Pakistan may be preparing to redraw its political map, but a new map will not automatically produce better government. The debate over new provinces, revived in the wake of proposals surrounding the 28th Constitutional Amendment, reflects a genuine frustration with a system in which power, resources and decision-making remain too distant from many citizens. For someone in Chitral, Bahawalpur, Gwadar, Dera Ismail Khan or Thar, the provincial capital can feel as remote as Islamabad. But distance is not measured only in kilometres. It is measured in how long a citizen waits for a government decision, how far he must travel for a public service and how difficult it is to make the state listen. The real reform is not simply to redraw the map, but to bring power closer to the people.
The question is not whether Pakistan should have four, eight or twelve provinces, but how power can be brought closer to the people who live beyond the reach of distant capitals. One proposed model for a 28th Constitutional Amendment offers a useful way to frame that debate. It envisages a more decentralised Pakistan, with smaller provinces, stronger regions, directly elected leadership and genuinely empowered local governments. Its proposed restructuring includes distinct identities for areas such as Hazara, South KP and Kohistan, greater autonomy for South Punjab, Bahawalpur and Potohar, and new administrative arrangements in Sindh and Balochistan. Most importantly, it shifts the centre of governance downward towards districts, tehsils and union councils, where citizens actually encounter the state.
Whether or not every boundary on the proposed map is desirable, the philosophy behind it deserves serious national debate. Pakistan has already recognised the principle of devolution through Article 140A, which requires provinces to establish local governments and transfer political, administrative and financial authority to elected representatives. Yet in practice, local governments have too often remained temporary and politically dependent rather than becoming a permanent third tier of democracy.
That is why the debate over new provinces must go beyond drawing boundaries. Creating more provinces without empowering local governments could simply create more capitals, secretariats and bureaucracies without bringing power closer to citizens. A smaller province can remain just as centralised, and a chief minister in a new capital can be as distant from an ordinary citizen as one in Lahore, Peshawar or Karachi. The reform must not merely redraw the map but must redistribute power.
Smaller provinces could strengthen representation by giving historically neglected regions a greater voice in decisions over roads, universities, hospitals, irrigation and employment. But the purpose of creating a new province should not be to create another elite but should be to give more people a greater say in their own future. That requires fiscal as well as political devolution. A mayor without resources, or a district government that must seek provincial approval for every road, school or water project, is not genuinely empowered. Money must follow responsibility, and authority must follow accountability.
Imagine a Pakistan where mayors are directly elected and given clear executive authority, where district governments are responsible for schools, primary healthcare, electricity, sanitation, local roads and water, and where tehsil and union councils become genuine centres of community participation. Such a system would do more than improve administration; it would change the relationship between citizen and state. Today, when a street floods, garbage goes uncollected, a hospital lacks basic facilities or a neighbourhood has no clean water, responsibility is scattered across departments. Citizens may know whom they elected, but often do not know who is responsible or where to turn when government fails. Elected representatives should answer for these failures rather than allowing permanent bureaucracy to become a shield between government and citizen.
Directly elected mayors could make this chain of responsibility visible. With a defined mandate, predictable budget and executive authority, those elected by the people would have both the power to deliver and the responsibility to answer at the next election. Provinces should focus on legislation, major infrastructure, economic policy and resource management, while the federation handles defence, foreign affairs, currency and national economic policy. Good government begins when elected representatives have the authority to act, the resources to deliver and the responsibility to answer, while bureaucracy provides expertise without becoming a substitute for elected leadership.
This would make government clearer and accountability harder to evade. Citizens should know who decides, who pays, who delivers and whom they can remove. A smaller province is not necessarily a more democratic one, and elections alone do not guarantee accountability. Provincial and federal governments must stop treating empowered local governments as rivals. Local democracy is not a threat to provincial power but a foundation.
Pakistan’s constitutional map may change, but the real test of reform is whether power changes hands. New provinces can bring government closer to neglected regions, improve representation and make development more equitable, but without empowered local governments they risk reproducing the same centralisation on a smaller scale. Pakistan does not need more capitals merely for the sake of administrative symmetry, it needs elected mayors with real authority, districts with predictable resources and citizens who know exactly whom to hold accountable. Whether the country ultimately has four provinces or many, the principle should remain the same that power must move closer to the people. The map is secondary but the citizen is the centre of federation.
—The writer is PhD in Political Science, and visiting faculty at QAU Islamabad.
