Few constitutional reforms in Pakistan have enjoyed the political consensus and public acclaim accorded to the 18th Constitutional Amendment. Passed unanimously by Parliament and signed into law by President Asif Ali Zardari on 19 April 2010, the amendment was celebrated as a historic milestone in Pakistan's democratic journey. By abolishing the Concurrent Legislative List, it fundamentally redefined the relationship between the federation and the provinces and sought to restore the federal balance envisioned in the 1973 Constitution. It promised to move Pakistan away from decades of excessive centralisation by transferring a wide range of subjects, including education, health, agriculture, labour, culture, environment, housing and social welfare, to the provinces.

The amendment was much more than an administrative exercise. It represented a constitutional compact built on a simple but powerful principle: every tier of government should exercise only those powers assigned to it by the Constitution. Provincial autonomy was no longer to remain a political slogan; it became a constitutional commitment. The legal framework for implementing this commitment was equally clear. Under Article 270AA, an Implementation Commission supervised the transfer of federal functions to the provinces. Acting on its recommendations, the federal government issued three notifications on 2 December 2010, 15 April 2011 and 29 June 2011, completing the devolution of seventeen ministries by 30 June 2011. Constitutionally, the process appeared complete. The federation had formally withdrawn from subjects that Parliament had assigned to the provinces.

Sixteen years later, however, the constitutional landscape presents a striking paradox. Many ministries dealing with devolved subjects have gradually reappeared in Islamabad under different names or revised administrative arrangements. Education returned through the Ministry of Federal Education and Professional Training. Agriculture resurfaced as the Ministry of National Food Security and Research. Environment re-emerged as the Ministry of Climate Change. Health, culture and heritage, housing, social welfare, labour-related institutions, EOBI, Evacuee Trust Property and Zakat and Ushr also became part of the federal administrative structure once again.

This development has generated an important constitutional debate. Supporters argue that a modern federation requires national coordination in sectors such as education, health, food security and climate change. That proposition is difficult to dispute. Every federation requires institutions capable of coordinating national policy. The Constitution itself provides such a mechanism through the Council of Common Interests (CCI). The question, therefore, is not whether coordination is necessary. It is whether coordination should take place through constitutional institutions specifically designed for that purpose or through ministries dealing with subjects that Parliament had already devolved to the provinces.

Every additional ministry carries recurring expenditure in the form of ministers, advisers, secretaries, offices, official residences, staff, vehicles, operational budgets and development allocations. If ministries continue to perform functions that the Constitution assigned to the provinces, duplication is no longer merely administrative; it becomes financial.

Every additional ministry........

© The Friday Times