MORE provinces or empowered local governments? The debate has been sparked, it seems. And it wasn’t just due to forwarded-as-received WhatsApp posts, which ‘announced’ multiple, smaller provinces but also the research presented by media owners-turned-public intellectuals, who are so convinced of the need for this reform that they are now trying to shape opinion at large.
The government and its allies profess ignorance and deny that any such move is in the offing. But the rest of us know better and are taking these ‘mazameen’ (inspiration) from ‘ghaib’ (unknown) rather seriously. After all, unlike the government, the rest are openly aware of the importance of the unknown. As a result, the debate rages on.
More provinces are needed, we are told. India has been carving out states whenever needed. It helps improve governance because the ‘seat’ of the government is closer to the people; for instance, the people of south Punjab would find, say, Multan more accessible than Lahore. It would also ensure cities such as Karachi get the resources and attention they deserve. And, aside from these other benefits, some argue, it would also weaken political dynasties that control entire provinces.
But not everyone is convinced. In fact, there has been commentary and discussions highlighting how cumbersome and time-consuming the process of establishing new provinces could be. For instance, every new province requires a two-thirds majority in the relevant assembly and even if this is managed, it would be followed by a drawn-out process of administrative measures (such as the drawing up of new boundaries) and the setting up of governments in multiple parts of the country. It has been asked if this would not add to the existing polarisation. Local government has been offered as a solution — an alternative that has, perhaps, more supporters than the idea of new provinces.
Whether the empowerment of the people is really the objective is the question.
These proposals have generated an interest because of the acknowledgment that the current political system is not working and — whether in democratic set-up or a hybrid dispensation — all political parties have struggled with governance and implementation of the needed reform. This is the silent consensus regardless of party affiliation — other than the party heads who have turned parties and provinces into fiefdoms and have no interest in any change. Indeed, the 18th Amendment has ensured the older, mainstream parties now only have regional ambitions, ie, dominating the provinces rather than trying to increase their cross-country appeal. There is a direct link between the 18th Amendment and the increasing focus of the PPP in Sindh and the PML-N in Punjab.
But this is a digression. Most others realise the need for change in the political set-up, assuming, or rather hoping, that this will lead to badly needed reform, especially in the economic sphere, and an improvement in governance.
However, the various discussions on the topic should not ignore the larger, political context in which these solutions are conjured up. And this larger context is one in which political parties are hampered, civilian space is limited (if not non-existent) and very unsubtle efforts are being made to argue that parliamentary politics and parties have failed to deliver.
In the past, whenever we have had similar moments, the devolution of power has always been offered as the magical solution. This age-old formula is supposed to ease the people’s misery, empower them and rid them of corrupt politicians. But whether the empowerment of the people is really the objective is the question because it is offered at moments when the centralisation of power is also at play. It appears as if the present times may prove to be no different.
But this is not all. The second issue is that such efforts rarely prove permanent. Just consider Pervez Musharraf’s local government system. By the time general elections were held in 2002 and ‘parliamentary democracy’ restored, the politicians at the provincial and national level began to slowly reverse or weaken the local government systems. Come 2008, and the system was more or less wrapped up.
Once the 18th Amendment was passed, power was concentrated at the provincial level, and the local governments were left to the mercy of each government (the amendment conveniently allowed each provincial assembly to pass its own local government act and decide how much powers to devolve). Initially, even this legislation was delayed till pressure from the courts forced the hand of the provincial governments. And the parties running the provinces made sure they passed legislation that led to weak and ineffective local governments. Perhaps one can say that the local governments enjoyed about as much power as the present federal government does. Even the PTI, which introduced a relatively stronger local government in KP, progressively weakened them as time went on.
Hence, it might not be a waste of time to ask how long-lasting any such move will be. Partly because half the challenge in Pakistan is the back and forth between different experiments as elites try to strengthen themselves against their rivals. This tug of war means there is little stability in terms of the path ahead.
Perhaps what we need additionally at the moment is not just a discussion on the political reform needed but also a debate about what could create a consensus on the need for more devolution of power. What would push political parties to not just acknowledge but also accept the need for local governments or more provinces? Without this kind of a consensus, any such effort to devolve power will not be easy and if pushed through coercion, it will last as long as its creators enjoy power. Beyond that moment, anything is possible. Such formulas bring neither stability nor progress.
The writer is a journalist.
Published in Dawn, September 2nd, 2025
