THE importance of institutional reform is powerfully articulated in the work of economists Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, authors of Why Nations Fail.
They demonstrate that nations prosper when they build inclusive economic and political institutions—systems that broaden participation, empower local communities and prevent excessive centralization. Conversely, nations decline when they remain trapped in extractive, overly centralized structures. While Acemoglu and Robinson critique the exploitative aspects of colonial governance, other scholars such as Nigel Beggar have highlighted the administrative strengths of certain British institutional arrangements, particularly their emphasis on system-building and amalgamation. Regardless of academic perspective, a single principle remains clear: institutional design shapes national destiny and long-term prosperity requires institutions that empower society rather than restrict it.
The urgency of administrative reform in Pakistan becomes evident when considering the daily hardships faced by ordinary citizens. A resident of Jiwani or Gwadar travelling to Quetta for a single court hearing or someone from Sadiqabad journeying to Lahore just to resolve a routine administrative matter, endures not a minor inconvenience but a punishing and costly burden, often repeated over months or years. For millions, this has become a normalized form of structural injustice, rooted in a dated administrative framework that no longer reflects Pakistan’s population, geography or economic realities. The economic and social costs of such inefficiencies are immense and are borne both individually and collectively.
Since 1947, Pakistan has remained anchored in a colonial administrative model that created inclusive structures for strategic centers but left peripheral regions neglected and powerless. Instead of dismantling this inequitable design, successive ruling elites preserved it, sustaining feudal, bureaucratic and political monopolies.
Whenever the demand for new provinces arises, these groups respond with emotional, ethnic or fear-driven narratives aimed at suppressing legitimate calls for devolution. The truth is that citizens across Balochistan, Sindh, Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa suffer equally from hyper-centralization. Resistance does not come from the people; it comes from those who fear accountability and the redistribution of power. Dr. Tahir-ul-Qadri was among the earliest voices advocating the creation of 35 provinces, but his proposals received minimal attention, either due to a lack of understanding or because they threatened entrenched interests. Pakistan, with a population of 250 million, is among the least administratively decentralized federations in the world, functioning through only four large provinces. By comparison, Turkey operates 81 provinces for 86 million people, Iran has 31 for 89 million, India 28 for 1.4 billion and the United States 50 states for 333 million. Pakistan’s average provincial population now exceeds 60 million—an unmanageable scale by global administrative standards.
With population growth equivalent to adding a city the size of Faisalabad each year, Pakistan’s challenges are intensifying. Advocates argue that new administrative units would bring democracy closer to citizens by devolving authority, empowering local governments and dismantling long-standing political monopolies. Smaller provinces would enable faster decision-making, reduce bureaucratic delays, improve policing and municipal management and strengthen oversight in essential services such as healthcare and education. Localized administration restores trust in state institutions and reduces dependence on distant provincial capitals. Economically, new provinces could transform neglected regions—such as South Punjab, interior Sindh, Balochistan and Hazara—through dedicated development budgets, infrastructure growth, investment and job creation.
Political scientists also note that in successful federations, smaller administrative units foster healthy inter-regional competition in service delivery, governance quality and economic performance—competition that drives innovation and compels governments to deliver results. However, administrative restructuring alone is insufficient without complementary political reforms. A proportional representation system would ensure more equitable electoral outcomes, giving voice to communities currently marginalized under the winner-takes-all model. The direct election of the Prime Minister would strengthen executive legitimacy, eliminate horse-trading and break constituency-based monopolies, opening pathways for the middle class and educated professionals to enter politics. Ending development funds for MPs would return legislators to their constitutional role: lawmaking, not municipal management. Empowered local governments—supported by technocratic ministers in key portfolios—would professionalize governance and significantly improve service delivery.
Everything in Pakistan should not revolve around the MP; their job is legislation, not basic administration. Today our political structure is so distorted that a PhD professor expects service delivery from someone with matric-level education elected primarily through influence. Ninety-nine percent of Pakistanis may cast a vote, but 99.9% are effectively barred from entering the privileged political class, whose membership has become prohibitively expensive. This exclusivity undermines representation and weakens the state’s connection with its people. The government has already initiated preliminary assessments, including demographic mapping, linguistic and cultural evaluations, economic viability studies and consultations with provincial governments, political parties, civil society, academia and business chambers. Technical working groups are currently drafting proposals on boundaries, administrative frameworks and constitutional requirements.
It is vital to remember that provinces exist to serve the federation, not dominate it. Pakistan already subdivides itself into divisions, districts, tehsils, police ranges and federal zones for administrative efficiency. If such subdivisions are justified, then the creation of new provinces is neither radical nor disruptive; it is simply a logical continuation of Pakistan’s federal evolution.
Establishing new provinces has the potential to become one of the most transformative reforms in Pakistan’s history—strengthening democracy, empowering communities, reducing inequality, improving governance, stimulating economic activity and reinforcing national unity. The question is no longer whether Pakistan should pursue this reform. The real question is whether the nation can afford to delay it any further.
—The writer is Secretary General Islamabad Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
