The debate on creating new provinces in Pakistan has started making noise again. Seminars, media talk shows, and opinion pieces are suddenly full of arguments about whether the country should be divided into smaller units.
Some voices want to see the existing 32 administrative divisions upgraded into provinces, while others suggest returning to the 12 divisions that existed in West Pakistan at the time of independence. The underlying assumption is simple: if we have more provinces, we will automatically get better governance. But is it really that straightforward?
At first sight, the idea sounds attractive. Smaller provinces could mean more focused administrations, easier access to officials, and possibly a stronger sense of inclusion for neglected regions. Yet, when we look deeper, the issue is far more complicated. Pakistan’s governance crisis has less to do with the size of provinces and more with how power is distributed — or rather, not distributed — to the grassroots.
The Question of Timing
One cannot ignore the timing of this renewed debate. Pakistan is already encountering enormous challenges: a shaky economy, fragile political order, and a worrying resurgence of terrorism. In such a situation, is it wise to start drawing new borders and setting up more bureaucracies? Establishing even one new province would mean building a whole set of parallel institutions:
- Assemblies
- Secretariats
- High courts
- Public service commissions
- Governors’ houses — the list goes on
For a country struggling to pay its bills, such extravagance borders on the irresponsible.
Read more: All Four Provinces Establish Departments For Computer Emergency Response Teams
Learning from India — But Carefully
Proponents often point towards India, which increased its number of states from 17 at independence to 28 today. But India’s case is not an exact template for us. Most of its new states were born out of powerful linguistic and cultural movements, sometimes even violent ones, which created a sense of urgency for reorganization.
Moreover, India is structured as a “union,” not a classical federation like Pakistan. Changing provincial boundaries here is constitutionally far more difficult — requiring two-thirds approval in the concerned provincial assembly, and then again in both houses of parliament. Realistically, building such consensus in today’s polarized climate seems next to impossible.
The Real Missing Link
If the aim is to deliver better governance, the real issue is not the number of provinces but the absence of empowered local governments. People don’t feel disconnected because Lahore is too far from Bahawalpur or Peshawar too far from Hazara; they feel disconnected because their union councils, municipalities, and town administrations have little authority or funding.
Examples from around the world display that empowered local governments can make even large provinces or unitary states highly efficient. The UK, for instance, is not a federation, yet its strong system of local councils ensures that citizens’ concerns are heard and addressed quickly.
Pakistan has experimented with local governments in the past, but a lack of continuity and political will has prevented them from becoming truly effective.
Way forward to reap the benefits
So, will creating new provinces solve our governance problems? Most likely not. Instead of multiplying bureaucracies, Pakistan would benefit much more from ensuring that every citizen has a functioning local government that cannot be dissolved at the whim of provincial rulers. That requires constitutional protection, guaranteed funding, and political sincerity — not the redrawing of maps.
All-inclusively, the dream of better governance will not be realized by carving out new provinces, but by empowering people at the grassroots. Unless power truly flows down to the lowest tier, more provinces will only mean more cost, not more efficiency.
1 comment
[…] Read more: Is dividing Pakistan into 12 smaller provinces a cure or a complication? […]