Pakistan’s governance crisis demands administrative reform

Pakistan’s recurring debate over creating new provinces is too often reduced to questions of ethnicity, language and political bargaining. That framing obscures the real issue. The challenge is not how many provinces Pakistan should have, but whether its governance architecture has kept pace with the country’s demographic and administrative transformation.

Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi’s recent call for additional administrative units has revived a politically sensitive discussion. Predictably, much of the debate has centred on constitutional hurdles and fears of ethnic fragmentation. Yet the more important question is whether Pakistan can continue governing a population that has grown from roughly 65 million in the early 1970s to nearly 250 million today through an administrative structure that has changed remarkably little.

Administrative reform should not be viewed as a political concession or an exercise in redrawing maps. It is fundamentally an investment in state capacity. As populations grow and economies become more complex, governments must periodically redesign institutions to remain accessible, responsive and capable of delivering public services.

Governance has outgrown the existing structure

Pakistan’s first-tier administrative structure was designed for a country that was substantially smaller and less economically complex than it is today. Provincial governments now administer populations larger than many sovereign states, placing extraordinary pressure on institutions responsible for education, healthcare, policing, infrastructure and development.

The consequences are visible across the country. Oversized administrative units inevitably increase the distance between citizens and decision-makers. Provincial governments struggle to deliver services equitably across vast territories, while remote and less-developed regions frequently receive less administrative attention than provincial capitals and major urban centres.

The governance challenge became more pronounced after the 18th Constitutional Amendment. Although powers and financial resources were substantially devolved from the federation to the provinces, meaningful political, administrative and fiscal devolution from provinces to local governments has remained limited. Decision-making therefore continues to be concentrated in provincial capitals despite constitutional commitments to local governance. This is not a failure of democracy; it is a failure of administrative design.

If meaningful decentralisation continues to face political resistance, Pakistan must at least ask whether its first-tier administrative units have simply become too large to govern effectively. The objective is not to weaken existing provinces but to ensure that government remains close enough to citizens to respond efficiently to their needs.

Administrative reform is an economic imperative

The debate over additional administrative units has long been trapped within ethnic and linguistic narratives. That is precisely why meaningful reform has remained politically difficult.

Administrative boundaries should not be drawn to satisfy identity politics. They should be designed to improve governance, strengthen public institutions and promote equitable development. Objective criteria such as population size, administrative workload, geographic accessibility, infrastructure connectivity, economic viability and service-delivery requirements provide a far stronger basis for reform than ethnicity or language.

International experience supports this approach. India, Indonesia and Nigeria have all expanded or reorganised their first-level administrative structures as populations increased and governance demands evolved. Their objective was not to weaken national unity but to improve administrative accessibility and regional development. Their experience suggests that effective governance depends less on territorial size than on the state’s ability to remain accessible and responsive.

Administrative proximity also generates significant economic dividends. Smaller administrative units enable governments to develop policies tailored to regional comparative advantages in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, tourism and logistics. Rather than concentrating investment in a handful of metropolitan centres, decentralised planning encourages balanced regional growth, creates new administrative and commercial hubs, and improves the overall investment climate.

This matters beyond Pakistan’s borders. As South Asia becomes increasingly integrated into regional supply chains, energy corridors and digital commerce, administrative efficiency becomes an economic variable rather than merely a political one. Investors value predictable regulation, efficient land administration, responsive institutions and reliable infrastructure. Governance reform therefore has implications not only for public service delivery but also for Pakistan’s long-term competitiveness within Asia.

The democratic benefits are equally significant. Bringing government closer to citizens strengthens accountability, broadens political participation and creates greater opportunities for local leadership. Pakistan also possesses an important practical advantage: its existing network of divisions, districts and administrative headquarters provides an institutional foundation for gradual administrative reorganisation without requiring an entirely new bureaucracy.

Building state capacity for the twenty-first century

Administrative reform alone will not solve Pakistan’s governance challenges. Stronger local governments, greater fiscal decentralisation and modern public administration remain essential. But administrative reorganisation should be understood as part of a broader strategy to strengthen state capacity rather than as an isolated constitutional exercise.

Pakistan’s recurring fiscal crises demonstrate that macroeconomic stabilisation alone cannot compensate for weak administrative institutions. Administrative efficiency directly influences tax collection, infrastructure delivery, investment confidence and the quality of public services. Governance reform is therefore not simply an institutional issue; it is increasingly an economic necessity.

The same logic applies to climate resilience. As Pakistan faces more frequent floods, heatwaves, droughts and other climate-related shocks, governance capacity at the regional and local levels becomes increasingly important. Smaller administrative units, supported by stronger local governments, can respond more rapidly to emergencies, coordinate disaster management more effectively and tailor climate adaptation strategies to local conditions.

Advances in digital government, artificial intelligence, geospatial planning and integrated public data systems further strengthen the case for bringing governance closer to citizens. Shared national digital platforms can maintain common administrative standards while enabling smaller regional administrations to deliver services more efficiently. Technology increasingly reduces the bureaucratic advantages that historically justified highly centralised governance.

Whether Pakistan ultimately creates additional provinces, administrative regions or another constitutional arrangement should remain a matter of political consensus. But the debate itself should move beyond identity politics and focus instead on administrative effectiveness and state capacity.

Whether Mohsin Naqvi’s proposal ultimately succeeds politically is a separate question. Its greater significance is that it has reopened an overdue national conversation about whether Pakistan’s institutions have evolved alongside its population and economy.

Pakistan possesses the institutional foundations and administrative experience needed to undertake such reforms. Its established network of divisions, districts and administrative institutions provides a practical basis for gradual reorganisation. The principal challenge is therefore not institutional possibility but political consensus.

Pakistan’s real challenge is no longer whether the country has grown. It is whether its governance architecture has evolved at the same pace. Administrative reform is therefore not about creating more politicians or satisfying regional demands. It is about building a state that is accessible, accountable and capable of delivering public services efficiently while strengthening Pakistan’s long-term economic competitiveness and institutional resilience.

A stronger federation is built not by concentrating power in ever-larger capitals, but by bringing governance closer to the people.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.