Cover Story 
 

Cover Story

The Unity Myth

The real danger for Pakistan may lie not in creating more provinces, but in refusing to reform a system that has allowed provincial elites to monopolise power

By Farhat Ali | October 2026

Four provinces are not a sacred number. Pakistan can have more provinces where there is a compelling administrative and political case—provided the process is constitutional, financially responsible and accompanied by genuine local-government reform.

The objective, however, should remain clear: provinces should not be created simply for the sake of creating provinces. The real goal is decentralisation—moving authority from Islamabad to the provinces, from provincial capitals to empowered cities and districts, and from bureaucracies to elected representatives who are directly accountable to citizens.

The map must serve the people, not the political interests that have become comfortable with the existing arrangement. The debate, therefore, should not be framed as four provinces versus national unity. Indeed, a greater threat to national cohesion may lie in the continuing perception that political power, development resources and administrative attention remain concentrated in a few entrenched centres.

A sound national judgment requires setting aside conspiracy theories and similar claims and evaluating this matter objectively, on the evidence and its merits, so that any decision is guided by the public interest and what best serves the people.
Pakistan’s renewed wrangling over new provinces is not merely a question of redrawing boundaries. It is fundamentally about breaking an entrenched concentration of political power that has kept governance distant from citizens for decades.

The provincial political elites have resisted the very decentralisation that could bring government closer to the people. None has shown sustained willingness to establish autonomous, financially empowered local governments capable of challenging provincial control. Time and again, they have frustrated the local bodies system and grassroots politics from providing relief to the people at their doorstep.

The result is an enormous concentration of power in the provincial capitals, weak and subservient local governments, if any, and large regions of the government that feel politically and economically neglected. This model of governance has outlived its life and has failed to serve the people. The change is inevitable.

South Punjab, Bahawalpur, Hazara and Karachi represent different versions of the same demand: greater ownership, representation and administrative accountability.

Critics warn that more provinces could fragment the federation. But India’s experience, having inherited a similar legacy as Pakistan, has demonstrated that a country can create smaller states without weakening national unity. The real danger for Pakistan may lie not in creating more provinces, but in refusing to reform a system that has allowed provincial elites to monopolise power.

Pakistan’s four-province structure is increasingly difficult to justify on administrative grounds. Since the present boundaries were restored in 1970, the population has multiplied, cities have become megacities, regional economies have diverged, and demands on government have grown enormously. Yet provincial governance remains largely frozen.

The result is excessive concentration of political and administrative power in four provincial capitals, particularly Lahore and Karachi. New provinces should therefore be considered as instruments of decentralisation, better governance and a stronger federation—not as assaults on national unity.

The 18th Amendment transferred substantial authority from Islamabad to the provinces, but the second half of devolution—transferring authority to elected local governments—largely failed.

Power moved from Islamabad to provincial capitals, but stopped there.

Punjab provides the strongest case. A province containing more than half the country’s population inevitably concentrates political power, with Lahore dominating political, bureaucratic and economic decision-making.

South Punjab’s demand for a separate province reflects more than ethnic politics. It raises the legitimate question of whether a province of such scale can provide equitable access to government. A smaller province could bring administration closer to citizens, establish a dedicated development agenda and give the region greater political ownership.


Bahawalpur has its own historical and constitutional case and should be considered independently rather than subsumed into the broader South Punjab debate.

Karachi is the clearest failure and perhaps the strongest argument for structural reform. Pakistan’s commercial and financial centre has suffered from fragmented governance, inadequate infrastructure and unclear institutional ownership.

Opponents of new provinces often invoke national unity, but history does not show that fewer provinces produce a stronger country

Provincial, municipal, federal and cantonment authorities exercise overlapping powers, while citizens struggle to secure basic services.

The provincial centralised control has not produced a governance model capable of resolving this problem. Whatever constitutional form is chosen, Karachi needs an empowered metropolitan government with defined authority, predictable revenues and clear accountability. A constitutionally protected metropolitan arrangement, in whatever shape it emerges, should be seriously examined.

Opponents of new provinces often invoke national unity, but history does not show that fewer provinces produce a stronger country. In several cases, accommodating regional aspirations strengthened the Union’s legitimacy.

India has repeatedly reorganised its internal map on linguistic, cultural, administrative and developmental grounds. It now has 28 states and eight Union Territories. The Union did not collapse after the creation of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh or Telangana. In several cases, accommodating regional aspirations strengthened the Union’s legitimacy.

National unity does not depend upon preserving an arbitrary number of administrative units. It depends on citizens believing that the federation belongs equally to them.

Pakistan’s own history points in the same direction. The One-Unit experiment consolidated West Pakistan into a single administrative entity but intensified resentment among smaller nationalities and regions.

Restoring provincial boundaries in 1970 recognised that regional identities could not simply be erased. But there is no reason to assume that the four provinces restored in 1970 must remain permanent.

But new provinces alone will not solve the people’s problems. There looms a danger that creating new provinces could simply produce new provincial elites and more of the same. A smaller province with the same centralised bureaucracy and weak local governments could reproduce existing failures.

Pakistan therefore needs a new federal compact built on five principles:

First, empowered local government: Every new province must constitutionally guarantee elected local governments with defined political, administrative and financial authority.

Second, fiscal viability: Independent assessments should establish each proposed province’s revenue base, expenditure requirements and long-term sustainability.

Third, an independent boundary commission: Population, geography, economic viability, administrative accessibility and genuine public demand—not electoral calculations—should determine boundaries.

Fourth, protection of shared resources: Water, electricity, natural resources, infrastructure and institutional assets must be allocated transparently before boundaries change.

Fifth, constitutional consensus: Approval by the concerned Provincial Assembly should remain a safeguard. Restructuring must be a national constitutional project, not an executive decision or temporary political bargain.

The debate should not be framed as four provinces versus national unity. The real question is whether Pakistan wants enormous territories and populations governed from distant capitals or a federation in which authority is distributed enough to make government responsive.

The greatest threat to unity may be the continuing perception that political power, development resources and administrative attention are monopolised by a few entrenched centres.

The time has come to stop treating Pakistan’s four-province structure as immutable—and start asking what federal structure best serves the Pakistan of the 21st century.

Read More