NEW PROVINCES AS A RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNANCE CRISIS

Pakistan’s governance structure is carrying a burden that has grown enormously since independence. The country today has a population of around 241.5 million, yet political authority at the provincial level remains organised around four provinces. According to the 2023 Population and Housing Census, Punjab alone has about 127.7 million people, Sindh 55.7 million, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 40.9 million and Balochistan 14.9 million. Pakistan’s population rose from 132.35 million in 1998 to 207.68 million in 2017 and 241.49 million in 2023. The average annual growth rate between 2017 and 2023 was 2.55 percent.

Population growth by itself does not prove that Pakistan needs additional provinces. It does, however, raise an important governance question. Can administrative arrangements designed for a much smaller population continue to deliver responsive government across provinces containing tens of millions of citizens?

The issue becomes clearer when viewed from the periphery rather than the provincial capital. For a resident of Rajanpur, Lahore can feel very far away. The same is true of the relationship between Karachi and parts of interior Sindh, Peshawar and Chitral, or Quetta and Gwadar. This is not simply geographical distance. It can become administrative distance, measured in delayed files, difficult access to senior officials, uneven public investment and limited influence over decisions made hundreds of kilometres away.

Large provinces also contain very different societies and economies. The requirements of Karachi are not the same as those of Thar. Lahore’s transport, employment and urban planning challenges differ considerably from those of southern Punjab. Mountain communities in northern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa face different infrastructure constraints from the densely settled Peshawar Valley. Balochistan presents perhaps the clearest geographical challenge because enormous distances separate many communities from administrative centres.

This is where the debate about additional provinces deserves to be located. It should not primarily be presented as a struggle over ethnic identity, political territory or the creation of new offices. The more useful question is whether administrative restructuring could shorten the distance between decision makers and citizens.

Fiscal arrangements make this debate particularly important. Under the Seventh National Finance Commission Award, the provincial share of the divisible pool increased to 57.5 percent, with 42.5 percent retained by the federal government. The provincial distribution was set at 51.74 percent for Punjab, 24.55 percent for Sindh, 14.62 percent for Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and 9.09 percent for Balochistan.

For the 2026–27 federal budget, total transfers to the provinces, including divisible pool taxes and straight transfers, are budgeted at approximately Rs 8.85 trillion. Punjab’s projected share is about Rs 4.40 trillion, Sindh’s Rs 2.21 trillion, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s Rs 1.44 trillion and Balochistan’s roughly Rs 795 billion. The critical governance question, however, begins after this money reaches the provincial level. How fairly does it travel onward to districts, tehsils, cities and villages?

Creating smaller provinces could potentially alter this relationship by giving presently peripheral regions their own assemblies, administrative departments, development priorities and political centres. A provincial government located closer to southern Punjab, Hazara or another administratively reorganised region could theoretically respond more directly to local education, healthcare, infrastructure, agriculture and employment needs.

Yet changing provincial boundaries would not automatically improve governance. A new provincial capital could simply reproduce the same centralised culture on a smaller map. If authority remains concentrated in a chief minister’s secretariat and provincial bureaucracy, a citizen may find that one distant administrative centre has merely been replaced by another.

That is why the debate over provinces cannot be separated from local government.

Article 140A of the Constitution requires every province to establish a local-government system and devolve political, administrative and financial responsibility and authority to elected local representatives. This constitutional principle goes directly to the heart of the governance problem. Districts, tehsils and elected local bodies need sufficient authority, predictable finances and clearly defined responsibilities if services are genuinely to move closer to citizens.

Administrative restructuring therefore involves two distinct but related questions. One concerns the size and manageability of provinces. The other concerns how much authority provinces themselves are willing to transfer downward. Addressing only one side may produce incomplete reform.

There are also costs and constitutional complications that should not be ignored. Additional provinces would require new assemblies, administrations and other institutions. Boundaries could become politically contentious. Existing fiscal arrangements would have to be reconsidered, while questions of representation, assets, water, public employment and revenue distribution would require transparent negotiation.

For this reason, the debate should move beyond slogans about either creating or resisting new provinces. Any serious proposal should specify the proposed boundaries, administrative rationale, financial implications, constitutional process, local-government structure and measurable improvements citizens should expect.

The real test is remarkably simple. Does administrative reform allow a farmer to resolve a land matter more easily? Does it help a student obtain better education, a patient reach an adequately funded hospital, a business receive approvals without unnecessary delay and a community hold identifiable officials responsible for failure?

Pakistan’s population and administrative demands have changed dramatically. The central question is therefore not how many lines should appear on the map. It is how government can become accessible, responsive and accountable. Whether through additional provinces, stronger local governments, or a combination of both, any restructuring should ultimately be judged by one standard: how effectively it brings public authority, resources and responsibility closer to the citizen.