Pakistan’s debate over creating new provinces should now shift from a narrow regional, linguistic, or political discussion to a comprehensive national agenda for governance and structural reform.
The real issue is not simply how many provinces Pakistan should have; the fundamental question is how the State can be reorganised so that government, justice, development and public services become accessible to every citizen.
Pakistan requires a governance reset that combines appropriate provincial restructuring with decentralisation, empowered local governments, justice-sector reform, bureaucratic reform, equitable distribution of national resources, transparency, accountability and effective public service delivery. The objective should be to bring government closer to the people, reduce excessive centralisation and ensure that the benefits of the State reach the common citizen.
In this context, the will of the people should occupy a central position. Article 48(6) of the Constitution provides a constitutional mechanism through which the people’s view on a matter of national importance may be sought through a referendum. Under the provision, the President may, on the advice of the Prime Minister and with the approval of a joint sitting of Parliament, refer a matter to the people for a “Yes” or “No” answer.
Before Parliament and the political leadership embark upon a proposed Twenty-Eighth Constitutional Amendment dealing with the future structure of governance, the Prime Minister and Parliament could consider using this constitutional mechanism to ascertain the public pulse on a carefully framed national question concerning additional provinces, stronger administrative units, meaningful decentralisation and genuinely empowered local governments.
Such a referendum would have an important democratic impact. It would give Parliament, political parties and policymakers a clearer understanding of what the people actually want. Instead of allowing the debate to remain dominated by political assumptions, regional claims or competing institutional interests, a clearly expressed public mandate could establish the direction in which the country wishes to move.
The result would not determine every detail of the constitutional reform. Rather, it would provide a democratic foundation upon which Parliament could develop the appropriate constitutional and legislative framework. A clear expression of public opinion would make it politically and institutionally easier for Parliament, political parties and policymakers to deliberate on difficult questions concerning provincial boundaries, administrative restructuring, decentralisation and local government.
It could also provide the moral authority necessary for undertaking reforms that are constitutionally sensitive and likely to have a long-term impact on Pakistan’s political and administrative structure.
At the same time, the constitutional requirements governing amendment of the Constitution must be respected. Articles 238 and 239 prescribe the procedure for constitutional amendments. In particular, where an amendment alters the limits of a Province, Article 239 requires approval by not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the relevant Provincial Assembly, in addition to the parliamentary requirements prescribed by the Constitution.
Therefore, the significance of a referendum lies in establishing the democratic direction and public mandate for reform, while Parliament would remain responsible for translating that mandate into constitutionally valid legislation and amendments. The people’s voice and Parliament’s constitutional authority should operate together rather than in conflict.
The proposed restructuring, however, must not become merely an exercise in creating new provincial capitals, assemblies and bureaucracies. That would not address Pakistan’s fundamental governance crisis. The real objective must be decentralisation and the establishment of an effective multi-level system consisting of a strong Federation, manageable and viable Provinces, empowered administrative regions and genuinely functional local governments.
Article 140A provides a particularly important constitutional foundation. It requires each Province to establish a local government system and devolve political, administrative and financial responsibility and authority to elected local representatives. Yet the constitutional promise of devolution has not been fully translated into a consistent, effective and empowered system of local governance.
Local governments must have real functions, predictable financial resources, professional administrative support and meaningful decision-making authority. Decentralisation without financial and administrative empowerment is not genuine decentralisation.
The wider constitutional framework must also be reviewed in this context. Articles 141 and 142 regulate legislative competence between the Federation and Provinces; Articles 153 and 154 establish the Council of Common Interests as a constitutional mechanism for coordination on matters of common concern; Article 160 provides the framework for the National Finance Commission; while Articles 162, 163 and 164 contain further provisions concerning financial and legislative matters.
These provisions should be examined collectively rather than in isolation. The objective should be to develop a governance structure in which responsibilities, authority and financial resources are appropriately distributed among the Federation, Provinces, regions and local governments.
Fair distribution of funds and development resources is equally essential. National resources should be allocated transparently and according to objective indicators, including population, poverty, geographical area, backwardness, infrastructure needs, revenue capacity and service-delivery requirements. Development should not remain concentrated in a limited number of urban centres or politically influential constituencies.
