Who Wins in a Rewired Federation?
Sher Ahmed Durrani
Islamabad: The proposition to reorganise Pakistan into twelve administrative provinces represents not merely a question of governance reform, but a profound interrogation of the state’s federal architecture.
Framed in technocratic terms, efficiency, equity, and decentralisation, the proposal nonetheless intersects with deeply embedded perceptions of political exclusion, regional disparity, and identity-based marginalisation.
Since the dissolution of the One Unit scheme and the promulgation of the 1973 Constitution, Pakistan’s provincial structure has remained largely intact, reflecting a delicate accommodation between administrative necessity and ethno-linguistic identity.
Yet, over time, this arrangement has generated persistent tensions, particularly among regions that perceive themselves as structurally disadvantaged within existing provincial hierarchies.
Nowhere is this sentiment more pronounced than in southern Punjab, where a long-standing narrative of economic and political deprivation vis-à-vis central Punjab has taken root.
The metaphor of “Takht-e-Lahore”, shorthand for the concentration of power in Lahore, encapsulates a widely held belief that decision-making authority, development funds, and institutional influence remain disproportionately centralised.
Read More: https://thepenpk.com/pakistan-beyond-left-and-right/
In this context, demands for a separate province are not merely administrative claims but assertions of political recognition.
A parallel discourse exists within Sindh, particularly among the Urdu-speaking population concentrated in urban centres such as Karachi and Hyderabad.
Here, the perception persists that a Sindhi-majority provincial structure has resulted in the systematic marginalisation of urban constituencies. The critique is not solely about representation but about access to resources, employment, and administrative control, domains where many believe urban populations have been sidelined.
These perceptions of exclusion are neither isolated nor uniform. In Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, grievances are often articulated in terms of uneven development, limited political agency, and a persistent sense of peripheral status within the federation.
Similarly, communities in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan have long expressed concerns regarding constitutional ambiguity, restricted autonomy, and inadequate integration into Pakistan’s political framework.
Overlaying these regional dynamics is a broader critique of national political structures.
A recurring argument suggests that Pakistan’s governance trajectory has been shaped by a cyclical alternation of power between major political actors, notably the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), with its electoral stronghold in Punjab, and the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), rooted in Sindh.
Read More: https://thepenpk.com/balochistans-silent-poverty-crisis/
This perceived “ping-pong” of power, critics argue, has reinforced regional imbalances, leaving smaller provinces and peripheral regions politically marginalised since the country’s inception.
It is within this context of layered grievances that the proposal for administrative reorganisation acquires its normative appeal.
Proponents contend that the creation of smaller, functionally defined provinces could serve as an instrument of corrective federalism, redistributing power, enhancing representation, and enabling historically underrepresented regions to assert their presence within Pakistan’s political spectrum.
From a theoretical standpoint, such a shift aligns with broader debates in comparative federalism, where administrative decentralisation is often posited as a mechanism for managing diversity and improving governance outcomes.
Smaller units, it is argued, are more responsive, more accountable, and better positioned to address localised development needs. In this sense, the proposed restructuring is not merely a territorial adjustment but an attempt to recalibrate the relationship between state and society.
However, the normative promise of administrative rationalisation must be weighed against constitutional and political constraints.
Article 239 of the Constitution establishes a stringent amendment procedure, requiring not only a two-thirds parliamentary majority but also the consent of the concerned provincial assemblies.
This effectively embeds a structural resistance to unilateral reconfiguration, ensuring that any such transformation must emerge from broad-based political consensus, a condition that remains elusive.
Moreover, the assumption that administrative reorganisation can mitigate identity-based conflict warrants critical examination. Federal theory suggests that while decentralisation can accommodate diversity, it can also reconfigure, rather than resolve, underlying tensions. The creation of new provinces may empower certain groups, but it may simultaneously generate new contestations over boundaries, resources, and representation.
The fiscal dimension further complicates the equation. Establishing new provincial governments entails significant expenditure: administrative infrastructure, bureaucratic expansion, institutional duplication, and transitional governance mechanisms.
Read More: https://thepenpk.com/heart-of-asia-reimagined/
In a context of economic constraint, the opportunity cost of such a transformation cannot be ignored.
Yet, to dismiss the proposal outright would be to overlook the legitimacy of the grievances that animate it. The demand for administrative recognition in southern Punjab, the calls for urban autonomy in Sindh, and the broader sense of exclusion articulated in Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Kashmir, and Gilgit-Baltistan all point to a fundamental challenge: the need to reconcile federal structure with lived realities.
In this regard, the proposed devolution plan can be interpreted not simply as a technocratic reform but as a potential avenue for the retrieval and preservation of political identity within an inclusive federal framework.
By enabling smaller regions to achieve greater administrative visibility and political agency, such restructuring could, in principle, contribute to a more balanced and participatory federation.
However, this outcome is contingent upon process as much as design. Without inclusive dialogue, institutional preparedness, and constitutional legitimacy, even well-intentioned reforms risk exacerbating the very divisions they seek to address.
Ultimately, the debate over new provinces is less about numbers and boundaries than about the nature of the Pakistani state itself. Whether the federation evolves towards greater decentralisation or remains anchored in its current form will depend not only on political will but on the capacity to build consensus across a diverse and often divided polity.
Sher Ahmed Durrani is a senior lecturer in Political Science at the University of Loralai, Pakistan, and a PhD candidate at Quaid-i-Azam University. His research focuses on socio-political systems and sustainable development in South Asia. He can be reached at sherahmed.durrani@gmail.com.
The article is the writer’s opinion, it may or may not adhere to the organization’s editorial policy.
