Tahir Maqsood Chheena
Pakistan’s governance debate has once again moved to the forefront after Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi’s remarks at a recent business summit. His observation that the country’s governance system is struggling reflects a concern shared by many citizens, businesses, academics and policy experts. Weak service delivery, institutional inefficiency, slow decision-making and poor coordination between different levels of government continue to affect economic growth and public confidence.
The minister’s appeal for political parties to engage in meaningful dialogue is equally significant. Pakistan’s political landscape has become increasingly polarized, making consensus on national issues difficult. Yet sustainable reforms require political agreement rather than unilateral decisions. Whether such dialogue succeeds will depend largely on the willingness of both the government and the opposition to engage in constructive negotiations instead of treating every issue as a political contest.
His warning that the current approach cannot generate sustained economic growth, create employment opportunities or improve governance also deserves careful consideration. Pakistan’s economy cannot achieve long-term stability without institutional reforms that improve efficiency, accountability and public trust. Investors seek predictable governance, transparent regulations and effective public administration more than temporary policy interventions.
However, the minister’s suggestion that creating smaller provinces would automatically solve governance problems raises important questions. Administrative restructuring alone does not necessarily improve governance. Around the world, countries with both large and small administrative units have experienced success or failure depending on the quality of institutions rather than geographical boundaries. Good governance depends more on capable institutions, accountability mechanisms, fiscal responsibility and professional public administration than on the number of provinces.
The proposal to establish new provinces is not new in Pakistan’s political history. Various political parties, including the Pakistan Peoples Party, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz and Muttahida Qaumi Movement, have supported the idea at different times. Their motivations have varied, ranging from improving administrative efficiency to addressing regional identities and political representation.
There is nothing inherently wrong with debating the creation of new provinces. Federal systems across the world have evolved over time to accommodate demographic growth, regional aspirations and administrative needs. However, such decisions should never be driven by short-term political considerations. They must emerge through broad national consensus, careful constitutional deliberation and comprehensive research.
Any discussion about new provinces should examine several critical questions. Will newly created provinces possess sufficient economic resources to sustain themselves? Can they develop capable administrative institutions? How will revenue-sharing arrangements be redesigned? What impact will such changes have on existing provincial identities and inter-provincial relations? Most importantly, will ordinary citizens actually receive better public services?
Without satisfactory answers to these questions, merely redrawing administrative boundaries may produce more political controversy than practical solutions.
A more immediate and potentially more effective governance reform already exists within Pakistan’s constitutional framework: empowering local governments.
Most public services directly affecting citizens—including sanitation, municipal infrastructure, primary education, local health facilities, water supply, waste management, building regulation and community development—are delivered at the local level. Yet Pakistan’s local governments have historically remained weak, financially dependent and politically vulnerable.
Successive governments have often established local government systems only to weaken or dissolve them when political priorities changed. As a result, local institutions have failed to develop continuity, professional capacity or public confidence.
A stable democratic system requires local governments that enjoy constitutional protection rather than political discretion. Local governments should function as the effective third tier of governance with clearly defined political, administrative and financial authority. Such decentralization would improve responsiveness, increase citizen participation and reduce pressure on provincial and federal administrations.
The challenge is not merely administrative; it is political. Many political parties hesitate to devolve meaningful authority because local governments create alternative centres of political influence. Consequently, provincial governments frequently retain powers that could be exercised more efficiently at the district, municipal or village level.
Pakistan’s governance challenges therefore stem less from the number of provinces than from excessive centralization of authority within existing provincial structures.
The minister also appeared to suggest exploring an alternative governance arrangement within the democratic framework that could replace the current federal parliamentary system. Such remarks naturally invite public debate because Pakistan’s constitutional order is built upon parliamentary democracy and federalism.
Every constitutional system has room for improvement, and no democratic framework should be considered beyond discussion. Nevertheless, reform should focus on strengthening constitutional institutions rather than creating uncertainty about the country’s agreed political structure. Pakistan continues to face serious economic pressures, regional security challenges and institutional polarization. Introducing debates that question the constitutional consensus without broad political agreement could deepen uncertainty rather than promote stability.
Constitutional reforms require extraordinary political consensus because they shape the relationship between citizens, governments and state institutions for generations. Frequent constitutional experimentation has already imposed significant costs on Pakistan’s democratic development. The country’s history demonstrates that changing systems alone does not guarantee better governance. Effective implementation, institutional continuity and respect for constitutional boundaries matter far more.
Republic Policy Perspective
Republic Policy believes that Pakistan’s governance crisis cannot be resolved merely by creating additional provinces or introducing another constitutional model. The real challenge lies in rebuilding the executive branch on constitutional, professional and federal principles.
Pakistan inherited a colonial generalist bureaucracy designed to administer a centralized state rather than serve a modern federal democracy. Administrative authority remains concentrated in institutions that often overlap with constitutional responsibilities assigned to elected governments. Genuine reform requires restructuring the executive so that each tier of government possesses its own accountable, professional and constitutionally defined administrative system.
The federal government should have its own federal civil service. The Council of Common Interests should oversee constitutionally defined all-Pakistan services where necessary. Every province should maintain its own provincial civil service, while local governments should possess permanent, autonomous local administrative services responsible to locally elected representatives. Such an arrangement would strengthen federalism, improve accountability and reduce administrative conflicts.
Republic Policy also advocates replacing the colonial generalist model with specialized public administration. Modern governance demands experts in health, education, finance, infrastructure, environment, digital governance and public policy rather than administrators expected to manage every sector without professional specialization. Administrative leadership itself is a professional discipline requiring continuous expertise and institutional development.
Pakistan does not primarily need more provinces; it needs stronger institutions, empowered local governments, specialized public administration, constitutional clarity and genuine decentralization. Governance reforms should strengthen democracy rather than weaken it, deepen federalism rather than centralize authority, and build institutions that serve citizens rather than administrative traditions inherited from the colonial era.
The debate initiated by the interior minister should therefore become an opportunity for comprehensive governance reform rather than a narrow discussion about provincial boundaries. Pakistan’s future depends less on how many provinces it has and more on whether every level of government is empowered, accountable, professional and capable of delivering services to the people. Only institutional reform rooted in constitutional principles can create a governance system capable of supporting sustainable economic growth, political stability and public confidence.
