By most accounts, provinces in Pakistan have similar administrative structures, inherited bureaucracies, and fiscal dependencies on the federal government. Yet, their governance outcomes vary significantly.
Among the most telling contrasts is that between Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP); two provinces of almost comparable political weight, but increasingly divergent public-sector performance.
However, the difference, it seems, lies not in terms of institutional design, but in the political psychology of trust; or the absence of it.
In Punjab, successive political governments, whether civilian, military-backed, or technocratic, have learned a crucial lesson: an empowered bureaucracy can deliver. While friction remains, there exists a working consensus among Punjab’s political class that the civil service, when given space, continuity and direction, can translate political will into administrative outcomes.
This understanding has fostered what scholars term a ‘delegated governance model’, where the bureaucracy is trusted to execute all policies with a degree of autonomy — subject, of course, to strategic oversight.
The results are quite evident. Punjab has outpaced all the other provinces in key reform areas: education, public health, digital governance, and even municipal management. Bureaucrats in Punjab report relatively fewer arbitrary transfers, and are more likely to be retained in performance-linked positions, allowing for institutional learning and continuity.
This has allowed the province to attract more international donor support, and pilot innovations, such as e-governance and third-party monitoring, with reason-able success. In KP, the story unfolds a bit differently. Despite a promising post-2013 reform trajectory, which included progressive legislation on information access and police autonomy, the last few years have seen a systemic erosion of bureaucratic confidence. The underlying cause behind the phenomenon is strikingly simple: politicians in KP do not trust the bureaucracy. And, in return, the bureaucracy no longer trusts the political system.
Civil servants in KP operate under a constant threat of premature transfer, political exclusion or reputational risk, particularly if they are seen as too in-dependent or efficient. Officers, who demonstrate initiative, are often viewed with suspicion, while loyalty, real or perceived, trumps merit.
In this climate, many competent officers choose disengagement over confrontation, leading to an administrative culture of caution and self-preservation. This adversarial dynamic has consequences beyond civil service morale. Without trust in the bureaucracy, political leaders increasingly bypass formal institutions and seek parallel delivery mechanisms — task forces, consultants or personal networks — that lack institutional memory or enforcement power.
What results is not just inefficiency, but governance by improvisation. Projects are announced without groundwork; reforms are launched without ownership; and districts are run with one eye on social media optics and the other on political arithmetics.
Meanwhile, posting and transfer cycles in KP remain notoriously volatile. Officers are routinely shuffled based on shifting political alliances or local lobbying, often serving just a few weeks or months in a position where long-term planning would require years. In such an environment, reform becomes episodic, not systemic.
The contrast with Punjab is all the more striking because it shows what happens when political pragmatism overrides insecurity. In Punjab, bureaucrats are far from being immune to interference, but the political class in the province has learned to use the system rather than fight it.
In KP’s case, however, the governance apparatus remains locked in mutual suspicion, with efficiency paying the price. When efficiency becomes threatening and mediocrity becomes safe, no amount of legislation or donor funding can salvage governance.
The way forward is not really radical. KP does not need to reinvent the state. It needs to repair a broken relationship. Trust, once restored, can unlock the institutional energy of a talented but demoralised bureaucracy. Without that trust, governance will remain, at best, performative, and, at worst, paralysed.
IQBAL HUSSAIN BAACHA
PESHAWAR
