Pakistan’s Governance Crossroads Bringing the State Closer to the People

By Sardar Shoukat Popalzai, President, Balochistan Economic Forum

Pakistan is facing an important debate about the future of its governance system.

Within a short period, two senior federal ministers have questioned whether the existing structure can effectively govern a population of around 260 million.

Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi described the governance system as having effectively “collapsed”. He called for a fundamental “reset”. He also raised the possibility of creating new administrative units.

Planning Minister Ahsan Iqbal went further. He presented two possible options. One involves creating around 15 additional provinces. The other involves establishing about 160 fully empowered district governments.

Naqvi returned to the issue on September 5. He clarified that his earlier comments were not aimed at any political party.

However, he maintained his central argument. He called for governance reforms and urged political parties to discuss the issue collectively.

A Debate That Demands Institutional Discussion

The issue can no longer be viewed as an isolated ministerial statement.

When senior ministers publicly discuss a governance reset, the debate deserves serious attention.

Pakistan has elected national and provincial assemblies. It also has the Senate, federal and provincial cabinets, parliamentary committees and the Council of Common Interests.

Therefore, an important question arises.

If the existing system requires fundamental restructuring, why has the discussion not formally emerged through these institutions?

Governance reform cannot become governance by announcement.

Any change to Pakistan’s administrative or constitutional structure requires Parliament, provincial assemblies and citizens to remain at the centre of the process.

The Case for Stronger Local Government

Ahsan Iqbal has presented figures that deserve careful consideration.

According to the minister, around 260 million Pakistanis are represented through only about 1,170 elected public offices.

He has argued that genuine grassroots democracy could require between 150,000 and 200,000 public offices.

This highlights a major weakness in Pakistan’s devolution process.

The 2010 constitutional reforms transferred 17 subjects from the federation to the provinces. However, political, administrative and financial authority did not move sufficiently from provincial capitals to elected local governments.

As a result, devolution largely stopped at the provincial level.

Pakistan Air Force Observes Martyrs’ Day Across the Country

Iqbal’s warning that events could overtake politicians reflects this widening gap between citizens and government.

Do Pakistanis Need More Provinces?

The minister’s figures raise another important question.

Do they prove that Pakistan needs 15 more provinces?

Or do they demonstrate the failure to establish an effective third tier of government?

If around 260 million people are represented through roughly 1,170 elected offices, more provincial assemblies alone cannot solve the democratic deficit.

District governments can play a much larger role.

So can municipalities and Union Councils.

If authority moved from Islamabad to Karachi, Lahore, Quetta and Peshawar but largely stopped there, the problem may not be geography.

It may be incomplete devolution.

Article 140A Already Provides a Framework

Pakistan already has a constitutional foundation for stronger local government.

Article 140A requires provinces to establish local-government systems.

It also calls for the devolution of political, administrative and financial responsibility and authority to elected local representatives.

Therefore, Pakistan does not need to create an entirely new constitutional direction.

It needs to implement the existing one more effectively.

Local governments should have meaningful authority. They should also have predictable financial resources.

Primary healthcare, schools, water, sanitation and municipal infrastructure could move closer to communities.

Local roads and significant development spending could also be managed at the local level.

New Provinces Should Not Be Ruled Out

This does not mean new provinces should be rejected.

Pakistan’s population has changed significantly. Its cities and economic geography have also evolved.

Some regions may benefit from smaller administrative units.

However, such a decision should follow an objective national assessment.

Economic viability must be examined. Administrative requirements must also be considered.

Public support, fiscal sustainability and national cohesion should matter as well.

Creating a province, however, is not the same as decentralising power.

A new province requires an assembly, cabinet, secretariat and bureaucracy.

If authority remains concentrated at the provincial level, Pakistan could simply replace four centralised governments with a larger number of centralised governments.

Poor governance divided into smaller geographical units remains poor governance.

Balochistan Requires Special Caution

The debate requires particular care in Balochistan.

The province cannot be viewed simply as Pakistan’s largest province by area.

Its political geography is complex.

It includes Baloch, Pashtun, Brahui and other communities. Tribal structures and historical identities also shape the region.

Border populations and longstanding questions about representation add further complexity.

