PTI chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan's warning

PTI chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan's warning against hurried provincial division deserves consideration. At the heart of the debate is an essential question: how should Pakistan bring the government closer to its people? No subject should be beyond democratic discussion. Provincial boundaries cannot be exempt from scrutiny, nor should proposing change invite accusations of disloyalty. Equally, attachment to a province reflects histories, languages and belonging that administrative arguments cannot simply dismiss. A credible debate must accommodate both the demand for change and the fear of its consequences. Nobody should have a veto over the conversation. But advocates of new provinces owe citizens considerably more than a revised map. They must explain how assets, debt, pension liabilities, public employees and development commitments would be apportioned. Which government would inherit an unfinished hospital, and which would service the loan that financed it? How would responsibilities under lender-supported programmes be reassigned without interrupting funding or delivery? Federal revenue-sharing arrangements would require settlement, alongside the costs of additional assemblies, secretariats and bureaucracies. These are central questions of viability. There is also a constitutional threshold. Altering provincial boundaries requires a constitutional amendment, including approval by two-thirds of the total membership of the affected provincial assembly. That requirement recognises the gravity of territorial change. Meanwhile, Pakistan already has a constitutional route towards bringing authority closer to citizens. Article 140A requires provinces to establish local governments and devolve political, administrative and financial authority to elected representatives; it also assigns their elections to the Election Commission. The constitutional obligation exists, but its institutional design leaves substantial control with provincial lawmakers. That dependence needs to be addressed directly. Stronger constitutional guarantees should secure fixed terms, enforceable election deadlines and continuity between elected councils. Clearly assigned functions, predictable fiscal transfers and authority over relevant staff should give local representatives the means to act. Provincial governments should have no discretion to suspend local democracy through repeated legislative redesign or prolonged administrative arrangements. For a household living beside an overflowing drain, an accessible government means someone who can be held responsible and has the money and authority to fix it. Another provincial capital offers no assurance of that relationship. Empowered councils will not settle every claim rooted in identity or regional deprivation. Those claims deserve a fair hearing. But before undertaking a politically and socially fraught redrawing of Pakistan, its leaders should deliver the decentralisation already promised. Their willingness to share power locally would lend credibility to their enthusiasm for creating new provinces.