PAKISTAN is once again debating creation of more provinces. The demand is neither new nor entirely without merit. In a country of more than 259 million people, some regions are simply too large, too distant from provincial capitals and too poorly served to be governed effectively from the existing centres of power. Yet before Pakistan redraws its map, it must confront a more fundamental question: are our problems really the result of having too few provinces, or are they consequence of having too little good governance? The answer is difficult to escape.
Pakistan’s principal crisis is not the number of provinces. It is the quality of governance. We already have a federal government, four provincial governments, district administrations, municipal institutions and a vast bureaucratic apparatus. Still, citizens struggle with poor education and healthcare, weak policing, delayed justice, inadequate municipal services, corruption, red tape and administrative inefficiency. If these institutions cannot consistently deliver basic services, why should we assume that creating more provinces will produce better results? The danger is that we may simply multiply governments without multiplying governance.
For most citizens, particularly those living in rural areas, the provincial capital is too distant to have much relevance to their everyday problems. A farmer needs irrigation, agricultural extension services, roads, markets and access to finance. A small entrepreneur needs electricity, municipal facilities, credit and a business-friendly administration. A rural woman needs security, healthcare, education, safe transport and an opportunity to earn. These are essentially local concerns. Yet Pakistan’s political and administrative system has historically concentrated power at the federal and provincial levels while keeping local governments weak, dependent and frequently temporary. This is the fundamental imbalance that needs to be corrected.
Pakistan needs genuine devolution of political, administrative and financial authority. Local governments should be constitutionally protected, regularly elected and given clearly defined functions and predictable financial resources. Districts, municipalities and village-level institutions must have authority — and resources — to perform responsibilities assigned to them. Devolution, however, should not be confused with the creation of new provinces. Government can be brought closer to people by strengthening local institutions without immediately creating dozens of new provincial assemblies, secretariats and bureaucracies.
The experience of Gen Pervez Musharraf’s local-government reforms offers an important lesson. We should not necessarily reproduce the political architecture of 2001. We should revive and strengthen its central principle. The federation should perform federal functions; provinces should concentrate on provincial responsibilities; and empowered district and local governments should deal with local problems. That division of responsibility would be far more meaningful than simply changing administrative boundaries.
There is a tendency in political debate to assume that smaller provinces automatically mean better administration. This is not necessarily so. A smaller province can remain corrupt, inefficient and poorly governed. A larger province can perform better if its institutions are competent, accountable and decentralised. Pakistan’s deeper problems lie elsewhere: political interference in administration, weak accountability, feudal and patronage-based structures, excessive bureaucracy, rapid population growth, inadequate education and healthcare, regional disparities and a system of incentives that often fails to reward efficiency while creating opportunities for corruption. Changing boundaries cannot change this political and administrative culture overnight nor can merely increasing the number of bureaucratic posts.
Indeed, Pakistan’s fiscal position makes this question even more serious. Every new province would require additional administrative structures, secretariats, assemblies, departments and associated expenditure. At a time when the state struggles to finance basic public services, we must ask whether scarce resources should be spent creating new layers of government or strengthening the institutions that already exist. But new provinces should not be ruled out. This does not mean that Pakistan should permanently reject the idea of new provinces. There may be regions where existing provincial boundaries have become administratively impractical. Population growth, geographical distance, economic disparities and distinct development needs can provide legitimate grounds for reconsidering the present structure.
But such decisions must emerge from evidence, not slogans. Population, geography, economic viability, fiscal sustainability, administrative capacity and public opinion should all be examined. Most importantly, the process must have democratic legitimacy and constitutional consensus. A province should not be created merely because a political party expects electoral advantage. But equally, resistance to new provinces should not become an excuse for preserving ineffective administrative arrangements.
Pakistan therefore needs a comprehensive administrative and fiscal reform process examining the respective responsibilities of the federation, provinces and local governments. If, after such an examination, certain regions are found to be genuinely too large or administratively unmanageable, the case for new provinces would become much stronger. But the country should not begin with division. First decentralise. Then evaluate. Then divide where necessary. Pakistan’s history provides ample warning against believing that structural change alone produces institutional change. We have altered administrative arrangements, changed governments and introduced new policies, yet same problems repeatedly returned: weak institutions, political interference, poor implementation, inadequate accountability and discontinuity. Changing the map cannot automatically change the mindset.
Our citizens are not primarily asking for another provincial secretariat or another assembly. They want security, justice, quality education, healthcare, employment, clean water, cheap and reliable electricity, functioning municipalities and dignity in their dealings with the state. These are not questions of provincial boundaries. They are questions of governance. The debate, therefore, should not be framed as four provinces versus 32 provinces. The real choice is between a state that merely creates institutions and a state that makes those institutions work. Pakistan does not necessarily need more governments. It needs government that works.
—The writer is Senior Retd bureaucrat, based in Lahore.
