By Mashal Khan 

Pakistan is approaching eight decades of independence, yet one question continues to return whenever the country debates governance, development and political representation: is Pakistan being governed through administrative units that are simply too large to serve their people effectively?

Pakistan currently has four provinces -- Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan -- alongside federally administered territory like Islamabad. The four provinces are vastly different in population, geography, resources and development needs. Yet political and administrative power remains heavily concentrated in provincial capitals.

The result is a familiar pattern: Lahore dominates Punjab's political and administrative attention; Karachi dominates Sindh; Peshawar dominates Khyber Pakhtunkhwa; and Quetta dominates Balochistan.

The people living far from these provincial capitals often have a very different experience of the state.

A resident of a remote district may have to travel hundreds of kilometres to access a major hospital, university, government office or other essential service. Development projects are frequently concentrated around major cities and district headquarters, while remote communities continue to struggle with roads, schools, healthcare, clean water, electricity and employment.

This is not simply a question of geography. It is a question of political power.

- Politics of four giant provinces

Pakistan's major political parties, particularly the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and PTI, have traditionally built powerful political structures around provincial and national politics. These parties are among the country's most influential parties.

The debate over creating new provinces therefore has an unavoidable political dimension.

A smaller province would create a new political centre, a new provincial assembly, a new chief minister and a new administration. Political parties would have to compete for support in regions that could no longer be governed from a distant provincial capital.

That could change the political equation.

Today, a political party that controls a major province can wield enormous influence over development spending, bureaucracy, appointments and political networks. Smaller provinces could distribute some of that power more widely.

This is one reason the debate deserves much more serious public discussion.

But it would be too simplistic to say that PML-N or PPP oppose new provinces solely because they fear losing power. Their positions have varied over time, and the question involves constitutional, political, financial and geographical complications.

The stronger argument is this: any party that claims to believe in public service should be willing to consider administrative restructuring if it can demonstrably improve people's lives.

- Look at our neighbours

Pakistan's reluctance to redraw its provincial map becomes more striking when we look around South Asia.

India, with a population of more than 1.4 billion, has 28 states and eight Union Territories. Bangladesh has eight divisions, Nepal has seven provinces, Afghanistan has 34 provinces, Bhutan has 20 dzongkhags, and the Maldives has 20 administrative divisions.

The point is not that Pakistan should simply copy another country's model.

The point is that large populations do not necessarily require a small number of provincial governments.

India has repeatedly reorganised its internal administrative map since independence. Pakistan can also debate whether its existing structure remains suitable for its present population and development needs.

And the comparison does not stop at South Asia.

Among the world's 10 most populous countries, India has 28 states plus eight Union Territories; China has 23 provinces alongside other first-level units; the United States has 50 states; Indonesia has 38 provinces; Nigeria has 36 states; Brazil has 26 states plus a Federal District; and Ethiopia has 12 regional states plus two chartered cities.

Pakistan, with a population exceeding 250 million, has only four provinces.

That contrast should at least make us ask whether four provincial governments are enough to administer a country of Pakistan's size and diversity.

- The problem is not only the number of provinces

There is an important qualification.

Creating new provinces alone will not magically solve Pakistan's governance crisis.

Pakistan's deeper problem is the concentration of authority at the top.

Article 140A of the Constitution requires each province to establish a local-government system and devolve political, administrative and financial responsibility to elected local representatives.

Yet research by the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE) has repeatedly highlighted Pakistan's unfinished decentralisation. PIDE argues that provincial governments have often retained powers that should move closer to districts, municipalities and local communities.

In other words, Pakistan has sometimes replaced centralisation in Islamabad with centralisation in provincial capitals.

That is not genuine devolution.

A new province that simply creates another powerful capital, while leaving districts dependent on that capital, would reproduce the same problem at a smaller scale.

Therefore, new provinces must come with strong elected local governments, transparent financial transfers, empowered district administrations and accountable provincial institutions.

