Lead

Pakistan's ongoing debate over whether to create new provinces has highlighted a deeper tension in the country's governance, according to reporting by Dawn. The conversation, framed as an effort to build the federation on new foundations, has drawn contrasting analyses about its purpose and potential impact, with one argument suggesting the nation's crisis is institutional rather than geographical and another warning that the push may be led by opportunistic elements seeking to dismantle federalism.

Coverage Comparison

Dawn published at least two contrasting pieces with fundamentally different takes on the matter. One argues the move is not about good governance, but an attempt to dismantle the federal structure, while the other offers an analytical view that new provinces alone cannot remedy systemic issues without institutional reform.

The second piece, titled "Wrong solution to the right problem," contends that the governance crisis is fundamentally institutional rather than geographical. It argues that merely creating new provinces addresses only regional identity and administrative reach, but the real deficiencies lie in the failure to implement the constitutional framework for local government and in the concentration of resources at the provincial level.

Key Claims

The 18th Amendment and its associated NFC award strengthened provinces and endowed them with ample resources, as reported by Dawn.

Pakistan has also been stuck in a gruelling economic stabilisation programme since July 2023, Dawn notes. The State Bank hinted that it would have reached its reserve target by December, per the same source. Additionally, the government announced two subsidised credit schemes, which may breach commitments given to the IMF, according to Dawn.

The interior minister suggested that the 'system has collapsed' and perhaps a new federal structure is needed, as reported by Dawn.

A key point raised by Dawn is that our crisis is fundamentally institutional rather than geographical. While the creation of new provinces may address certain concerns about regional identity, representation, and administrative reach, it cannot by itself fix systemic deficiencies in governance. Without meaningful institutional reform, decentralisation and fiscal planning, new provinces seem to risk reproducing existing problems at a greater administrative and financial cost.

Moreover, Pakistan's Constitution already embraces a three-tier system of governance. Article 140A requires provinces to establish local governments and devolve political, administrative and financial responsibility to elected local representatives. Our experience has often been the opposite: local governments have frequently been weakened, dissolved, or deprived of meaningful financial autonomy, while development funds and administrative authority remain concentrated at the provincial level. The financial implications of creating new provinces are substantial.

Perspectives

Defending the Constitution

The editor suggests the conversation about building the federation on new foundations has exposed the most opportunistic elements among us: people who crave the opportunity to enter public life have no chance to do so as long as Pakistan remains even nominally a democracy, so they are most excited by the idea of dismantling the federal structure and replacing it with some reloaded form of a unitary state from the 1960s. This is not about good governance, they argue. Those are pious words used to mask impious intentions. It is actually about wrecking the fortresses into which the democratic forces—the PTI, PML-N, and PPP—have been forced to retreat. Each party is kept alive by the resources and powers of the provincial government they control. Consider how the PML-Q shrank when it lost control and then made a spirited attempt to gain control of Punjab in 2022. This is why the 18th Amendment and the NFC Award gave provinces ample resources—to build fortresses into which democratic power centres could retreat when the inevitable reassertion of non-democratic power came. The interior minister's words are the first major growl against such fortresses.

Institutional Perspective

Another perspective, equally concerned with the integrity of federalism, argues that the real problem is not the geographical boundaries of provinces but the failure to implement the constitutional framework for local governance. The Constitution already provides for a three-tier system, with Article 140A mandating that provinces establish local governments and devolve political, administrative and financial responsibility to elected local representatives. Yet, in practice, local governments are often weakened, dissolved, or left without financial autonomy, while development funds and administrative authority remain concentrated at the provincial level. Creating new provinces without addressing this institutional gap would be an expensive venture with substantial financial implications, as each new province would require its own administrative machinery and resources. The core issue is not the absence of a constitutional mechanism but the persistent failure to activate it. Therefore, while new provinces may symbolically address certain regional grievances, they risk reproducing the same concentration of power and resources at a new level, unless accompanied by genuine devolution to local governments. This view stresses that the answer lies in implementing what is already in the constitution, rather than redrawing maps.