The ‘Same Page’ and Pakistan’s Governance Challenge/ Naeem Afzal

Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi’s recent remarks about the collapse of Pakistan’s governance system and his suggestion that the country should consider creating new administrative units or provinces have triggered a fresh political debate. While leaders from both the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) quickly reacted to his comments, the more consequential development was the reported intervention of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif. According to political reports, Nawaz advised senior PML-N leaders to refrain from publicly criticizing Naqvi’s remarks, emphasizing that Pakistan’s current economic, political and security challenges demand complete institutional cohesion. His message appears intended to prevent any perception of friction between the civilian government and the military establishment at a time when the country is grappling with multiple crises. In doing so, Nawaz once again underscored the importance of maintaining the narrative of all state institutions being on the “same page.”

The episode is significant because it reflects the realities of Pakistan’s current political environment. Although reports suggest that some within the ruling PML-N privately viewed Naqvi’s assertion about the governance system’s “collapse” as embarrassing for the government, these concerns have largely remained confined behind closed doors. Publicly, the leadership appears unwilling to challenge remarks that could be interpreted as originating from or enjoying the backing of influential state institutions. This reinforces the perception that preserving institutional unity currently takes precedence over political disagreement, even when differing viewpoints exist within the ruling coalition.

Equally noteworthy is Nawaz Sharif’s own political evolution. Once known for openly confronting the military establishment, he has in recent years adopted a far more pragmatic approach. Having largely withdrawn from day-to-day politics—appearing mainly during election campaigns or alongside Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz—he nevertheless continues to shape important political decisions from behind the scenes. His reported position suggests an acceptance that, despite its imperfections, the present political arrangement remains the only workable framework available to maintain stability. Rather than reopening institutional confrontations, his apparent priority is to preserve the existing balance while allowing the government space to function.

This should not be interpreted solely as an effort to protect the current administration. It also reflects an acknowledgment that Pakistan’s mainstream political parties face a defining moment. If they fail to address the country’s deep-rooted governance challenges through democratic means, they risk creating space for unelected actors to dominate debates on institutional restructuring and public administration. Such an outcome would further weaken political parties and reduce their role in shaping Pakistan’s constitutional and democratic future. Political ownership of reform is therefore not merely desirable but essential for the long-term credibility of representative politics.

Viewed from this perspective, Naqvi’s proposal regarding new provinces deserves consideration beyond immediate political reactions. Pakistan’s administrative structure was designed for a much smaller population and increasingly struggles to meet the demands of a rapidly expanding society. Growing populations have placed extraordinary pressure on governance, public services, law enforcement, infrastructure and local administration. Yet discussions on creating new provinces or strengthening administrative decentralization are often dismissed as politically motivated or viewed through ethnic and provincial sensitivities, preventing a serious examination of their administrative merits.

The real question is not whether the issue should be debated but how Pakistan can build a governance framework capable of delivering services effectively. Administrative reform could take several forms, including the creation of new provinces, stronger local governments, greater fiscal decentralization or more effective devolution of powers. These options should be evaluated through objective analysis rather than partisan politics. The experience of the 18th Constitutional Amendment demonstrated that major institutional reforms are possible when political parties build consensus, while the National Action Plan following the APS tragedy showed that political leadership can unite when confronted with an existential national challenge. Administrative reform deserves a similarly broad-based political consensus.

Ultimately, Nawaz Sharif’s reported emphasis on preserving the “same page” appears to extend beyond ensuring the survival of the current government within Pakistan’s hybrid political arrangement. It reflects a broader recognition that institutional harmony, while important for short-term stability, cannot substitute for meaningful governance reform. Stability has lasting value only if it enables governments to tackle structural weaknesses that have accumulated over decades. Pakistan’s future will depend not merely on avoiding institutional confrontation but on whether its political leadership uses the current period of relative stability to pursue long-overdue reforms in governance, administration and public service delivery. If elected leaders fail to seize that opportunity, they may eventually find themselves responding to reforms designed and implemented by others, rather than shaping the country’s future through democratic consensus.