Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi stirred an important national debate this week while addressing the Pakistan Economic Summit, where he acknowledged that Pakistan’s governance system has effectively collapsed and argued that difficult constitutional questions—including the creation of new provinces—can no longer be avoided. He maintained that such issues should be settled through political consensus rather than rhetoric or seminars.
His remarks deserve serious consideration because they touch upon one of Pakistan’s biggest structural weaknesses: a federation that has outgrown its administrative design.
For far too long, the debate over new provinces has been reduced to questions of ethnicity and identity. That is the wrong lens. The real issue is governance. Pakistan is a country of more than 250 million people, yet it continues to function with a provincial structure designed for a much smaller nation. As populations have multiplied and cities expanded, governance has become increasingly centralised, inefficient and detached from the people it is supposed to serve.
No province illustrates this problem better than Punjab. With nearly 140 million people, Punjab alone would rank as the world’s tenth most populous country if it were an independent state. It has a larger population than Russia, Japan, Germany or Mexico. Yet this enormous province is governed by a single chief minister and one provincial bureaucracy based in Lahore.
The result is predictable. Regions with distinct economic, social and geographical realities compete for attention from one provincial government that cannot possibly respond equally to every district. Southern Punjab, Potohar and central Punjab all have different priorities, but they remain tied to a highly centralised administrative structure that inevitably leaves many areas feeling neglected.
If Punjab is too large in terms of population, Balochistan is too large in terms of geography. Covering nearly 43 percent of Pakistan’s landmass, it remains a single administrative unit despite its vast distances and scattered population. Governing such an immense territory from Quetta alone has never been administratively practical. Better governance requires bringing government closer to the people, not expecting people to remain dependent on distant capitals.
The strongest argument against creating more provinces is usually financial. Critics argue that new provinces would require more governors, chief ministers, assemblies and bureaucracies, thereby increasing the burden on the national exchequer. That argument mistakes expenditure for investment.
The cost of poor governance is far greater than the cost of creating a few additional provincial governments. Delayed development projects, weak public services, poor planning, corruption and administrative inefficiency collectively drain the economy far more than the salaries of additional public officials ever could. Good governance is an investment that ultimately pays for itself through better service delivery and stronger economic performance.
But there is another reason why Pakistan needs to rethink its provincial map—one that goes to the heart of its federation. Punjab’s overwhelming demographic weight has fundamentally shaped national politics. Because it sends the largest number of members to the National Assembly, any party that dominates Punjab gains a decisive advantage in forming the federal government. This electoral arithmetic has created a structural incentive for political parties to concentrate disproportionate attention on Punjab because the road to the Prime Minister’s Office largely passes through it.
The Pakistan Muslim League (N) has historically benefited the most from this reality. Its political strength has long been rooted in Punjab, enabling it to convert provincial dominance into federal power. Whether fair or not, this has reinforced a widespread perception in the smaller provinces that whenever the PML-N forms the federal government, Punjab naturally becomes the principal focus of political attention and development priorities.
This is not merely a criticism of one political party. It is a flaw in the system itself. As long as one province overwhelmingly determines who governs Pakistan, every major political party will have a strong electoral incentive to prioritise that province over the rest of the federation.
Creating smaller administrative provinces in Punjab would help rebalance these incentives. Instead of one giant electoral battleground, there would be several provinces with their own political leadership and priorities. Winning one province would no longer provide the same overwhelming advantage at the federal level. National parties would have to broaden their appeal, compete more seriously across Pakistan and invest politically in every federating unit.
Such a reform would also weaken the grip of dynastic politics. Pakistan’s largest provinces have become strongholds of a handful of powerful political families. The concentration of political and administrative authority naturally benefits entrenched elites and limits opportunities for new leadership to emerge. Smaller provinces would create new provincial capitals, new chief ministers and new political arenas where fresh leadership could develop. Democracy would become more competitive instead of revolving around the same families generation after generation.
The debate also exposes an inconsistency in Pakistan’s politics. The Pakistan Peoples Party has often supported the idea of creating new provinces in Punjab but strongly opposes dividing Sindh. Administrative reform, however, cannot be guided by partisan convenience. If the principle is better governance, then it should apply equally to every province. No province should be considered too large to reform or too politically sensitive to modernise.
Many successful federations have periodically reorganised their internal boundaries to improve governance as populations have grown. Pakistan should not regard its provincial map as untouchable. Administrative boundaries are meant to serve citizens, not political interests.
Mohsin Naqvi was right to argue that Pakistan must begin discussing difficult constitutional reforms. The question is no longer whether the current provincial structure served Pakistan in the past. The question is whether it can serve Pakistan’s future.
Pakistan does not suffer because it has too many provinces. It suffers because too many people are governed through too few administrative units.
Creating smaller provinces will not solve every problem confronting the country. But it can strengthen governance, rebalance the federation, dilute entrenched political monopolies and bring government closer to the people.
The real threat to Pakistan’s unity is not administrative decentralisation. It is clinging to a governance model that no longer matches the size, complexity and aspirations of the nation.
Zalmay Azad : The author is an Islamabad -based senior journalist . He regularly contributed for NEWSMAN