In principle, federalism remains the most appropriate form of governance for a country as ethnically diverse and geographically intricate as Pakistan. By allowing provinces and regions with distinct cultures, languages, and political histories to exercise a degree of autonomy, federalism ideally serves as a tool for promoting harmony, equitable development, and national integration. However, the journey of federalism in Pakistan has not followed a smooth trajectory. Despite adopting a federal structure at independence and embedding it within successive constitutional arrangements, Pakistan’s experience with federalism has been repeatedly complicated by centralization, uneven development, and institutional resistance. Although the 18th Constitutional Amendment of 2010 marked a significant devolution of powers to the provinces, the federal structure continues to face serious challenges that obstruct the operationalization of federalism in its truest sense.
Follow Cssprepforum WhatsApp Channel: Pakistan’s Largest CSS, PMS Prep Community updated
Led by Sir Syed Kazim Ali, Cssprepforum helps 70,000+ aspirants monthly with top-tier CSS/PMS content. Follow our WhatsApp Channel for solved past papers, expert articles, and free study resources shared by qualifiers and high scorers.
Pakistan’s earliest encounter with federalism predates its independence and was shaped by the Government of India Act of 1935. This framework prioritized a strong center and restricted provincial autonomy. Following independence, Pakistan retained this model and sought to adapt it within its own context. The nation’s geography, divided between the eastern and western wings, further complicated the situation, creating governance difficulties and inflaming tensions between East and West Pakistan. Over time, the Governor-General's frequent interventions and the centralization of power subverted federalism. The judicial validation of Governor-General Ghulam Muhammad’s dissolution of the first Constituent Assembly in the 1955 Tamizuddin case set a troubling precedent, weakening parliamentary supremacy and entrenching executive dominance.
The 1956 Constitution tried to establish a federal balance by giving equal representation to East and West Pakistan. Yet it failed to reflect the population disparity and genuine aspirations of the eastern wing. Ayub Khan’s imposition of the 1962 Constitution, which introduced a presidential system and further curtailed provincial powers, reinforced centralism under military rule. Provinces were largely reduced to administrative extensions of the federal government, and the idea of autonomous units faded into the background. Yahya Khan’s inability to honor the electoral mandate of 1970 deepened provincial alienation and eventually led to the disintegration of the country in 1971.
The post-secession Constitution of 1973 reinstated a parliamentary form of government and acknowledged the need for a decentralized federation. It laid out legislative divisions and introduced a bicameral parliament, providing the provinces with representation in the Senate. However, the erosion of federal principles resumed under successive authoritarian regimes. Constitutional amendments made during military rule, particularly the 8th and 17th, enhanced presidential authority at the expense of parliamentary and provincial powers. In the absence of robust provincial institutions and due to increasing centralization, the promise of federalism remained unfulfilled for decades.
After the restoration of democracy in the 2000s, a consensus emerged among political parties that a comprehensive overhaul of center-province relations was imperative. This culminated in the passage of the 18th Amendment in 2010, which promised to redefine the federal structure in accordance with democratic norms. It abolished the Concurrent Legislative List, transferred 17 subjects to the provinces, and empowered the Council of Common Interests as a constitutional forum to resolve intergovernmental disputes. The 18th Amendment also made Article 160 stronger, requiring regular National Finance Commission Awards, thereby mandating financial redistribution based on consensus among federating units.
However, the implementation of the amendment has exposed a complex web of political and institutional bottlenecks. One major issue lies in the gap between constitutional provisions and administrative readiness. While legal authority was transferred, many provinces lacked the institutional capacity to manage newly devolved subjects. In sectors such as health, education, and environment, the absence of trained bureaucrats, regulatory mechanisms, and financial planning has led to inconsistent outcomes across the country. In some cases, parallel structures were retained at the federal level, nullifying the spirit of devolution. The federal government’s continued interference in devolved ministries such as health and education through vertical programs has undermined the constitutional division of powers.
Moreover, financial devolution remains partial and contested. The NFC Award, designed to ensure fair distribution of financial resources among provinces, has not been updated since 2010. Despite being a constitutional requirement, a new NFC Award has not been issued in over a decade, reflecting the center’s reluctance to share fiscal authority and adjust to changing demographic and economic realities. Provinces are expected to deliver basic services without adequate fiscal space, pushing them into dependence on federal transfers and loans. Attempts by the federal government to bypass the provinces through direct project implementations further erode their credibility and autonomy.
The issue is not merely legal or administrative. It is fundamentally political. Provincial autonomy is often viewed with suspicion in federal circles, especially when opposition parties control the provinces. This politicization of federalism disrupts intergovernmental coordination and turns constitutional forums into arenas of confrontation. The Council of Common Interests, despite being mandated to meet regularly, has at times remained dormant for months. Political polarization, lack of trust between federation and provinces, and bureaucratic turf wars have weakened federal institutions.
Another factor constraining federalism is the dominance of unelected institutions in national policymaking. Military influence in areas such as security, foreign policy, and internal governance limits provincial participation in decisions that directly affect their citizens. Civil bureaucracies also resist devolution, fearing a loss of control, resources, and prestige. This resistance is often cloaked in arguments of capacity shortfall, though it primarily stems from institutional conservatism. A study by the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency noted that several federal ministries continued operating in areas already devolved under the 18th Amendment, reflecting an ongoing institutional reluctance to surrender authority.
Moreover, the asymmetric development of provinces adds another layer of complexity. Punjab, being the most populous and administratively developed, often dominates federal decisions, creating a perception of marginalization among smaller provinces. Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa have frequently raised concerns about under-representation in national policies, delayed infrastructure funding, and inequitable resource extraction. This unequal relationship undermines the federal compact and fuels nationalist resentment, which in some cases has translated into separatist tendencies.
To address these issues, a renewed political consensus on federalism is essential. The spirit of the 18th Amendment must be preserved and advanced through coordinated action, mutual trust, and institutional reform. Provinces should be provided with the capacity and resources to exercise their constitutional powers effectively. Federal ministries should withdraw from devolved subjects, and parallel governance mechanisms must be dismantled to avoid duplication. Equally important is the revitalization of constitutional bodies such as the Council of Common Interests, which must meet regularly and function transparently.
Fiscal federalism must be strengthened through timely NFC Awards that reflect population growth, regional disparities, and provincial development needs. The provinces must also be encouraged to enhance their own revenue capacities by modernizing tax collection systems and adopting innovative financial strategies. Legal barriers that prevent them from accessing international loans or partnerships should be removed to allow them to participate in development financing.
CSS Solved Past Papers from 2010 to Date by Miss Iqra Ali
Explore CSS solved past papers (2010 to Date) by Miss Iqra Ali, featuring detailed answers, examiner-focused content, and updated solutions. Perfect for aspirants preparing for CSS with accuracy and confidence.
Lastly, democratic education and civil engagement are crucial for nurturing a federal culture. Citizens need to be aware of their rights within a federal structure and demand accountability from both provincial and federal governments. The media, academia, and civil society must continue to play their role in fostering a balanced public discourse that values decentralization and respects constitutional mandates.
While the 18th Amendment was a transformative step, its legacy remains fragile. The path toward a functional and resilient federalism in Pakistan requires not just legal texts, but political maturity, administrative reforms, and institutional cooperation. Only through a shared commitment to decentralization, diversity, and dialogue can Pakistan truly realize the democratic promise of federalism.
