever resources a division has. should be recognized as belonging to that division, and each division should allocate a portion of its income to the federation. The federation should manage defense and other essential services with its share of the funds. As long as remote areas are not motivated to discover and work on their own resources, they will not become financially better. When a division realizes that it has to arrange resources to run its government, it will automatically try to make better use of local resources, which currently they only take pride in and use as a reason to complain against Punjab.
—The writer is Director, Kashmir Institute of Economics, Azad Jammu and Kashmir University.
