Discussion: Should Pakistan create more administrative divisions for easier management?

[Great Janjua]

We need get rid of all diversity.

We need to adopt Chinese Model.

Promote Urdu as the language of the nation.

CCP united China by promoting Mandarin.

Bollocks never happening even a layman like me would not let that happen.

 

[Abdul Rehman Majeed]

You need that party to stay in power for at least 10 and up to 25 years.

Personally I'd favour a one party system based purely on meritocracy, competent governance and productive growth.

Our armed services are the best institution to run the nation.

Just allow only one party like Chinese CCP.

Only allow people who served in armed services for at least 5 years to become members of that party.

Bollocks never happening even a layman like me would not let that happen.

Think beyond your tribe and sect.

We need to unite the nation using one party one language model like Chinese have done it.

 

[Abdul Rehman Majeed]

Just breaking up into smaller pieces means nothing unless it involves devolution of power. A good model is like the EU - a Commonwealth of States that do most of the governing except shared duties like foreign policy, defense and may be monetary policy. That will also break the back of dictatorship by the military because the local government minister can't post a prayer on his twitter and call it a day's job when people are hungry.

Pakistan needs consolidation of administration and power.

We need less government.

Less Government = Less Expenditure

 

[TheSolution]

Just allow only one party like Chinese CCP.

Only allow people who served in armed services for at least 5 years to become members of that party.

That is just stupid.

The level of competency for governing is not dictated by how long you served in the army.

The system would ideally be structured similar to China's, purely based on meritocracy. And you work your way up.

 

[Abdul Rehman Majeed]

That is just stupid.

The level of competence is not dictated by how long you served in the army.

The system should be structured similar to China's, purely based on meritocracy. And you work your way up.

People who serve in our armed services will inculcate disciple, ethics and skills that are needed to run the government.

 

[epebble]

A similar system to this is currently in place already, no?

May be the devolution is not enough. Devolution should be so deep that nobody can hijack the polity and become a Saviour. A full EU model where each province is sovereign but is a member of Union with a Union Parliament, Union Civil service and a Union budget. Defense, monetary policy and justice would be at State level except when interstate issues are involved. Just copy the whole EU model - free movement of people, labor, Capital and free markets; otherwise, the States are sovereign.

 

[TheSolution]

May be the devolution is not enough. Devolution should be so deep that nobody can hijack the polity and become a Saviour. A full EU model where each province is sovereign but is a member of Union with a Union Parliament, Union Civil service and a Union budget. Defense, monetary policy and justice would be at State level except when interstate issues are involved. Just copy the whole EU model - free movement of people, labor, Capital and free markets; otherwise, the States are sovereign.

Dude that's literally what happens already with even unique police forces and intelligence agencies per province.

Unless you're advocating to just abort the idea of Pakistan entirely which is obviously not going to happen willingly, but even then would cause many problems due to ethnic overlaps and historical claims. (Attock, Hazarewal, North Balochistan) And some regions may even opt joining elsewhere.

You're taking the discussion to a very weird direction where most people would see it as anti-Pakistan

People who serve in our armed services will inculcate disciple, ethics and skills that are needed to run the government.

No they wouldn't, firing a gun doesn't mean you're capable of effective governance

China's model is infinite times more effective for this role

Stop trolling Pajeet

 

[epebble]

Dude that's literally what happens already with even unique police forces and intelligence agencies per province.

Unless you're advocating to just abort the idea of Pakistan entirely which is obviously not going to happen willingly, but even then would cause many problems due to ethnic overlaps and historical claims. (Attock, Hazarewal, North Balochistan) And some regions may even opt joining elsewhere.

You're taking the discussion to a very weird direction where most people would see it as anti-Pakistan


No they wouldn't, firing a gun doesn't mean you're capable of effective governance

China's model is infinite times more effective for this role

Stop trolling Pajeet

Any federation that can resist dictatorship by military should be better than present. Obviously, the present setup is not working.

