Introduction
In resource-rich federations like Pakistan, the control and management of mineral resources have always been a contentious issue. The debate revolves around whether the federation or the provinces should exercise control over these valuable assets. This policy brief explores the pros and cons of each model and compares international practices to offer a balanced approach suitable for Pakistan’s complex socio-political landscape.
Federal Control: Arguments and Implications
- National Cohesion and Security: Central control over strategic mineral resources ensures that no single province can use resource wealth to fund separatist activities. In Pakistan, the Baloch insurgency has often been linked to grievances about resource exploitation and lack of benefit-sharing.
- Equitable Distribution of Wealth: Federal control enables redistribution of revenues from resource-rich provinces to underdeveloped regions, thereby reducing inter-provincial economic disparities.
- Strategic Foreign Partnerships: Deals involving international stakeholders, such as Chinese investment in Saindak or Barrick Gold in Reko Diq, are more appropriately handled by the federal government due to their foreign policy implications.
- Preventing Resource Nationalism: Provincial control may encourage mini-nationalism, weakening national unity and potentially leading to fragmented foreign policy agendas.
Provincial Autonomy: Arguments and Implications
- True Federalism: Allowing provinces to manage their own resources aligns with the principles of federalism. It grants ownership to the people who live in the resource-bearing regions.
- Improved Accountability and Efficiency: Provincial governments may be better positioned to manage resources efficiently and respond to local needs, ensuring more responsible environmental and labor practices.
- Reducing Center-Province Tensions: Enhanced provincial control can help ease long-standing grievances of exploitation and neglect, especially in regions like Balochistan and Sindh.
- Boosting Local Development: When provinces control their resources, they can directly invest in local infrastructure, education, and health, thereby improving human development indicators.
Comparative Global Models
- Saudi Arabia: All natural resources, including oil, gas, and minerals, are state-owned under Article 14 of the Basic Law of Governance (1992). This means that the Kingdom, represented by the central government, has full control over exploration, licensing, extraction, and revenues.
- Canada: Provinces like Alberta have control over their natural resources. This model works due to strong institutional frameworks and a high degree of national integration.
- Nigeria: Despite being a federation, oil revenues are controlled by the central government. However, this has led to insurgency and unrest in the Niger Delta due to inadequate benefit-sharing.
- Indonesia: The central government controls mineral resources but mandates benefit-sharing agreements and corporate social responsibility programs to ensure local development.
Islamic Considerations and the Saudi Model
In Islamic governance, natural resources are considered a public trust (māl al-‘ām) and should be managed for the collective benefit of the Ummah. Saudi Arabia’s model, where all mineral wealth is centrally managed by the state as a trustee of the people, aligns with these principles. There is no provincial autonomy in the management of mineral resources in the Kingdom. However, while this model works well in a unitary Islamic monarchy like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan’s federal structure, ethnic diversity, and constitutional history necessitate a more nuanced approach.
A Hybrid Islamic-Compatible Model for Pakistan
To align with both Islamic values and Pakistan’s federal context, a hybrid model can be adopted:
| Domain | Federation Role | Provincial Role |
|---|---|---|
| Ownership | In name of the Ummah via federation | Recognized stewardship rights |
| Licensing & Foreign Deals | Centralized (for strategy/security) | Consultation mandatory |
| Revenue Sharing | Federal redistribution framework | Guaranteed provincial royalty share |
| Community Development | Oversight via national agencies | Execution by local governments |
| Shari’ah Oversight | Joint council for Islamic compliance | Provincial Shari’ah advisory roles |
This model ensures national cohesion, fairness in revenue distribution, and aligns with Islamic teachings on justice and public trust, while also giving provinces a meaningful role.
A Balanced Approach for Pakistan
- Joint Ownership Models: The federation retains ownership, while provinces manage operations and retain a major share of revenues. This ensures strategic oversight while empowering local governance.
- Transparent Revenue-Sharing Formula: A formula such as 50% to provinces, 30% to the federation, and 20% to a national equalization fund can ensure both local benefit and national equity.
- Federal Oversight with Provincial Execution: Strategic planning and international negotiations remain federal responsibilities, but provinces are empowered to lead in project execution, environmental regulation, and community development.
Conclusion
Pakistan’s historical experiences underscore the risks of unchecked provincial autonomy in mineral wealth management. However, centralization without benefit-sharing has also proven counterproductive. A hybrid model that combines federal strategic oversight with provincial operational autonomy and revenue-sharing, framed within Islamic principles of justice and public ownership, may offer the most sustainable path forward. This approach can simultaneously strengthen national unity, reduce insurgent sentiments, and promote equitable development across all regions.
Word Count: 744 words