Justice reform must form an equally important pillar of the governance reset. A State cannot claim effective governance if ordinary citizens face prolonged litigation, expensive legal processes, administrative obstacles or difficulty accessing justice. Pakistan requires reforms extending across courts, prosecution, police, prisons, legal aid, alternative dispute resolution and case management.
The bureaucracy also requires fundamental reform. Government machinery must move away from excessive centralisation, unnecessary procedural delays and file-based administration towards professional, efficient, transparent and citizen-oriented public service. Officials should be accountable for results, not merely for the movement of files.
Transparency and accountability must be incorporated into every level of the new governance structure. Decentralisation should never mean decentralising corruption or inefficiency. Greater authority must be accompanied by greater responsibility, financial disclosure, audit, legislative oversight, procurement transparency and effective mechanisms through which citizens can hold public institutions accountable.
For this reason, the constitutional and structural reforms should not end with the passage of an amendment. Soon after the necessary constitutional and legislative framework is approved, Pakistan should establish, through proper legislation, an independent and professionally constituted national institution for governance and structural reforms.
Such an institution should have a clear statutory mandate, institutional independence, professional expertise and measurable objectives. It should develop, coordinate and monitor the implementation of reforms concerning provincial restructuring, decentralisation, local government, justice, bureaucracy, fiscal distribution, transparency and accountability.
Its composition should reflect constitutional, legal, administrative, economic, financial, judicial and public-policy expertise rather than merely political representation. Its performance should be measurable and its recommendations and implementation reports should be placed before Parliament and made available to the public.
This institutional mechanism is particularly important because Pakistan has frequently undertaken reforms without establishing an effective system for implementation, continuity and evaluation. Structural reform cannot depend upon the priorities of one government or one political party. It must become a sustained national process.
Pakistan’s domestic governance also has an increasingly important connection with its international role. Over the past eighteen months, Pakistan has assumed greater visibility in regional diplomacy, security discussions and efforts aimed at facilitating dialogue on difficult international and West Asian issues. Its strategic location, diplomatic relationships and security capabilities give it the potential to play an increasingly constructive role as a middle-power State.
Pakistan’s international diplomatic stature, however, will ultimately be strengthened by the quality of its domestic institutions. A country seeking to mediate international disputes, contribute to regional stability and provide security cooperation must itself demonstrate effective governance, rule of law, institutional credibility and administrative capacity.
If structural reforms are successfully implemented, their benefits should not remain confined to Islamabad or provincial capitals. They should reach the ordinary citizen in the form of accessible justice, responsive administration, better policing, improved education and healthcare, transparent development, reliable municipal services and fair economic opportunities.
The present governance structure in many respects remains excessively centralised and outdated in relation to Pakistan’s population, geography and contemporary requirements. The distance between government institutions and ordinary citizens has become a serious national concern. Reform should therefore not be viewed as an institutional luxury; it is becoming a constitutional, democratic and administrative necessity.
Pakistan now needs to move beyond the politics of individual provincial demands and develop a broader national consensus for a genuine governance reset. The creation of new Provinces should be considered wherever justified by population, geography, administrative accessibility, viability, equitable development, representation, identity and public interest. But new Provinces must form only one component of a much larger reform programme.
The public pulse should first help establish the direction. Parliament should then provide the constitutional and legislative framework. Political parties should make decentralisation, empowered local governments, justice reform, bureaucratic reform and equitable development part of their national manifestos. An independent statutory institution should subsequently ensure continuity, coordination, implementation and measurable results.
Pakistan does not merely need new administrative boundaries. It needs a new relationship between the State and the citizen.
The ultimate measure of reform should be whether government becomes more accessible, justice becomes more attainable, public resources are distributed more fairly, bureaucracy becomes more responsive, development reaches neglected communities, and institutions become more transparent and accountable.
The time has therefore come for Pakistan to reset its governance system in the larger public and national interest. The will of the people should provide the direction; the Constitution should provide the framework; Parliament and political parties should provide the leadership; and an independent institutional mechanism should ensure implementation.
Only such a comprehensive approach can convert the debate over new Provinces into a historic opportunity to build a more just, decentralised, accountable, effective and internationally credible Pakistan.