 

[TheSolution]

Any federation that can resist dictatorship by military should be better than present. Obviously, the present setup is not working.

I believe you're looking for a solution in the wrong place.

Even in your earlier suggestion the military could act as a dictator, and also what is stopping sub-national dictatorships from being formed?

The problem is inherently the people itself and also the complete lack of accountability and transparency. Obvious rigging and political engineering takes place and there are no measures to prevent it but instead support it.

But to be honest personally I'm not even against dictatorships I would prefer one myself, but just not under an incompetent and corrupt system which lacks meritocracy and prioritises nepotism instead.

A China-like system which values meritocracy as the #1 priority and discourages both nepotism and corruption is the type of dictatorship I'd like.

 

[FuturePAF]

I can see many benefits to doing this, especially having easier to manage divisions perhaps based on population size and area. This will make it a lot easier to govern, and politics could potentially be more balanced.

Opinions? @FuturePAF @Signalian @PanzerKiel @blain2 @villageidiot @_NOBODY_ @-blitzkrieg- @R Wing

https://twitter.com/x/status/1615349223943467009

We need to first run what we currently have well for at least 10 years before rocking the boat and re-organizing In a way that will bring up many local conflicting interests.

 

[TheSolution]

We need to first run what we currently have well for at least 10 years before rocking the boat and re-organizing In a way that will bring up many local conflicting interests.

Heavily agreed, I was just questioning the benefits but yes it would require political stability to be high and a national leader to make the move like IK.

 

[epebble]

I believe you're looking for a solution in the wrong place.

Even in your earlier suggestion the military could act as a dictator, and also what is stopping sub-national dictatorships from being formed?

The problem is inherently the people itself and also the complete lack of accountability and transparency. Obvious rigging and political engineering takes place and there are no measures to prevent it but instead support it.

But to be honest personally I'm not even against dictatorships I would prefer one myself, but just not under an incompetent and corrupt system which lacks meritocracy and prioritises nepotism instead.

A China-like system which values meritocracy as the #1 priority and discourages both nepotism and corruption is the type of dictatorship I'd like.

As a general rule, it is harder to herd a bunch of disparate states into a large unitary dictatorship. Of course, exceptions are there: USSR, China. I kind of like our system where when Trump became president, the States ignored him, and life moved on. When he tried to hack the elections, the electoral college (of States) quashed it. If it were a unitary State, we might be having our version of Zia Ul Haque. Of course, this comparison is not meaningful or relevant due to different cultures and traditions.

 

[Olympus81]

It is a good proposal.

39 divisions can remain as is and provinces abolished altogether.

That will tone down provincialism, ethnicity, language tensions. People will focus on improving their divisions.

And we won’t be in a situation where 1 province decides the fate of the country, politically speaking.

 

[Sinnerman108]

I can see many benefits to doing this, especially having easier to manage divisions perhaps based on population size and area. This will make it a lot easier to govern, and politics could potentially be more balanced.

Opinions? @FuturePAF @Signalian @PanzerKiel @blain2 @villageidiot @_NOBODY_ @-blitzkrieg- @R Wing

https://twitter.com/x/status/1615349223943467009

Nopes,
that is the absolutely worst thing to do.
before suggesting a solution for a problem , you need to understand the root cause of the problem.
that is something you have not done.
and making more divisions, will only replicate the problem so many times.

So, think more on the lines of changing the way rules of governance are made' and how can they can changed to facilitate modern day governance requirements.

 

[TheSolution]

It is a good proposal.

39 divisions can remain as is and provinces abolished altogether.

That will tone down provincialism, ethnicity, language tensions. People will focus on improving their divisions.

And we won’t be in a situation where 1 province decides the fate of the country, politically speaking.

That's also what I had in mind when making the thread.

Overall it's just easier organising and managing a smaller area, you can truly focus on what needs attention.

But to even think of doing something like this you would need a leader with popularity as high as Imran Khan's - popularity and stability.