Prof Taimoorul Hassan
Pakistan today faces a governance crisis that cannot be ignored.
The economic slowdown, environmental shocks, and the growing gap between citizen needs and state capacity have made one reality stark: our provincial structure is too large and unwieldy to serve 240 million people. The idea of creating more provinces is not a political slogan but an urgent administrative necessity.
This was the central theme at the recent Indus Conclave hosted by the Punjab Group. In a panel on administrative and governance reforms, former Finance Minister Miftah Ismail explained how over-centralization is choking Pakistan’s economy. When provincial capitals hold excessive financial and political authority, districts remain dependent and underdeveloped. Local solutions never materialize because decision-making is stuck far away.
Miftah highlighted Pakistan’s low ranking on the Human Development Index and its lagging performance on the Sustainable Development Goals. He argued that meaningful progress was impossible without empowering local administrations and reducing provincial monopolies over governance and resources. His remarks reignited debate on the need for a more decentralized system — one where smaller provinces could take charge of their development priorities. It is in this broader context that former Mayor of Lahore, MianAmerMehmood’s long-standing proposal for creating 33 provinces has gained renewed attention. For years, he has argued that Pakistan cannot move forward with its outdated administrative map. Smaller, more responsive units, he maintains, are essential if the federation is to deliver on its constitutional promise of equitable growth. His model builds on the logic that Miftah and others at the Conclave emphasized — decentralization as a foundation for better governance. Smaller provinces would change the very nature of leadership in Pakistan. Instead of concentrating political power in a handful of families and cities, they would create space for leaders from smaller towns and neglected regions. Every new province would bring its own chief minister, cabinet, and assembly, ensuring representation for communities that have long been ignored. This opening up of the political field is crucial for a country where dynasties have dominated for decades. The benefits would be especially visible in social sector development. Pakistan’s education system continues to underperform. The 2024 District Education Index revealed that not a single district fell into the high-performance category. Larger provinces have proven incapable of managing such vast systems effectively. Smaller provinces, closer to the ground, could focus on building schools, recruiting teachers, and ensuring continuity in learning, even during climate disruptions. Health outcomes tell a similar story. Rural populations still lack access to maternal care, vaccination programs, and emergency facilities. Provinces that are larger than many countries cannot hope to run efficient health systems from one distant capital. Smaller units, accountable to local populations, would allow quicker allocation of resources and closer oversight of hospitals and health programs. The environment was another major theme during the Indus Conclave panel. Pakistan is one of the most climate-vulnerable countries in the world. Smog has repeatedly paralyzed Punjab, floods have devastated Sindh and Balochistan, and heatwaves have struck Karachi and interior districts alike. These disasters require local solutions and swift action. Smaller provinces would be able to plan disaster preparedness and climate resilience strategies tailored to their geography and communities. International examples strengthen the case. India’s creation of new states like Jharkhand and Telangana was followed by improved literacy and infrastructure growth. Indonesia’s post-1998 decentralization empowered districts to manage water, health, and education, resulting in significant social improvements. These cases demonstrate that decentralization, if implemented carefully, leads to stronger rather than weaker states.
Still, critics argue that creating more provinces risks ethnic division or financial strain. Yet as the panelists at the Indus Conclave noted, division is already evident under the current setup. Neglect and uneven resource distribution fuel resentment far more than decentralization. Financial concerns are also misleading. Smaller provinces would compete in performance, each striving to deliver better services, attract investment, and strengthen their revenue base. Competition among provinces could become a driver of innovation rather than a drain.
Of course, safeguards are needed. Transparent procedures for boundary changes, judicial oversight to prevent elite capture, and fair distribution of resources must accompany reforms. But the risks of inaction are far greater. An oversized, underperforming state cannot survive in the modern world. Citizens who lack education, health, or environmental security will not remain patient forever. The message emerging from the Indus Conclave was clear: Pakistan’s survival and progress depend on bold restructuring. The logic of smaller, more efficient provinces, long advocated by MianAmerMehmood, is beginning to resonate across academia, students, the intelligentsia, and the public at large. If political parties translate this sentiment into policy and adopt it as part of their reform agendas, it would strengthen their earlier promises of creating new provinces — and more importantly, move Pakistan toward a future of efficient governance, stronger inclusion, and better lives for all.
— The author is Professor of Mass Communication at the University of Central Punjab.
