Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi’s recent proposal for dialogue among all political parties to bring about reforms to the current governance system, while suggesting the creation of new provinces along with other reforms, is important but should have been made and implemented long before. More importantly, the interior minister said the current ‘system’ of governance had ‘collapsed’ and was fundamentally incapable of resolving the country’s problems. This is indeed a major acknowledgement by a key figure in the present dispensation and, therefore, is going to be very consequential.
Dilating upon the issue, Mohsin Naqvi was quoted as saying: “The system we are living under has collapsed. Problems cannot be solved through it,” he said. “If this system continues, we will still be sitting here 10 years from now discussing the same issues,” the minister said, adding that only structural change could break the cycle and that a reset was necessary.
There cannot be two opinions about the assertions of Mr Naqvi and, yes, the system is not at all the panacea for the issues facing the country. We have been identifying the shortcomings of the parliamentary political system as well as the so-called federal-provincial dichotomous administrative structure and emphasizing that the state and, particularly, society and its members, face problems and issues of such profound and complex nature that the existing system cannot address them, let alone provide their solutions.
Insofar as Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi’s suggestion that all political parties would have to sit together to settle every issue facing the country, including the creation of new administrative units, is concerned, one has problems with this suggestion. All big and small political parties have been beneficiaries of the extant system; therefore, asking them to sit together to address every issue is akin to crying for the moon. More importantly, all the key political parties, like the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI-F), would not at all be ready to agree to the formation of new administrative units and provinces.
To all intents and purposes, all of them are provincial parties instead of national parties. The PPP has its bastion in Sindh, the PML-N has its forte in Punjab, and the JUI-F has some following in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP). The main opposition party, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), is not at all in a position to take any meaningful position on the matter. So, generally speaking, political parties would not agree to the proposal for the formation of new provinces.
Nevertheless, structural political and administrative reforms ought to be undertaken whether these political parties agree to them or not. The issue is one of the survival of the state and addressing the immediate needs of the people. The country is facing dire political, economic, security and social challenges. For instance, the political system has collapsed and political polarization in the country is once again approaching a breaking point. Obviously, political parties alone are not responsible for this political polarization, and the powers-that-be have equally to be held responsible for the collapse of the system.
The most important point that comes to the fore in Mohsin Naqvi’s candid admission that the system has failed and that one solution is the formation of new provinces is that this is only one aspect of the polycrisis faced by the country. Transforming the parliamentary political system into a presidential system and forming viable and vibrant local government structures are other key aspects of the much-needed structural changes.
Insofar as the need for new provinces and administrative units in Pakistan is concerned, there cannot be two opinions about it. However, these provinces and administrative units should not be created on the basis of ethnicity. Already, whatever provinces we have in Pakistan were created during colonial times or after independence largely on the basis of ethnicity. Although every province has had a majority of one ethnic group, minority groups have always considered themselves at a disadvantage, as they could not obtain the political, economic and cultural rights they deserved.
Consequently, there have always been ethnic tensions and conflicts within our provinces, which have greatly marred their development and the overall uplift of the country. Had provinces created on the basis of ethnicity been a recipe for addressing multiple conflicts and crises across the country, Pakistan would have been a well-governed and politically stable state. Unfortunately, no one can claim Pakistan to be a developed and politically stable country.
Today, bad governance, as is evident from unprecedented inflation and societal conflicts across the length and breadth of the country, has made it nearly dysfunctional. What we need is to come up with new governance structures based on a new administrative philosophy. Thus, keeping in view the administrative issues and prevalent bad governance, Pakistan needs to rationalize its administrative structure.
In addition to structural reforms, there is also a need for massive administrative reforms, which also have various aspects, including, but not limited to, revamping the whole administrative edifice, which currently is based generally on the federal-provincial-district trichotomy; introducing extensive and across-the-board civil service reforms; revisiting existing policies; and plugging policy gaps.
Insofar as revamping the whole administrative structure of the country is concerned, policymakers have to come up with novel solutions. The administrative structure we have, whatever name one may give it, is fundamentally colonial in form and essence. This does not mean that the colonial administrative structures were worthless. In fact, they had their own virtues and substance. For a long time, they kept the state and its system quite functional.
However, with large-scale social, political, economic, technological and other changes, particularly the manifold increase in population and the concomitant rise in new issues and problems, the colonial structures have been found wanting. Therefore, there has been a need to come up with new administrative structures that have the capacity to address the issues of contemporary, postmodern times and the needs of the people.
Coming to the issue of the formation of new provinces, what the country really needs at the moment are lean and vibrant provinces, which is the cry of the hour. When Pakistan came into existence, there were three provinces in what is now Pakistan, while Balochistan was given the status of a full-fledged province in 1970. Over the years, we have observed that the provinces have failed to provide viable, sustainable and good governance structures and models.
The reason is that provincial governments have so many areas, issues and problems to negotiate, but they find themselves incapacitated to respond effectively. This has particularly been the situation since the passage of the 18th Constitutional Amendment in April 2010, when provinces were given more subjects to legislate upon and govern. The provinces have had huge capacity issues in coming up with sound legislation and policies regarding the large number of departments handed over to them.
Here it must be mentioned that there would never be consensus among political parties and associations of different professionals, particularly lawyers, teachers, journalists and others, to bring about structural reforms. But the country needs them, whether Mr Naqvi says so or not.
The challenge, therefore, is not merely to debate the creation of new provinces or administrative units but to rethink the entire governance architecture of the country. The present debate provides an opportunity to move beyond political expediency and consider what kind of state and administrative structures are required to meet the needs of a rapidly changing society.
The creation of smaller, leaner and more responsive provinces could potentially bring government closer to the people, but this can only work if accompanied by meaningful local governments, administrative decentralization, civil service reform and clearly defined responsibilities among the federal, provincial and local tiers of government.
Likewise, any attempt to restructure the provinces should not become another exercise in ethnic or partisan politics. The objective should be to create administrative units that are economically viable, administratively manageable and capable of delivering public services effectively. The debate should consequently be based on governance, service delivery, economic viability and institutional capacity rather than merely political representation or ethnic considerations.
Ultimately, the most consequential aspect of Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi’s remarks is not his proposal for new provinces alone but his acknowledgement that the existing system has failed to deliver. Once such an admission is made by a senior member of the government, it cannot simply be brushed aside as another political statement. It demands a serious national debate on the nature of the political and administrative system, the distribution of authority, the capacity of institutions and the mechanisms through which the state responds to the problems of its citizens.
The political leadership may disagree on the precise form of reform, and political parties may have understandable interests in preserving their existing provincial bases. Yet the magnitude of the challenges confronting Pakistan makes the status quo increasingly difficult to defend. The country requires structural political and administrative reforms that are designed not for the benefit of any individual party or institution but for the survival, stability and prosperity of the state and its people.
That is why Mr Naqvi’s admission should be treated as the beginning of a serious conversation rather than the conclusion of one. Pakistan needs a new governance philosophy capable of responding to the political, economic, social, security, demographic and technological realities of the twenty-first century. The longer structural reforms are delayed, the greater will be the cost of continuing with a system that its own senior functionaries now acknowledge is no longer capable of resolving the country’s fundamental problems.