- Smaller provinces could bring government closer

Imagine Punjab divided into several manageable administrative provinces.

Instead of one government in Lahore trying to manage the needs of an enormous and diverse territory, several provincial governments could develop policies around the specific economic and social conditions of their regions.

The same principle could apply to Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan.

A southern Sindh province could focus on its own infrastructure and economic priorities. A separate administrative unit in the north or interior could focus on neglected rural communities.

In Balochistan, where geography itself makes administration extraordinarily difficult, smaller and more locally responsive governance structures could potentially bring the state closer to remote communities.

In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, mountainous and geographically distant districts face challenges very different from those of Peshawar and the central districts.

The same is true in Punjab, where the problems of major urban centres are very different from those faced by remote rural communities.

- Competition could become a force for development

There is another potential advantage.

If Pakistan had more provinces, each provincial government would have a much clearer political incentive to demonstrate results.

A chief minister could not simply point to the size of the province or blame distant regions for poor performance.

Citizens would be able to ask a much simpler question:

What did your government do for our province?

Roads. Hospitals. Schools. Universities. Agriculture. Industry. Employment. Water. Electricity. Public transport.

A smaller administrative unit could make political accountability easier because citizens would know more clearly who is responsible.

Competition among provinces could also become a development tool. If one province improves education, another may be forced to compete. If one develops industrial zones, others may have to respond. If one improves healthcare, citizens elsewhere will demand the same.

This is how federalism can become a race to the top rather than a competition for political patronage.

- But there are serious risks

Supporters of new provinces should also acknowledge the risks.

Creating new provinces would require additional administrative structures, assemblies, secretariats and bureaucracies. It could increase expenditure if not carefully designed.

Pakistan's own experience shows that simply moving power from one level to another is insufficient. PIDE has noted that provinces have often failed to devolve authority effectively to local governments.

Therefore, the debate should not be "more provinces or nothing."

It should be: more manageable provinces + empowered local governments + transparent finances + accountable politicians.

- What about PML-N and PPP?

PML-N and PPP should not fear this debate.

If they genuinely believe their strength comes from serving people, new provinces could actually give them more opportunities to demonstrate that ability.

A party could win a smaller province and show what it can achieve within four or five years.

If it builds hospitals, improves schools, creates jobs, develops agriculture and industry and delivers better public services, people will vote for it again.

But if political parties depend on keeping regions underdeveloped, maintaining patronage networks and concentrating authority in a few political families or capitals, then administrative decentralisation could threaten those established structures.

That is precisely why the debate matters.

Democracy should not exist merely to determine who controls power.

It should determine how power is distributed and how effectively it serves citizens.

PIDE has similarly argued that Pakistan needs stronger local governance and that excessive concentration of authority in provincial governments can prevent decision-making from responding adequately to local needs.

- Pakistan should start the debate now

Pakistan does not need to announce an arbitrary number of new provinces tomorrow.

It needs a national commission on administrative restructuring involving constitutional experts, economists, political parties, provincial representatives, local governments, civil society and citizens.

It should then present possible models to Parliament and the public.

There is also a constitutional obstacle that cannot be ignored: creating a new province carved out of an existing province requires constitutional amendment and the consent thresholds specified in the Constitution. That makes political consensus essential.

But constitutional difficulty should not become an excuse for avoiding the discussion.

Pakistan has changed enormously since 1947.

Its population has exploded. Its cities have expanded. New economic centres have emerged. Remote districts still face enormous development gaps. Yet the basic provincial map has remained largely unchanged.

Can a country of more than 250 million people continue to be effectively governed through four provinces?

That is the question Pakistan's political leadership should answer.

The objective should not be to weaken Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or Balochistan.

The objective should be to make governance smaller, closer, faster and more accountable.

More provinces are not a magic solution.

But refusing even to consider them may be an even bigger mistake.

Pakistan needs to move beyond the politics of provincial capitals and towards a system where a citizen living in a remote district feels that government belongs to them too.