THE debate over new provinces in Pakistan has been gaining renewed attention for understandable reasons. Population growth, expanding cities, administrative distances and difficulties in delivering public services have made the case for smaller and more manageable administrative units increasingly relevant. In many parts of the country, bringing government closer to the citizen is no longer simply a political demand. It is becoming an administrative necessity. But the way new provinces are governed will ultimately determine whether they become a solution or another burden on the state.
Pakistan already has a familiar provincial governance model. A province has a chief minister, a cabinet, ministers, advisers, a large secretariat, departments, senior bureaucratic offices and an extensive administrative apparatus, accompanied by official residences, vehicles, protocol and other recurring expenditures. Reproducing this entire structure every time a new province is created would mean multiplying the same machinery across a larger number of units. That would make administrative de-centralisation increasingly expensive without necessarily making government more effective.
The recent discussion on Islamabad’s governance model brought this problem into sharper focus. Institutional capacity matters as much as the distribution of authority. When functions are divided among multiple institutions, responsibilities overlap, decision making becomes slow and accountability becomes difficult to establish. Creating more administrative units without addressing these structural problems could simply reproduce the same weaknesses on a larger scale. This is where international experience becomes relevant. Different countries have developed different models for governing their subnational units, and none can simply be transplanted to Pakistan. Yet their experiences offer useful lessons about separating political representation from day-to-day administration and about keeping governance structures proportionate to the needs of the population.
In the United States, for example, a state has an elected governor and an elected legislature, supported by state departments and agencies. Japan’s prefectures similarly have elected governors and elected assemblies. France combines elected regional councils with an executive president, while the central state maintains its own representative through the prefect. Canada and South Africa have their own provincial structures with elected legislatures and executive arrangements. The United Kingdom, particularly England, provides yet another model, with local authorities operating through elected councils, mayors and different governance arrangements. The important point in all these examples is not that Pakistan should adopt an American, Japanese, French or British model. The lesson is that administrative de-centralisation does not require every new unit to become a miniature version of an existing province, complete with an ever-expanding political and bureaucratic establishment. Pakistan could instead study these models and develop one suited to its own constitutional, political and financial circumstances. One possible approach would be to have an elected governor as political head of a smaller administrative unit, alongside an elected assembly representing the people. The executive and administrative functions, however, could be handled through professional government departments and an accountable administrative structure rather than creating an unnecessarily large ministerial establishment.
Such a model would preserve political representation while keeping the machinery of government leaner. It would also allow a clearer distinction between politics and administration. Elected representatives would provide political direction, legislation and democratic oversight, while professional administrative institutions would be responsible for implementing government decisions and delivering public services. This distinction could become particularly important as Pakistan considers smaller administrative units. The purpose of creating a new province should be to improve governance, not to create another layer of political offices and privileges.
The same principle should apply to local governments. A smaller province will not automatically bring government closer to citizens if decision-making remains concentrated at the provincial level. Strong and empowered local governments would be essential for ensuring that services such as water, sanitation, local roads, primary health, municipal management and urban planning are actually delivered close to the people. There is also a straightforward economic argument for a leaner model. Pakistan has limited fiscal space and substantial demands on public resources. Every new administrative unit carrying the full cost of a conventional provincial structure would require additional spending on offices, buildings, vehicles, staff, residences, allowances and other recurring expenses. These are not one-time costs.
Ultimately, de-centralisation should mean bringing government closer to people, not multiplying governments. Pakistan needs administrative units that are politically representative, institutionally capable, fiscally sustainable and accessible to citizens. The country can learn from international models, but it should not copy them. It should customise a governance structure that reflects Pakistan’s own needs and resources. The success of a new province should therefore be judged not by the number of offices it creates, the size of its secretariat or privileges attached to its political leadership, but by how effectively it serves its people. The purpose of creating a new province should be to create better government, not simply more government.
—The writer is a media professional, based in Islamabad.
