The debate over creating more provinces in Pakistan has resurfaced with renewed urgency, driven by persistent governance failures, regional disparities, and the growing disconnect between citizens and their representatives. While proponents argue that smaller administrative units could strengthen the federation and improve service delivery, critics warn of political fragmentation, financial strain, and ethnic polarization. The question remains: is the creation of new provinces a viable solution to Pakistan’s structural challenges, or a recipe for deeper complications?
Pakistan’s current provincial framework— comprising four provinces, a federal capital, and special territories— has proven inadequate in representing the country’s diverse mosaic of ethnicities, languages, and communities. Punjab alone accounts for 56 percent of the national population, while Baluchistan hosts a mere five percent. This imbalance has led to disproportionate resource allocation, skewed political representation, and a sense of marginalization among the peripheral regions.
Proponents of administrative restructuring argue that smaller provinces would bring governance closer to the people. Provincial capitals like Lahore, Karachi, and Peshawar are often geographically and politically distant from rural districts, making access to government services difficult. Smaller units could enable localized decision-making, faster responsiveness, and tailored development strategies. As seen in Türkiye, which expanded to 81 provinces in 1999, decentralization yielded fiscal dividends and improved per capita income to $16,700— compared to Pakistan’s $1,824.
The creation of more provinces in Pakistan is not a panacea, but it is a viable step toward addressing the country’s core governance challenges. If implemented with constitutional safeguards, fiscal planning, and inclusive dialogue, it could strengthen the federation, empower marginalized communities, and unlock Pakistan’s developmental potential. The alternative— clinging to a colonial-era framework that no longer serves the nation— risks perpetuating inequality, resentment, and stagnation.
The case for more provinces also rests on equitable resource distribution. Currently, development budgets tend to concentrate in provincial capitals and urban centres, leaving regions like South Punjab, interior Sindh, and rural Baluchistan underdeveloped. A more granular administrative structure could ensure fairer allocation of funds, better representation in provincial assemblies, and targeted interventions in health, education, and infrastructure. Indonesia, with 34 provinces and a population of 275 million, has demonstrated how administrative diversity could support balanced national development.
Politically, the creation of new provinces is expected to help disperse monopolies and reduce the dominance of entrenched parties. It may also placate long-standing grievances rooted in ethnic and linguistic identity, such as those voiced by the Seraiki belt and Hazara region. By acknowledging these identities within a federal framework, Pakistan could strengthen national unity rather than weaken it. However, the proposal is not without serious challenges. Constitutionally, Article 239(4) requires a two-thirds majority in the concerned provincial assembly to redraw boundaries, followed by similar approval in both the Senate and National Assembly. This makes the process politically arduous, especially given resistance from Punjab and Sindh, which would fear loss of influence and resources.
Financially, the creation of new provinces entails substantial costs. Establishing new assemblies, bureaucracies, and infrastructure would require billions in public expenditure. In a country already grappling with fiscal deficits and IMF conditionalities, this burden could further strain national coffers. The critics opine that Pakistan should instead focus on reforming governance and improving service delivery within the existing boundaries.
There is also the risk of exacerbating ethnic and linguistic divides. In a politically volatile environment, redrawing boundaries could fuel identity politics, deepen polarization, and even trigger separatist sentiments. Pakistan’s history of regional tensions— from Baluchistan’s autonomy movements to Sindh’s urban-rural divide— suggests that any restructuring must be handled with extreme care and consensus-building.
Moreover, political parties may resist the move due to fears of losing vote banks and influence. The status quo benefits centralized leadership and patronage networks, which thrive on concentrated power. Without broad-based political will and civil society engagement, the proposal risks being derailed or manipulated for partisan gains.
Despite these concerns, the argument for smaller provinces remains compelling— if pursued strategically. The current model has failed to deliver on key development indicators: Pakistan ranks 140th on the Sustainable Development Goals Index, 164th on the Human Development Index, and 109th on the Global Hunger Index. Nearly 25.37 million children remain out of school, and only 38% of the population has access to safe drinking water. These are not just statistics; rather, symptoms of a governance model that is too centralized, too distant, and too unresponsive to the peoples’ needs.
The solution lies not in arbitrary redistricting but in a governance-centric framework built on national consensus. A phased approach—starting with administrative divisions that already exhibit distinct identities and developmental needs—could pave the way for broader reform. Political parties, civil society, and the media must be engaged in a transparent dialogue to ensure that restructuring serves the people, not power brokers.
The creation of more provinces in Pakistan is not a panacea, but it is a viable step toward addressing the country’s core governance challenges. If implemented with constitutional safeguards, fiscal planning, and inclusive dialogue, it could strengthen the federation, empower marginalized communities, and unlock Pakistan’s developmental potential. The alternative— clinging to a colonial-era framework that no longer serves the nation— risks perpetuating inequality, resentment and stagnation.
