A Proposal for Strong Provinces, Empowered Local Governments and a Smaller, More Effective Federation
By Engr. Ghulam Habib
Pakistan has existed as a federation since its creation in 1947. Yet, despite decades of experience with federal and provincial governments, many of the country’s fundamental political, economic and administrative problems remain unresolved.
The struggle over water, financial resources, development funds, ports, taxation and political authority continues to create tensions among provinces and between the provinces and the federal government. At the same time, ordinary citizens frequently face insecurity, poor public services, unemployment, inadequate education, weak infrastructure and a lack of meaningful political participation.
In such circumstances, some thinkers have proposed creating more provinces. While smaller provinces may appear to offer an administrative solution, I believe that creating additional provinces alone will not solve Pakistan’s fundamental problems.
Pakistan needs a deeper structural reform.
My proposal is the creation of a United States of Pakistan—a genuinely federal system in which the provinces enjoy substantial autonomy, local governments receive real authority, and the federal government concentrates primarily on matters that genuinely require national coordination.
The Problem Is Not Simply the Number of Provinces
Pakistan has created new administrative districts and divisions over the years, yet creating another administrative boundary has not automatically produced better governance.
The fundamental question is not:
How many provinces should Pakistan have?
The more important question is:
Who should have the authority and resources to solve people’s problems?
If decisions remain concentrated far away from ordinary citizens, creating another province may simply create another layer of government without solving the underlying problem.
A citizen does not necessarily need a new provinces.
He or she needs a government that is accessible, accountable and capable of solving local problems.
Pakistan’s Centralization Problem
One of Pakistan’s major weaknesses has been excessive concentration of political and financial power.
A provincial government may itself become highly centralized. Funds intended for development can remain concentrated at the provincial level while local communities struggle to repair roads, improve sanitation, provide clean water, maintain schools or address other basic needs.
This creates a dangerous distance between government and citizen.
The person who knows that a road is broken is the local representative.
The person who knows that a school needs repair is the local representative.
The person who understands the immediate needs of a village, town or neighborhood is usually the local representative.
Yet the authority and financial resources required to solve these problems are frequently controlled at higher levels.
This is why Pakistan needs genuine local government, not merely local elections.
First Reform: Give Local Governments Real Authority
In my view, Pakistan’s first major reform should be to empower elected local governments.
Local representatives should receive clearly defined responsibilities and sufficient financial resources to address local development and municipal problems.
They should have authority over matters such as:
- Local roads and streets
- Water and sanitation
- Waste management
- Basic community infrastructure
- Local schools and educational facilities where appropriate
- Parks and public spaces
- Community development
- Local economic initiatives
- Other services that can efficiently be managed at the local level
The principle should be simple:
The problem should be solved at the lowest level of government capable of solving it effectively.
This is the essence of meaningful decentralization.
Assemblies Should Make Laws—Not Run Every Development Project
There is another important distinction that Pakistan needs to understand.
The primary responsibility of elected assemblies is legislation, oversight and representation.
When legislators become directly involved in distributing development funds and selecting individual projects, the political system can become distorted.
A representative may become more interested in obtaining development funds for his constituency than in performing the legislative and oversight responsibilities for which he was elected.
This can also create opportunities for political favoritism, inefficient spending and disputes over the distribution of resources.
Therefore, development funds should be allocated through a transparent institutional system, with elected local governments responsible for implementing local priorities and with strong auditing and public accountability.
The objective should not be to take power away from elected representatives.
It should be to put the right power in the right institution.
Second Reform: United States of Pakistan
Alongside empowered local governments, I propose a fundamental evolution of Pakistan’s federal structure into a United States of Pakistan.
The name itself expresses an important principle:
Pakistan would remain one country, but its constituent provinces would enjoy much greater political, administrative and economic autonomy.
This would not mean the disintegration of Pakistan.
On the contrary, it could strengthen the federation by reducing unnecessary competition for centralized power.
The provinces would become responsible for most matters that directly concern their populations, while the federal government would concentrate on genuinely national responsibilities.
What Should Remain Federal?
A United States of Pakistan would still need a strong common framework.
At minimum, the federal government should retain responsibility for matters such as:
1. National Defence
Pakistan’s defence must remain a national responsibility.
The armed forces defend the country as a whole, not individual provinces.
2. Water
Water is one of Pakistan’s most sensitive national resources.
A national framework for rivers, major reservoirs, inter-provincial water distribution and strategic water management would therefore remain essential.
Water should not become a permanent source of conflict between provinces.
A transparent national mechanism should guarantee fair distribution according to constitutionally and legally agreed principles.
3. Foreign Affairs
International relations, diplomacy and treaties should remain federal responsibilities.
4. National Monetary and Strategic Institutions
Where national coordination is essential, the federal government should continue to perform those responsibilities.
The principle should be:
Federal where necessary; provincial where practical; local where possible.
Provinces Should Become Responsible for Their Own Development
Under this model, provinces would have much greater responsibility for their own education, healthcare, economic development, infrastructure and other provincial matters.
This would create a powerful incentive for provincial governments to perform better.
At present, governments can sometimes blame another level of government for failures.
But if provinces receive greater autonomy, they must also accept greater responsibility.
If a province wants better education, it should develop and finance a better education system.
If it wants stronger healthcare, it should invest accordingly.
If it wants better infrastructure, it should prioritize development accordingly.
