Pakistan has always found itself at a crossroads when it comes to balancing its federal system with the centralization of power. The 18th Amendment, passed in 2010, was widely seen as a crucial reform aimed at restoring the federal character of the 1973 Constitution. It reversed decades of centralized control and symbolized a shift toward provincial empowerment and democratic restoration. While the amendment aimed to ensure a more equitable distribution of power between the central government and the provinces, its practical outcomes have raised questions about its effectiveness in reshaping governance.
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.
Federalism in Pakistan has historically been fraught with tension between the center and provinces. Smaller provinces like Balochistan and Sindh consistently felt politically and economically marginalized under a unitary state structure. The 18th Amendment sought to address this by reasserting provincial autonomy and correcting long-standing imbalances. The devolution of powers was a necessary response to central overreach, particularly in the aftermath of military regimes that had concentrated authority in the presidency.
One of the landmark achievements of the 18th Amendment was the reduction of presidential powers. By reintroducing parliamentary supremacy, the amendment restored democratic norms eroded during the tenures of General Zia-ul-Haq and General Musharraf. Additionally, the abolition of the Concurrent List allowed provinces to legislate independently in key sectors like education, health, and agriculture, thus institutionalizing provincial autonomy in governance.
Equally significant were the financial reforms embedded in the amendment. Articles 161 and 172 were amended to guarantee that provinces would receive a just share of revenues from natural resources. This was especially crucial for resource-rich but economically underdeveloped provinces like Balochistan. The strengthened National Finance Commission (NFC) Award mechanism further institutionalized revenue sharing and prevented arbitrary reductions in provincial allocations.
Despite its transformative intent, the amendment’s implementation has been inconsistent. Provincial governments often resisted devolving power further to local governments, stalling grassroots democracy. Local bodies, instead of being empowered, remained underfunded and ineffective, undermining the goal of service delivery closer to the people. This discrepancy between constitutional devolution and actual practice exposed the limitations of institutional reform without political will.
Another shortcoming is that the 18th Amendment did little to curtail the military’s pervasive influence. Pakistan’s defense and foreign policies remain heavily controlled by the military establishment, sidelining civilian authority. While civilian supremacy was a central theme of the amendment, its practical enforcement has yet to materialize in key strategic domains, where military prerogatives remain dominant.
Moreover, the uneven implementation of devolved sectors like education and health has led to fragmentation. Each province now operates its own curriculum and health framework, resulting in serious disparities in service quality and accessibility. This has negatively affected national cohesion, with provinces developing at different paces based on their institutional capacity and governance quality.
On the fiscal front, giving provinces a larger share of national revenue has had unintended consequences. The federal government now struggles with fewer resources to fund national obligations such as defense and debt servicing. This has created a financial crunch at the center, hampering its ability to launch coordinated development programs or respond effectively to national emergencies.
Politically, the promise of decentralization has not resolved underlying instability. Frequent government changes, lack of inter-party consensus, and weak political institutions continue to plague Pakistan’s federalism. Provincial-federal confrontations, especially in Punjab and Sindh, have created policy gridlocks, undermining cooperative federalism.
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.
The absence of a clear conflict-resolution mechanism between the center and provinces further complicates governance. The Council of Common Interests (CCI), designed as a coordination body, is underutilized and often politicized. This has resulted in a federal arrangement that lacks cohesion, making it vulnerable to political exploitation and administrative inefficiency.
In conclusion, the 18th Amendment was a major milestone in Pakistan’s constitutional evolution. It symbolized a return to parliamentary democracy and a commitment to provincial rights, but its success remains uneven and incomplete. The reform’s intentions were progressive, but its impact has been limited by structural challenges, weak institutions, and continued civil-military imbalance. For Pakistan’s federal system to function effectively, political maturity, institutional development, and genuine decentralization are imperative.
