Pakistan Debates Creating New Provinces Amid Governance

Pakistan's Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi has ignited a national debate by calling for the creation of new provinces, declaring the country's current administrative system has collapsed. He stated the only solution is to take the matter of administrative units to the public.

Defense Minister Khawaja Asif has echoed calls for greater decentralization. The director general of Inter-Services Public Relations, Lt Gen Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, highlighted Pakistan's dramatic population growth while it operates with only four provinces. He stressed any administrative reset must follow constitutional methods and legal procedures.

Political and Military Dimensions

The debate is politically charged, touching on civil-military relations and inter-provincial dynamics. Mohsin Naqvi is widely seen as having close ties to the military establishment, which is perceived as central to his political rise. The military's subtle reinforcement of his statement leads many observers to believe it is broadly sympathetic to his position.

Proposals for new administrative units range from around a dozen to as many as three dozen. The core issue is whether Pakistan's map reflects its demographic, linguistic, and regional diversity.

The Case For and Against

Advocates argue new, smaller provinces could improve governance and service delivery. They point to poor social indicators: a population of around 250 million, a 63 percent literacy rate, some 28 million children out of school, and widespread child stunting. Bringing decision-making closer to citizens, they contend, could improve education, health, and other basic services.

Pakistan's existing provinces are highly unequal. Punjab has over half the country's population, while Balochistan is vast but sparsely populated. This creates administrative difficulties, fueling long-standing demands for a separate South Punjab province, where southern districts complain power is concentrated in Lahore.

However, creating new provinces risks explosive political consequences, especially in Sindh. Any proposal involving Karachi, a multi-ethnic city of about 20.4 million people, would reopen sensitive questions of ethnicity and power. The city's history of violence in the 1990s, involving groups like the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, remains a potent memory. Demonstrations against new provinces are often framed as resistance to altering Sindh's political balance.

Constitutional and Historical Hurdles

A formidable constitutional obstacle exists. Article 239(4) requires an amendment altering a province's limits to be approved by that province's assembly with a two-thirds majority before going to the president. Amendments also need two-thirds majorities in both houses of parliament.

This means a provincial assembly must consent to reducing its own territory and influence. In Sindh, where the Pakistan People's Party holds power, such consent would be extremely difficult to obtain.

Some proposals have institutional backing. The demand for a Hazara province was endorsed by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly, and a Saraiki-speaking province in southern Punjab has support in Punjab and the National Assembly. Disagreements over boundaries and politics have stalled both.

Historical precedent breeds suspicion. The 1955 One-Unit scheme, which merged West Pakistan into a single province, was abolished in 1970. The political crisis around the 1970 election and Pakistan's subsequent breakup left lasting sensitivity about using administrative changes to manipulate representation.

The Decentralization Dilemma

Creating a new province does not automatically bring government closer to citizens. A new provincial capital can become another distant power center. Improving services like garbage collection, policing, and schools may depend more on strengthening city or district governments than creating provinces.

This is key after the 18th Amendment devolved powers to provinces while local governments often remained weak. Decentralization without accountability risks replacing distant elites with local ones.

The debate has a wider South Asian dimension. Countries like India and Bangladesh share challenges managing diversity. India's linguistic state reorganization and Bangladesh's administrative decentralization offer comparative lessons. However, regional tensions, particularly between India and Pakistan, have severely constrained such exchanges of institutional experience.

The fundamental question is whether Pakistan's political system can make smaller units more accountable and effective. If provincial reorganization becomes merely a contest for territory and power, it may deepen fault lines. If part of a genuine decentralization program, it could address longstanding governance problems.