THE dismantling of democratic structures and institutions within the past decade will likely take many more decades to recover from. During this time, we’ve already seen a muzzle on the press, a scalpel to the courts, and are now deliberating a wrecking ball for the Pakistani federation. The idea of carving the country into more provinces is neither new nor original, and yet it resurfaces like a political influenza every so often. Just recently, it has given us a sustained campaign by the Istehkam-i-Pakistan Party for 16 provinces, squabbles in the Sindh Assembly over a resolution against dividing Sindh, bickering between the PPP and PML-N over whose province should be bifurcated first, and wild rumours in Islamabad of what a potential 28th Amendment may look like.
People usually make this case for two reasons. One stems from a bottom-up demand for an ethnolinguistic group to be recognised, such as in South Punjab. The other is a top-down argument for efficiency that, in fact, cloaks a centralisation impulse within the language of decentralisation. The details may vary, but the broad idea is that the present structure is too top-heavy; that the provinces — supposedly empowered after the 18th Amendment — are too unwieldy as units. Breaking free from such provincial capture is presented as the ultimate technocratic solution.
The diagnosis is correct. Pakistan is highly centralised at both the provincial and — as is conveniently ignored in such analyses — federal levels, where the 60 or so cabinet positions belie any claims of right-sizing. It is also an established fact that decentralisation produces better results for more people in more places, and that it requires far greater devolution to the grassroots than is currently the case. However, if devolution is really the aim; if more responsive, more accountable governance is really the goal, then there is a perfectly usable and proven mechanism available in the form of local governments (LGs).
Over multiple decades now, every serious analysis of Pakistan’s governance landscape has reached the same conclusion: it is impossible to establish grassroots democracy or improve service delivery without a third tier of government. In this, there is no conceivable gain to be had from extra provinces that cannot be had from politically, administratively and fiscally empowered LGs. Assuming no ulterior motives or intellectual dishonesty, why would proponents of decentralisation not be rallying for meaningful devolution to the third tier rather than dismembering the second?
LGs need to exist as a logical extension of the federal structure.
Besides the bureaucracy — which has long occupied the vacuum left behind by LGs — it is a historical fact that our political leadership has resisted meaningfully backing the third tier, viewing it as a threat instead of a democratic opportunity. It is still entirely within their burden of responsibilities to generate enough cross-party momentum to reach a consensus. This is, admittedly, a challenge in the current political climate; and yet somehow seems less of a challenge than the creation of new provinces.
Beyond the technical shallowness of this idea, it is also devoid of any political memory. It completely disregards the political symbolism of the province and what it means to those who call it home. This is not meant as sentimentalism; it’s a lesson in history that lawmakers would do well to remember before taking an axe to the structure of the country. As much as centralising forces have categorised this as a thought-crime, it remains true that Pakistan was envisioned as a state comprised of multiple nations. The ethnolinguistic boundaries of our provinces matter. Recognising, respecting and nourishing them makes the federation stronger, not weaker.
Provinces are also the bulwark of political resistance. This is why dictators love bypassing them. This is also why, as any student of history knows, LGs have flourished during times of dictatorship, and have long been used to create an illusion of decentralisation, while circumventing the provincial tier and its political leadership. It falls to the guardians of Pakistan’s democratic structure to preserve the integrity of the second tier and take ownership of the third. In other words, LGs need to exist not as a replacement of the federal structure, but as a logical extension of it.
Political temperatures in this country are already soaring — especially at the peripheries of KP and Balochistan — and any tinkering with the federal structure will inevitably be seen as another power grab by the centre. The delicate balance of this federation has been built on hard-won battles and bitter lessons. It would be a waste for the architects of the 18th Amendment and the Charter of Democracy to throw it all away for short-term political gain.
The writer is a governance specialist.
Published in Dawn, February 25th, 2026
