By Atiq Raja
If Pakistan’s governance system has effectively failed, as Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi recently suggested, the answer cannot simply be to redraw the map. His call for more provinces or administrative units has opened an important debate, but Pakistan must first ask a more fundamental question: why does the existing state struggle to deliver? The argument for smaller provinces is not without merit. Pakistan’s administrative structure was designed for a very different country. Its population has grown beyond 250 million, cities have expanded dramatically, regional inequalities have deepened and the demands on government have become increasingly complex.
Four provincial capitals cannot always respond effectively to the needs of such a large and diverse population. Smaller administrative units could bring government closer to citizens. They could improve representation, speed up development decisions and reduce the sense of political neglect felt in several regions. Demands for new provinces in Southern Punjab, Hazara, parts of Balochistan and elsewhere have existed for years. They should not automatically be treated as threats to national unity. In many cases, they represent demands for greater inclusion within the federation. But creating provinces is not simply a matter of drawing new lines on a map.
Every province requires an assembly, secretariat, ministers, a governor, departments, police arrangements, financial institutions and a substantial recurrent budget. If four inefficient systems are converted into 32 inefficient systems, Pakistan will not have solved its governance crisis. It will have multiplied it. This is why the debate must move beyond the arithmetic of provinces. Pakistan already possesses a constitutional mechanism for taking government closer to citizens: local government. Article 140-A requires provincial governments to devolve political, administrative and financial responsibility to elected local representatives. Yet stable, empowered and financially autonomous local governments have never been fully developed.
The Supreme Court has also directed the Sindh government to devolve meaningful authority to local governments. The contradiction is obvious. Pakistan is discussing the creation of more provinces while existing provinces have often resisted surrendering meaningful authority to cities, districts and municipalities. That is not decentralization. It is merely centralization at another level. Karachi provides the clearest warning. The city is too large, complex and economically important to be governed through fragmented institutions competing over authority. Water, sanitation, waste management, transport, roads, land use and urban planning require coherent metropolitan governance. The demand for greater autonomy therefore has genuine administrative grounds.
Yet Karachi is also part of Sindh’s historical, cultural and territorial identity. In February 2026, the Sindh Assembly passed a resolution opposing the creation of a separate Karachi province and described the city as an integral and inseparable part of Sindh. Any attempt to divide the province without broad consultation could provoke a serious political backlash. That resistance, however, should not be reduced to a simple Sindh-versus-Karachi confrontation. Sindhi nationalist groups may defend the territorial integrity of Sindh. Urban political organizations may demand greater autonomy for Karachi. Lawyers may focus on the constitutional process, while business groups may examine the economic consequences.
Students, civil society, writers, academics and professional bodies could also become important voices in the debate. These groups should not be treated as enemies. They are stakeholders. A government confident in its proposal should be prepared to hear its opponents. The constitutional process is equally important. Article 239 requires a constitutional amendment for changes affecting provincial boundaries, with particularly demanding parliamentary requirements. No government can simply announce a new provincial map and expect it to become reality. Constitutional, parliamentary and democratic scrutiny is not an obstacle to reform. It is what can prevent reform from becoming a source of instability.
If Pakistan seriously considers new provinces, each proposal should first pass five tests: fiscal viability, administrative capacity, public legitimacy, institutional accountability and genuine local devolution. A new province that merely creates another powerful capital while leaving districts powerless would defeat the purpose of reform. The better approach is therefore devolution before division. Pakistan should first implement Article 140-A meaningfully. Local governments need predictable financial transfers, authority over municipal services, control over local development, independent revenue sources and professional administrative structures. Elected mayors or local executives should have clearly defined powers and direct accountability to voters.
Citizens should know which institution is responsible for delivering a particular service. The second step should be the creation of powerful metropolitan governments. Karachi, Lahore, Faisalabad, Rawalpindi-Islamabad, Multan, Peshawar, Quetta, Hyderabad and other major urban centers need governance structures suited to modern cities. Karachi, in particular, requires clear metropolitan authority over transport, water, waste management, urban planning, roads and municipal services. This does not necessarily require creating a separate province. Only after strengthening local governments should Pakistan consider new provinces through an independent National Commission on Administrative Restructuring.
Such a body should assess population, geography, economic viability, revenue potential, infrastructure, poverty, development needs, linguistic and cultural considerations, public opinion and long-term fiscal sustainability. Its findings should be public. There should be no secret maps, backroom deals or politically engineered boundaries. For Sindh, a compromise may be possible through what could be described as a Sindh Governance Compact. Sindh could remain territorially intact while Karachi receives genuine metropolitan autonomy. Hyderabad and other major cities could receive empowered municipal governments, while district governments receive predictable resources.
Provincial funds could be distributed transparently according to population, poverty, infrastructure needs and revenue contribution. Most importantly, no constitutional change affecting Sindh’s boundaries should proceed without extensive public consultation. The larger lesson is that Pakistan’s problem is not simply administrative size. It is institutional capacity, accountability, fiscal management, political ownership, local representation and, above all, public trust. Changing four provinces into 32 will not automatically repair any of these weaknesses. The bureaucracy could remain unaccountable, political patronage could continue and citizens could still queue outside government offices. The map would have changed, but the experience of the citizen would remain the same.
(The writer is a rights activist and CEO of AR Trainings and Consultancy, with degrees in Political Science and English Literature, can be reached at news@metro-morning.com)
#Pakistan #AdministrativeReforms #GovernanceReform #NewProvinces #Devolution #LocalGovernment #Article140A #ConstitutionalReform #PakistanPolitics #Federalism #Decentralisation #Karachi #Sindh #SouthPunjab #Hazara #Balochistan #MetropolitanGovernance #PublicAdministration #FiscalReform #PoliticalReform #InstitutionalReform #PublicTrust #NationalCommission #AtiqRaja #ARTrainingsAndConsultancy #MetroMorning
