By Amjad Qaim Khani
In Pakistan’s constitutional history, the 18th Constitutional Amendment passed in 2010 is widely regarded as a defining moment that reshaped the balance of power between the federation and the provinces. It was celebrated as a major step towards provincial autonomy under the spirit of the 1973 Constitution. Yet more than a decade later, the promise of full decentralization remains incomplete, as provinces have been slow to transfer authority further down to districts and local governments, leaving governance structurally half-finished and politically contested.
The 18th Amendment significantly reduced federal control and expanded provincial authority across key sectors. The abolition of the Concurrent Legislative List transferred more than forty subjects to the provinces, including health, education, agriculture and local governance. Provinces gained unprecedented legislative and administrative control. Financially, revisions in the National Finance Commission Award strengthened their share of federal revenue, ensuring larger and more stable provincial budgets. Provinces were also granted greater control over natural resources such as oil and gas, reinforcing their economic power within the federation.
However, this redistribution of authority created a critical imbalance. While power moved from Islamabad to provincial capitals, it did not move further down to cities and districts as required under Article 140A of the Constitution, which obliges provinces to establish empowered local governments with political, administrative and financial authority.
Instead, local government systems remain weak, inconsistent and dependent on provincial discretion. The colonial era administrative structure based on commissioners and deputy commissioners continues to dominate local governance. Critics argue that this framework restricts elected mayors and district representatives from exercising real control over development funds and public services, weakening accountability at the grassroots level.
Political resistance has further slowed decentralization. Provincial leaderships often hesitate to empower strong local governments, fearing a reduction in their political influence and control over development budgets. As a result, local government laws are repeatedly amended, delayed or suspended, preventing institutional continuity and weakening democratic development at the local level.
Financial decentralization remains one of the most serious unresolved issues. While provinces receive guaranteed funds through the NFC Award, there is no equally strong or permanent mechanism for transferring resources to districts. The Provincial Finance Commission system, which is meant to ensure fair internal distribution, remains irregular and weak in practice. In many cases, funds are distributed on political considerations rather than transparent formulas, deepening inequality between urban centres, rural districts and politically less influential regions.
Calls to strengthen Article 140A have therefore gained renewed importance. One proposal presented by the Muttahida Qaumi Movement calls for a permanent constitutional framework for local governments. It suggests establishing a mandatory Provincial Finance Commission with fixed financial transfers to districts, strict timelines for holding local elections, and clearly defined constitutional powers for local bodies over essential services such as education, health, water supply, sanitation, transport and urban planning.
Supporters of this proposal argue that such reforms would complete the unfinished process of devolution. They believe that direct financial control would reduce delays, improve transparency and strengthen accountability in service delivery. Regular local elections would ensure continuity and prevent repeated administrative takeovers that weaken institutions and public trust.
International examples are often cited to support stronger local governance. In major global cities such as London, New York, Tokyo and Paris, municipal governments hold significant authority over policing coordination, transport systems, sanitation, education frameworks and urban management. These systems are widely credited with improving efficiency, responsiveness and local revenue generation, while reducing pressure on central governments.
In Pakistan, the absence of empowered local governments is felt in daily life. Citizens frequently struggle with basic civic issues such as waste management, clean drinking water, drainage and road maintenance, many of which require approval from provincial capitals. A stronger local system could bring decision making closer to communities and reduce administrative delays that slow down development.
At the same time, critics caution that decentralization alone is not a guarantee of good governance. Without strong accountability systems, financial transparency and administrative capacity, local governments can also face inefficiency and misuse of resources. They argue that reform must carefully balance autonomy with oversight to ensure effectiveness.
Still, the core issue remains unresolved. The 18th Amendment was not intended only to shift power from the federation to provinces, but ultimately to bring governance closer to the citizen. Until provinces fully implement Article 140A in both letter and spirit, Pakistan’s system of governance will remain incomplete, uneven and under strain.
(The writer is a senior US-based Pakistani journalist who writes on political and social issues and can be reached at editorial@metro-morning.com.)