Therefore, an administrative boundary designed in Islamabad could have a very different meaning on the ground.

It could raise questions about political control and representation.

It could also affect resource distribution, employment quotas and the balance between different communities.

Natural Resources Add Another Layer

Balochistan contains strategically important economic assets.

These include Gwadar, Reko Diq and Saindak.

The province also provides Pakistan’s strategic territorial links with Iran and Afghanistan.

Therefore, territorial restructuring could become connected to questions about mineral ownership and royalties.

Coastal resources, economic corridors and political representation could also become part of the debate.

At a time when Balochistan faces security challenges, political alienation and development disparities, poorly planned restructuring could create new tensions.

It could deepen existing fault lines rather than resolve them.

Decentralisation Could Help Balochistan

This does not mean Balochistan should remain administratively unchanged.

In fact, its vast distances provide a strong case for decentralisation.

A resident of Gwadar should not depend heavily on Quetta for everyday public services.

The same applies to people in Turbat, Zhob, Chaman and Chagai.

Strong district governments could bring administration closer to these communities.

They could also improve accountability without immediately changing provincial boundaries.

Test the District Government Model

Pakistan should first consider fully implementing Article 140A.

It should establish genuinely empowered district governments.

Provincial Finance Commissions should provide predictable financial transfers.

Local governments should receive clear responsibilities.

These could include primary healthcare, schools, water, sanitation and municipal services.

They could also manage local roads and important development projects.

If Ahsan Iqbal believes around 160 empowered districts could work, the idea deserves a national pilot.

The proposal should be tested rather than left as a political statement.

Islamabad Could Become a Governance Laboratory

Islamabad provides a possible starting point.

The proposed restructuring includes an Islamabad Capital Territory Government.

It also envisages a 27-member elected ICT Assembly.

The proposed assembly would include 21 directly elected members. Five seats would be reserved for women. One seat would be reserved for a minority representative.

With a population of around 2.6 million, Islamabad could become a governance laboratory.

The results should be measured carefully.

These could include education and healthcare outcomes. Service delivery should also be assessed.

Administrative costs, municipal performance and revenue generation should form part of the evaluation.

Citizen satisfaction and accountability should also be measured.

Such evidence would help Pakistan design wider reforms.

A National Commission Could Guide Reform

Pakistan should also consider an independent National Commission on Governance and Devolution.

The commission should include Parliament and provincial governments.

Constitutional experts should participate as well.

Economists and local-government specialists could provide technical input.

Representatives of affected communities should also have a voice.

The commission could examine both major proposals.

These include stronger district governments and additional provinces.

Each model should be assessed against clear criteria.

These should include administrative efficiency, economic viability and fiscal costs.

Public consent and demographic implications should also be considered.

National cohesion must remain a central consideration.

Political Consensus Is Essential

Naqvi’s September 5 call for political parties to sit together provides a useful starting point.

The dialogue should not begin with a predetermined answer.

It should not assume that new provinces are the only solution.

Likewise, it should not seek to preserve existing boundaries at any cost.

Instead, the central question should be simple:

What structure of government will work best for Pakistan’s citizens?

The deeper problem may not be that Pakistan has too few provinces.

It may be that too much authority remains concentrated in too few places.

If 260 million citizens have access to only around 1,170 elected public offices, democracy remains too distant.

If authority transferred to provinces after 2010 stopped largely at provincial capitals, devolution remains incomplete.

Moreover, if increased provincial resources have not produced better social outcomes, accountability and spending efficiency must also be examined.

Reform Must Follow Evidence

None of these realities automatically justify or reject new provinces.

Pakistan needs governance reform.

The recent interventions by Mohsin Naqvi and Ahsan Iqbal may have opened a debate that has been delayed for too long.

However, particularly in Balochistan, administrative efficiency must not come at the expense of social cohesion.

Constitutional stability and national unity must also be protected.

Pakistan should first bring government closer to its people.

Whether that requires stronger districts, additional provinces or a combination of both should be decided through evidence.

It should also follow constitutional procedures and genuine public consensus.

The goal should not be to protect the existing map.

Nor should the map be redrawn simply for the sake of change.

The real objective should be to build a state that works better for its citizens.