Pakistan’s Provinces and the Need for Deeper Devolution

Pakistan’s debate over new provinces is often presented as a question of geography. In reality, it is equally a question of power. Provincial boundaries determine far more than lines on a map. They influence who controls budgets, appointments, development priorities, contracts, bureaucracies and political representation. Any proposal to alter that arrangement therefore touches established political and administrative interests, which helps explain why the debate generates such strong reactions.

The disagreement is visible across the political spectrum. The Pakistan Peoples Party has strongly opposed the division of Sindh, and the Sindh Assembly reiterated that position in September 2026. PPP leaders argue that Sindh’s territorial integrity, constitutional rights and provincial autonomy should be protected. By contrast, MQM Pakistan has advocated additional administrative units and greater decentralisation, while other parties have adopted varying positions depending on geography and political circumstances.

The Politics Behind Administrative Reform

These differences should not simply be dismissed as partisan obstruction. Questions of identity, historical boundaries, resources, representation and political influence are genuine considerations. Communities may reasonably ask whether administrative restructuring could weaken cultural identity, change access to resources or leave previously influential groups politically marginalised.

At the same time, political resistance should not prevent scrutiny of whether the existing administrative structure remains suitable for Pakistan’s present scale. The country counted approximately 241.5 million people in the 2023 census. Punjab alone had about 127.69 million, Sindh 55.70 million, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 40.86 million and Balochistan 14.89 million. Punjab therefore contains more people than many countries.

Such figures raise a legitimate governance question. Can very large and geographically diverse populations continue to be administered effectively through highly centralised provincial structures? The answer cannot be found merely by creating additional borders. Nor should the possibility of administrative restructuring be excluded without examining whether alternative arrangements could improve service delivery.

Constitution Before Cartography

There is also an important constitutional reality. New provinces cannot be produced through political slogans or ordinary resolutions. Article 239 establishes a demanding constitutional amendment process. Where an amendment would alter the boundaries of a province, Article 239 requires approval by not less than two thirds of the membership of the affected provincial assembly in addition to the parliamentary constitutional process.

That requirement makes political negotiation unavoidable. Administrative restructuring of this scale needs broad agreement rather than a temporary parliamentary majority or unilateral decision.

The constitutional difficulty, however, is separate from the question of administrative effectiveness. Opponents of new provinces can legitimately defend historical boundaries, but proposals for maintaining the existing structure should also explain how administrative distance, unequal development, overloaded provincial departments and weak local accountability would be addressed.

The first is identity. Any restructuring based principally on ethnicity or language could deepen political competition rather than improve administration. Criteria such as population, geographic continuity, economic viability, infrastructure, accessibility and public service requirements would provide a more administratively grounded basis for discussion. Language, heritage and cultural rights would still require explicit protection.

The second issue is cost. New provinces would require political and administrative institutions, including assemblies, cabinets, secretariats and associated public expenditure. Supporters of additional provinces would therefore need to demonstrate measurable benefits in service delivery rather than assuming that smaller automatically means better.

A third challenge concerns resources. Under the Seventh NFC Award, the provincial share of the divisible pool rose to 57.5 percent, while the horizontal distribution among provinces was fixed at 51.74 percent for Punjab, 24.55 percent for Sindh, 14.62 percent for Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and 9.09 percent for Balochistan. Creating more provinces would require a reconsideration of how the provincial share is distributed rather than automatically generating additional resources.

Perhaps the greatest danger is replacing one distant provincial capital with another. A new province would accomplish little if money and decision making remained concentrated in its secretariat.

Article 140A already provides an important constitutional principle. It requires each province to establish a local government system and devolve political, administrative and financial responsibility and authority to elected local representatives.

That provision goes to the heart of the governance debate. Everyday responsibilities such as sanitation, local roads, water supply, municipal services and small development schemes should not require intervention from a provincial capital. Strong districts, tehsils and union councils can shorten the distance between citizens and government regardless of whether provincial boundaries change.

The real policy choice, therefore, is wider than a simple contest between four provinces and a larger number of provinces. Pakistan can examine several models, including additional provinces, empowered administrative regions, substantially stronger district governments, or combinations of these approaches. Each model carries constitutional, financial and political consequences.

A reform that produces additional governors, ministers, offices and bureaucracies without improving schools, hospitals, policing, municipal services or local accountability would have little public value. Equally, defending existing boundaries without strengthening local governments would leave many of the underlying governance problems unresolved.

The useful question is therefore not simply how many provinces Pakistan should have. It is how authority, money and responsibility can be brought closer to citizens while preserving constitutionalism, provincial rights and social cohesion.

Pakistan’s map may or may not eventually change. The more consequential reform is the distribution of power beneath that map. Whatever administrative model emerges should be tested against four practical standards: closer public services, transparent allocation of resources, meaningful local representation and identifiable accountability.

The destination is not a different map. It is a state in which citizens do not have to travel farther, wait longer or depend on distant political and bureaucratic centres for matters that should be resolved within their own communities.