Should PAS and PSP be dismantled? That's the second of six proposals in Dr Saeed Ahmed's 29th August 2026 Dawn op-ed on restructuring Pakistan's civil service, and arguably the most radical one. He wants the all-Pakistan services, PAS (Pakistan Administrative Service) and PSP (Police Service of Pakistan), broken up in favour of provincial services that, he argues, already do the same job. Here's his case, and what stands against it.
Why Dawn's op-ed targets PAS and PSP specifically
The argument sits inside a longer diagnosis. Roughly 40 reform commissions have tried to fix Pakistan's civil service since 1947, from the 1950 Gladieux Report through the 1973 reforms and the 2006-08 Ishrat Husain Commission to a 2023-25 committee that produced 48 proposals. Nearly all of them stalled at implementation. Dr Ahmed blames three things: bureaucratic resistance from a cadre defending its own monopoly on power and postings, political leaders who prefer loyal officers over independent ones, and pay reforms that never touch the underlying structure.
His proposal to dismantle PAS and PSP grows directly out of that resistance argument. If a generalist cadre keeps blocking reform to protect its own position, he argues, the fix isn't another round of recommendations aimed at that same cadre. It's removing the cadre's all-Pakistan structure altogether.
The charges against PAS and PSP
Dr Ahmed's op-ed lists specific track-record complaints against the DMG/PAS cadre, alongside a structural objection about how it operates.
Beyond that record, the structural objection is that PAS officers claim top positions across specialised departments based on cadre affiliation rather than subject-matter competence, sidelining economists and technocrats who might be better suited to those roles.
The provincial precedent Dawn points to
The op-ed's strongest practical argument is that alternatives already exist and already work. Provinces run Provincial Management Services that perform the same administrative functions PAS officers perform federally. On policing, the piece notes that law and order is constitutionally a provincial subject, and Pakistan already operates separate provincial police forces, the same model used by states in the US, counties in Britain, and states or regions in Australia. On that reading, there's no functional reason for a federal cadre to dominate what's already a devolved responsibility.
Weighing both sides
Set the case for dismantling against the reasons the all-Pakistan cadre structure has survived roughly 40 reform attempts already.
- Existing infrastructure: Provincial Management Services and provincial police forces already perform these functions, so this isn't building something new from scratch.
- International precedent: decentralised policing under provincial or state authority is the norm in the US, UK, and Australia, not an outlier arrangement.
- Competence over affiliation: removing the generalist cadre's claim on specialised posts could open technical roles to economists and technocrats with relevant training.
- Breaks a resistance cycle: if the cadre itself is what's blocking reform, addressing its structure directly may succeed where 40 prior commissions didn't.
- National cohesion: an all-Pakistan cadre gives senior administrators exposure across provinces, which proponents argue builds a national rather than purely local perspective.
- Institutional continuity: PAS and PSP have anchored federal-provincial administration for decades; unwinding that structure is a major undertaking, not an administrative tweak.
- Legal complexity: restructuring services with this kind of constitutional standing would need significant legislative work, not just a policy decision.
- Untested at this scale: Provincial Management Services handle provincial administration, but taking on the full scope of what PAS currently covers federally is a different scale of responsibility.
What this means if you're preparing for CSS right now
Nothing changes today. PAS and PSP remain the two most sought-after groups in the current CSS structure, and this year's merit list still runs on the existing cadre system. But it's worth understanding the debate, because it connects to the AFO induction question we covered separately, both come from the same six-point reform piece, and both target how PAS and PSP specifically absorb officers who didn't necessarily compete through the standard written route.
Frequently asked questions
What does Dawn's op-ed actually propose for PAS and PSP?
It proposes dismantling both all-Pakistan services in favour of provincial equivalents that already exist, Provincial Management Services for administration and provincial police forces for law and order.
Why does the piece single out PAS specifically?
It cites a track record of tax policy decisions, IPP contract design, and politically shaped project planning, alongside a structural complaint that PAS officers claim specialised posts based on cadre affiliation rather than technical competence.
Do other countries run policing this way?
The op-ed cites the US, UK, and Australia as examples where policing is organised at the state, county, or regional level rather than through a single national cadre, which it uses to argue Pakistan's provincial police forces could fully absorb PSP's current role.
Is dismantling PAS and PSP a real policy proposal?
No. It's opinion commentary, not an announced government or FPSC policy. No commission has formally proposed this specific change as of this writing.