And if it imposes higher taxes, its own elected assembly should be politically accountable to its people.
That is the essence of responsible federalism.
A New Fiscal Relationship
The financial relationship between the provinces and the federation would also need to change.
Provinces could collect an agreed range of taxes and retain the major share of their revenues for provincial responsibilities.
A predetermined and transparent share would then be transferred to the federal government to finance common national responsibilities.
This would establish a much clearer relationship between:
Taxation → Responsibility → Spending → Accountability.
Citizens would increasingly know which government is responsible for which service.
That clarity is essential for democracy.
Competition Could Become a Force for Progress
One of the greatest potential advantages of a more decentralized federation would be healthy competition among provinces.
Imagine if provinces began competing—not over who receives the largest share of federal resources—but over:
- Which province has the best schools?
- Which has the best hospitals?
- Which attracts the most investment?
- Which creates the most jobs?
- Which has the most efficient government?
- Which provides the best public services?
- Which has the lowest corruption?
- Which creates the best environment for businesses and entrepreneurs?
Such competition could become a powerful engine of national development.
A successful province would provide a model for others.
Instead of fighting over a larger piece of the national budget, provinces could compete to make their own piece of the country more prosperous.
Local Government and United States of Pakistan Must Work Together
The two reforms should not be viewed as alternatives.
I would recommend implementing both simultaneously.
Pakistan needs:
Strong federation + strong provinces + strong local governments.
The federal government should handle genuinely national matters.
The provinces should handle provincial responsibilities.
Local governments should handle local problems.
This creates a three-level system in which responsibility is clearly distributed.
Federal Government
Defence, water, foreign affairs and other national responsibilities.
Provincial Governments
Provincial education, healthcare, economic development, infrastructure and other provincial responsibilities.
Local Governments
Municipal services, community infrastructure and local development.
This would bring government closer to the people while preserving national unity.
Why This Could Reduce Political Conflict
Much of Pakistan’s political conflict is connected to the struggle for control over resources.
When political power is concentrated, winning control of the central government becomes extremely important.
Every group wants greater influence because control of the centre can mean control over enormous financial and administrative resources.
A more decentralized system could reduce this pressure.
If provinces have constitutionally protected authority and predictable revenues, they would have less reason to fight continuously for control over federal resources.
Similarly, if local governments have meaningful authority, citizens would not need to depend entirely on provincial or federal politicians for basic development.
Decentralization can therefore become a tool for reducing political tension.
A Stronger Federation Through Greater Autonomy
Some people may fear that greater provincial autonomy would weaken Pakistan.
I believe the opposite can happen if the system is properly designed.
A federation becomes stronger when its constituent units believe that they are being treated fairly.
National unity does not necessarily require administrative uniformity.
People can have different languages, cultures, economic conditions and local priorities while still sharing a common national identity.
The United States of Pakistan would therefore not mean less Pakistan.
It could mean a more balanced Pakistan.
The objective would be to replace the politics of competition for centralized power with the politics of responsible self-government.
Security and Development Are Connected
Pakistan’s security problems cannot be separated completely from its governance problems.
Where citizens experience poverty, unemployment, poor education, weak public services and political alienation, dissatisfaction can grow.
Where governments are distant from citizens, mistrust can increase.
Where institutions are weak, lawlessness becomes harder to control.
Therefore, Pakistan needs more than security operations.
It needs good governance, economic opportunity, education, justice and accountable institutions.
A citizen who sees government working effectively in his or her community develops a stronger stake in the stability of the country.
Development is therefore not merely an economic objective.
It is also a national security strategy.
The Real Goal: A Peaceful and Prosperous Pakistan
The purpose of restructuring the federation should not be constitutional experimentation for its own sake.
The purpose should be practical:
Peace, prosperity, justice, accountability, better education, better public services, more employment, less corruption, greater political participation, and above all, a government that is closer to the people.
Pakistan has enormous human and natural potential. Its greatest challenge is not a shortage of talented people or resources. The challenge is creating institutions capable of using those resources efficiently and fairly.
Conclusion
Pakistan does not necessarily need more provinces.
It needs better governance.
Creating new provinces without transferring meaningful authority to citizens may simply reproduce the same problems at a different administrative level.
My proposal is therefore based on two complementary reforms:
First, empower local governments with real authority and adequate financial resources.
Second, transform Pakistan into a more genuinely federal system—the United States of Pakistan—with autonomous provinces and a federal government focused on national responsibilities such as defence and water, along with other clearly defined federal functions.
The provinces would collect and manage their own revenues within an agreed constitutional framework and contribute a defined share to the federal government.
The result would be a clearer chain of responsibility:
Federal government for national matters.
Provincial governments for provincial matters.
Local governments for local matters.
And with responsibility must come accountability.
If a province succeeds, its government should receive credit.
If it fails, its elected representatives should answer to its people.
If a local government fails to provide services, citizens should know exactly whom to hold responsible.
This is the foundation of mature democracy.
The United States of Pakistan should not be understood as a plan to divide Pakistan.
It should be understood as a proposal to strengthen Pakistan by making its federation more democratic, its provinces more responsible, its local governments more powerful, and its citizens more influential.
Pakistan does not need endless political battles over who controls the centre.
It needs a system in which every level of government has clearly defined powers, clearly defined responsibilities and clearly defined accountability.
That, in my view, is a path toward a more peaceful, prosperous and united Pakistan.
— Engr. Ghulam Habib
One Response