Analysis
Ansar Mahmood Bhatti
The debate surrounding the creation of new provinces in Pakistan has once again taken center stage. It is a debate that often appears wayward, lacking coherence and direction, yet it is rooted in a genuine need for administrative restructuring. The question is not whether Pakistan needs new provinces, it certainly does, but whether the way this debate is being conducted will lead to meaningful reform or simply another exercise in political maneuvering.
Punjab, by sheer size and population, has long created a political imbalance in the federation. Its dominance in the National Assembly, bureaucracy, and even the military has often left other provinces feeling marginalized. The division of Punjab is not only logical but necessary. Smaller administrative units would allow for better governance, more equitable distribution of resources, and greater representation for diverse communities. In fact, all provinces require division into smaller, more manageable units. Sindh, Balochistan, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa each have their own internal complexities that could be better addressed through smaller provinces.
At its core, however, the push for new provinces is not merely about administrative efficiency. It is deeply political. The establishment, it seems, seeks to dismantle the entrenched two-family rule that has dominated Pakistan’s politics for decades. The Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), led by the Bhuttos and Sharifs respectively, have alternated in power, often leaving behind a legacy of misrule, corruption, and poor governance.
Every time these families returned to office, promises of reform were quickly replaced by self-interest and patronage politics. Their governance has been marked by corruption, nepotism, and incompetence. The children of these dynasties have shown little capability to lead effectively, and the parties themselves have reached a point of stagnation. The establishment believes that by creating new political units, it can open space for fresh leadership and new political actors, thereby breaking the cycle of dynastic politics.
Interestingly, history shows that whenever military dictators ruled, governance indicators often appeared better at least in terms of administrative efficiency and economic management. Roads were built, institutions functioned, and the economy often grew at a faster pace. This does not mean dictatorship should be preferred over democracy. Rather, it highlights the failure of democratic leaders to learn from their mistakes. Democracy, in Pakistan, has been reduced to a game of personalities rather than institutions.
The tragedy is that democratic leaders have failed to strengthen institutions. They have focused instead on consolidating personal power. The result is a democracy that exists in form but not in substance. For democracy to succeed, leaders must learn from past mistakes, reform institutions, and prioritize national interest over personal gain.
Yet, the real issue is not the number of provinces. The real issue is the mindset, attitude, and practices of those who govern. If the same entrenched families are allowed to dominate the new provinces, then the exercise will be futile. They will ensure their relatives and loyalists capture power in these new units, perpetuating the same cycle of corruption and inefficiency.
What Pakistan truly needs is systemic reform. An all-inclusive government of technocrats, drawn from the available talent pool, could help reset the system. Reforms in the Election Commission, police, and bureaucracy must precede any move toward new provinces. Without institutional reform, new provinces will simply replicate old failures.
As for political consensus, it will eventually come. PPP and PML-N have little choice but to agree to proposals for new provinces. Their resistance is not rooted in concern for the people of Pakistan but in their own survival. They seek concessions and guarantees for their future relevance. But the tide of change is against them, it seems.
The prevailing situation favors Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), which has regained relevance despite setbacks. PTI still enjoys significant popularity and cannot be sidelined indefinitely. How PTI is dealt with in the future will determine the trajectory of Pakistan’s stability. If excluded unfairly, instability will persist. If included constructively, PTI could play a role in reshaping the political landscape.
The creation of new provinces, therefore, should not be seen as an end in itself. It is a means to an end—the end being a more representative, efficient, and corruption-free political order. But unless Pakistan changes the way it practices politics, new provinces will merely be cosmetic.
The establishment’s, or for that matter, a common desire to end dynastic politics is understandable. For decades, two families have monopolized power without delivering meaningful progress. Pakistan has seen similar debates before. The demand for a separate Hazara province in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the calls for a Bahawalpur province in Punjab, and the push for administrative restructuring in Sindh all highlight the complexities of provincial politics. These movements were driven by genuine grievances, lack of representation, neglect of development, and cultural identity. Yet, they were often hijacked by political elites for their own gain.
The lesson is clear: new provinces must be created with genuine intent to improve governance, not as tools for political manipulation. Otherwise, they will become another layer of bureaucracy without delivering real change.
The real challenge is to change mindsets, attitudes, and practices. Only then can Pakistan move toward a future where democracy is not a game of families, but a system of institutions serving the people. The establishment may believe that new provinces will end dynastic politics, but unless institutions are reformed and accountability is enforced, the same families will continue to dominate.
Pakistan needs new provinces, yes. But more importantly, it needs new politics.
