The fire at Gul Plaza did not erupt in isolation; it rose from the accumulated debris of neglect that has long defined Karachi’s urban experience. Flames tore through an ageing commercial building whose vulnerabilities were well known, just as countless other old structures across the city continue to crumble quietly, floor by floor, crack by crack. In the same city, a spell of routine rain can still paralyse neighbourhoods, submerging roads, homes, and livelihoods within hours. Long-pending road projects remain perpetually incomplete, narrowing carriageways into death traps where accidents are absorbed as daily statistics rather than policy failures.

These are not disconnected crises. Together, they form a continuum of urban decay, sustained by a provincial government that hears public anguish yet responds with studied indifference. Sindh is, paradoxically, the only province with a formally active local government system, but it exists largely as an administrative shell—deprived of authority, resources, and credibility. Gul Plaza burned because Karachi has been allowed to rot in slow motion, its warning signs ignored until catastrophe forced attention that routine suffering never could.

This fire was more than a singular disaster; it was a symbol of systemic failure. It exposed the consequences of governance that is centralised but ineffective, a city whose scale and complexity have long outstripped the institutions meant to manage it. Karachi, Pakistan’s most populous city, remains trapped in a political economy that rewards short-term patronage over long-term resilience. Fires, flooding, and infrastructure collapse are not random—they are the visible consequences of diffused responsibility and unaccountable leadership.

Karachi, with a population exceeding 20 million, generates a disproportionate share of national revenue. Yet it continues to lag behind cities worldwide in infrastructure, disaster preparedness, and basic civic services. Roads flood under routine rainfall, storm drains remain blocked, and building regulations are enforced inconsistently at best. These are not technical failures alone; they are the predictable results of years of elite capture, institutional apathy, and a lack of accountability. Money flows into the province, but outcomes for the city remain dismal.

There are countries such as Switzerland, Sweden, Austria, the UAE, Belgium, and Portugal—which are less populous but more prosperous than Karachi. These countries, with populations far smaller than Karachi’s, are able to deliver services, maintain public safety, and sustain robust economies because authority is localised, accountability is real, and fiscal resources are linked to performance. Karachi, by contrast, is trapped in a system where resources are available but governance structures are incapable of mobilising them into outcomes.

The solution is not merely fiscal; it is structural. Pakistan’s administrative framework has long concentrated power at the provincial level, leaving cities like Karachi with limited control over planning, regulation, and service delivery. Local governments are repeatedly suspended or stripped of authority, creating a governance vacuum in which no tier is fully responsible for outcomes.

A serious rethinking of Pakistan’s administrative architecture is now unavoidable, even if it provokes political hue and cry. The country’s scale, demographic diversity, and economic complexity have long outgrown a governance model that concentrates authority while diffusing responsibility. Building autonomous administrative units, empowered with clear fiscal, regulatory, and service-delivery mandates, is not an act of fragmentation but one of functional realism. Countries far smaller in population than Pakistan’s major urban centres manage themselves with far greater efficiency precisely because governance is closer to citizens, data-driven, and accountable.

Administrative autonomy would allow regions and cities to plan infrastructure, enforce regulations, and respond to emergencies without waiting for distant approvals or navigating provincial bottlenecks. Resistance to such reform is often framed as a defence of political stability, yet the real instability lies in perpetuating administrative paralysis. Effective decentralisation, anchored in constitutional clarity and performance-based fiscal transfers, would not weaken the federation; it would strengthen it by aligning power with responsibility and making failure visible rather than invisible.

The National Finance Commission (NFC) framework provides provinces with the majority of federal revenues, including a substantial share to Sindh. However, the NFC award is silent on how provinces further utilise those proceeds within their jurisdictions, and these funds are effectively treated as carte blanche, untethered from performance-based criteria to monitor effective utilisation.

Gul Plaza should compel a broader reckoning. What failed was not merely fire safety or urban planning, but the political economy that shields poor governance from consequence. Karachi’s decay reflects a system where authority is centralised, accountability diluted, and fiscal transfers treated as entitlement rather than obligation. Unless NFC allocations are tied to measurable performance, local governments are genuinely empowered, and administrative reform is pursued despite political resistance, the cycle will persist. The choice is stark: confront entrenched interests now, or continue rebuilding the city after each disaster, knowing the next one is only a matter of time.

THE WRITER IS A Financial MARKET ENTHUSIAST AND IS ASSOCIATED WITH PAKISTAN’S STOCKS, COMMODITIES, AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGY