Editorial
The subject of the formation of new administrative units in Pakistan, in reference to the perceivable collapse of governance, is one of the most debated issues in Pakistan nowadays.
Educational institutions are somehow or other leading the debate, which was actually kicked off by the University of Central Punjab (UCP). Now, the University of Management and Technology (UMT) has also contributed to the debate and held a National Policy Dialogue seminar on September 5, 2026.
Federal Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi concluded the discussion with his loud and clear message: the system has to be reset and administrative issues have to be resolved. The discussion included viewpoints from media figures such as Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Shami, Fahd Hussain and Hamid Mir, as well as politicians, including former prime minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and former federal minister Khawaja Saad Rafique of the PML-N.
This debate should be seen against the backdrop of emotional speeches in the Sindh Provincial Assembly, where Chief Minister Murad Ali Shah stated that his party, the PPP, would never allow the “division of Sindh”. It may be recalled that the PPP has been proactive in supporting the creation of a province in South Punjab out of Punjab and a Hazara province out of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), but the formation of new provinces out of Sindh is considered by the party to be a “division” of the province.
Naqvi, in his concluding speech at the seminar, said that the government should first examine the potential benefits, administrative requirements, financial implications and geographical considerations before seeking the public’s opinion. He also said that every decision regarding new administrative units must be taken within the parameters of the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan.
His comment about “public opinion” indicated that the government might have the option of holding a “referendum” on the issue in the future. However, the option of a referendum is not available in the Constitution on a matter that is already addressed by the Constitution. The provision for forming new provinces is available in the Constitution. Article 239(4) says that a constitutional amendment for establishing a new province must first be introduced in the provincial assembly of the province that is proposed to be divided.
The resolution must be approved by a two-thirds majority of the provincial assembly. If the provincial assembly rejects the proposal, the process ends at that stage. After approval by the provincial assembly, the amendment bill must be passed by both houses of Parliament—the National Assembly and the Senate—with a two-thirds majority in each chamber. Once approved by the provincial assembly, the National Assembly and the Senate, the bill is sent to the President for final approval. After the President signs it, the amendment becomes law and a new province can officially be established.
In the presence of this constitutional provision, a referendum on this issue may trigger political disapproval. Therefore, a referendum should be the second option for the government, while the first should be an amendment to Article 239(4) and let the federation decides what is needed to safeguard the basic rights of citizens who had been denied rather erased in the governance system that only benefits the elite—the superclass.
In Pakistan’s parliamentary system, achieving a national agenda has always been difficult. No political party is ready to lose its grip on provincial resources or share power through a city-government (local government) system, while Punjab’s local government laws have already abolished the office of the Mayor of Lahore.
Naqvi looks optimistic about getting results, but political history speaks otherwise. Achieving political consensus through debates in assemblies to secure approval for new provinces, or resetting the governance system through a model of “city governments”, looks difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
Holding debates on platforms such as universities or think-tank forums would also not be productive. Rather, it could make the issue more complex and inject confusion among the public. Everybody accepts that governance has collapsed, the system has collapsed and the civil bureaucracy is not performing. Yet, trying to find a solution within the same Constitution that formed the collapsed system is that not outlandish?
If the government, or people like Naqvi, are serious about fixing the problem and introducing a governance system that can deliver what is expected from a state to public, then they have to adopt and opt ways that may not be “constitutional” but are “national”.
In Pakistan, the dilemma is that civil bureaucrats are asked to fix the ills of bureaucracy, politicians are asked to address problems they have created, and the Constitution is asked to provide a way out for a system whose collapse is ultimately the result of constitutional failure.
Can Pakistan move forward with this illogical approach?
