Pakistan’s Governance System Needs Rethinking at the Structural Level

Quetta – As someone who has closely observed Pakistan’s governance affairs over a long period, it is my clear opinion that our current governance crisis has now reached a point where it cannot be resolved merely through indifference or temporary fixes, but requires rethinking at the structural level. This is not an emotional statement, but a simple yet bitter truth: the old structure can no longer accommodate the new reality.

In 1951, Pakistan’s population was approximately 30 million. Today, it has exceeded 240 million. The population grew eightfold, yet the administrative structure at the provincial level remained almost unchanged. This very condition of a “large body and small clothes” is the deep-rooted cause of governance failure.

Balochistan’s reality is the clearest picture of this problem. Pakistan’s largest province by area, Balochistan, is larger than 172 countries of the world. However, the vast geography, scattered population, and long distances subject its administrative system to severe challenges. Orders issued from Quetta take several days to reach far-flung areas. In such a situation, the concept of “effective governance” appears to be nothing more than a dream.

The encouraging news is that the Balochistan provincial government has taken solid steps in this regard. In January 2026, the provincial cabinet approved the establishment of two new divisions, Pishin and Koh Sulaiman. Balochistan Chief Minister Sarfaraz Bugti made it clear on that occasion that the purpose of these steps is to “address the deprivations of the people and reconnect them with the state.” By July, the scope of reforms widened further. Kalat Division was divided to create the new divisions of Khuzdar and Lasbela, while Quetta city was divided into two parts—Quetta East and Quetta West. As a result, the number of divisions in the province increased from 7 to 11 and the number of districts from 36 to 41.

From my perspective, this is not merely a change of lines on a map. It is a fundamental shift in the logic of governance: from “remote control” to “service from close range.” When administrative units are smaller, the decision-making journey is shorter, resource distribution is more accurate, and it is more aligned with local needs. For a region like Balochistan, which has long been surrounded by a narrative of deprivation, the importance of this change is extraordinary.

However, I also honestly acknowledge that administrative reorganization alone will not solve all problems. Across Pakistan, 25.1 million children are still out of school, only 0.8 percent of GDP is spent on health, while the provision of clean water and timely justice are also serious challenges. These figures indicate that the ultimate measure of administrative reforms is not how many new divisions were created, but whether the common man’s standard of living has actually improved.

In my opinion, Pakistan needs “consensus-based change.” The Sindh Assembly recently passed a unanimous resolution opposing the creation of new provinces in its province and made clear that a two-thirds majority of the Assembly is essential for any change to provincial boundaries. This position is respectable. Pakistan’s federal structure carries its own historical sensitivities, and any reform that feels “imposed” will create new conflicts instead of solving old problems.

But on the other hand, increasing administrative efficiency and territorial integrity is not a zero-sum game. Creating new divisions and improving jurisdiction is an entirely different matter from “dividing a province.” The first is administrative science, the second is a political decision. Confusing the two is actually an obstacle to the practical reforms that can improve people’s lives.

My final conclusion is this: Pakistan’s governance system genuinely needs structural adjustment, but its direction should be “closer to the people,” not “easier to control.” Balochistan’s divisional reforms provide an observable model—if the new administrative units truly make resource transfer and service delivery possible at the local level, then this is the right path.

However, real success depends on two conditions: first, the reforms should be transparent and planned, not the result of political expediency. Second, the fruits of the reforms should reach the common man—the child should reach school, the patient should receive treatment, the farmer’s canal should get water.

Governance is not merely a game of abstract concepts. It is connected to whether a girl from a village in Balochistan can go to school, and whether a household in Quetta West gets clean water. A change on the administrative map cannot become a real success until it improves the map of life.