The case for increasing female representation in conflict resolution

Peace processes are famously unpredictable, yet one thing about them is certain; the absence of women. A peace agreement is 35 percent more likely to last for fifteen years if women participate in its creation. Despite this, peacemaking remains a male-dominated sphere with women making up just 9 percent of negotiating delegations, 4 percent of signatories, and 2 percent of chief mediators (between 1992-2011). Why, despite compelling evidence for their beneficial presence, do women remain at the margins of peacemaking processes? How and why do women create more lasting peace? Is seeking formal representation at the peacemaking table, or rejecting traditionally masculine negotiations through ‘outsider’ activism, the most effective way to integrate female perspectives? Finally, how has the international community bolstered female participation and how can remaining obstacles be overcome? Working through such questions is the only way towards a more peaceful future.

Peacemaking as a historically male endeavour

“If people have guns, then we talk to them. If they don’t wear that badge, then we won’t” – perhaps this off-the-record remark by a peace mediator at the International Peace Institute best summarises the history of mainstream (i.e. male) peacemaking. Viewed solely as a means of ending fighting and dividing territory, peace processes have been considered the domain of those pulling the triggers. Women—who are rarely the belligerents—are seldom deemed legitimate participants. To this day, peacemaking remains an obscure process negotiated in secret by political-military elites who are almost exclusively men. 

Yet something is clearly not working; there are more armed conflicts today than at any point since the end of the Second World War and almost half of peace agreements made in the 1990s have failed within five years. In contrast, when women are included, a peace agreement is 20 percent more likely to last at least two years. It seems that women’s participation is precisely what is needed to revive modern peacemaking.

What women bring to the peacemaking table

Understanding the value of female perspectives requires a broader reconceptualization of what peacemaking ought to be. Increasingly, making peace is not just about stopping the fighting but about laying the societal foundations for coexistence. Redefining peace as a state of human security instead of merely the absence of armed conflict and state security (“positive” vs “negative” peace) lends itself to the inclusion of diverse societal voices beyond male military elites.

Male belligerents leading peace negotiations often fail to incorporate local knowledge, public expectations and human security concerns in their decision making, perhaps because their combat experience (as opposed to non-combat, community-based service roles predominantly assumed by women) skews their perceptions, making them prioritise disarmament. 

In contrast, UN Women and EIU/WORLD Policy Analysis Center reports observe that women often speak on behalf of marginalized groups and raise issues in peace negotiations that are critical to reconciliation.  As the ones fighting the daily battle of upholding the social fabric of their war torn communities, women bring up the societal issues that need to be addressed in order for peace to be feasible on the ground. Whilst research on the impact of women’s participation on peace terms is limited due to a lack of gender-disaggregated data, numerous scholars establish a link between women’s unique experiences in war and priorities in peacemaking. Sanam Naraghi Anderlini, Director of the Centre for Women, Peace and Security at the London School of Economics, provides an extensive, cross-regional account of how the peacemaking priorities of women are shaped by “the harsh realities of their own existence”. She concludes that women peace activists are “often natural proponents of … human security … simply because their notion of security is derived from their lived experiences”. Similarly, the aforementioned EIU/WORLD Policy Analysis Center report argues that “women are more likely to raise issues like human rights, security, justice, employment and health care, which are fundamental to lasting and sustainable peace.”* 

This more holistic, human security oriented approach to peacemaking seems to yield positive results. In a comparative research study of 40 peace and political transition agreements, the involvement of women’s groups was strongly correlated with the successful negotiation and implementation of higher quality and more sustainable agreements. 

Case studies where women have been extensively involved in peace talks affirm this beneficial influence. In Guatemala and Burundi, human security concerns such as support for sexual violence victims, education and health services were more likely to be incorporated into the final peace agreements when women participated. Similarly, women’s groups gained notable influence in the 2003 Liberian peace process, consulting with the formal mediation team and gaining observer status to the formal negotiations that led to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). Consequently, the CPA demanded the transitional government to "accord particular attention to the issue of the rehabilitation of vulnerable groups or war victims (children, women, the elderly and the disabled)”. 

An important theoretical sidenote: rejecting essentialism

However, as Diane Otto, a feminist scholar of international human rights law, rightly points out, one must be cautious about justifying women’s right to participation on the basis of “essentialist ... representations of women”. Arguing that women’s value in peacemaking comes from their attention to local communities’ needs can feed into traditional stereotypes of women as caretakers who are “innately nurturing and pacifistic because of their capacity for motherhood”. Despite aiming to justify women’s equal participation, such representations end up inadvertently mirroring patriarchal military discourse that justifies their exclusion. The impression given is that while women are biologically predisposed to take care of the private and local domain, men dominate the more important sphere of public affairs and undertake the more heroic act of fighting wars to protect them.

However, I argue that one can explain the unique perspective women bring to the peacemaking table without falling into the trap of biological determinism.  Men make up the majority of combatants during conflict and are more likely than women to die from war’s direct effects. Women, however, are more likely to die from war’s indirect effects after conflict ends, such as the breakdown in social order, human rights abuses, economic devastation, and the spread of diseases. Thus, lived experience, as opposed to biological certainties, may explain why the latter would place more emphasis on post-conflict social cohesion and human security as opposed to merely stopping the fighting. 

In fact, embracing that women bring essential community knowledge to the negotiation table ultimately subverts patriarchal military discourse; emphasising the value of local, social knowledge to sustainable peace destabilises conventional hierarchies between the domestic and the public and proves that spaces which are conventionally ‘feminine’/non-militaristic are just as integral to peacemaking as “men’s business”, i.e. fighting on the ground. Moreover, recognising women’s local efforts in upholding peace reframes women as active agents, not protected, but protecting themselves. 

Perhaps novelist and pacifist Virginia Woolf put it best: “[W]e [women] can best help you [men] prevent war by not repeating your words and following your methods but by finding new words and creating new methods”.

However, an important question remains: how can women’s perspectives be voiced most effectively in the peacemaking process? Is it through entering traditionally masculine, ‘insider’ spaces – i.e. through female diplomats gaining formal representation at male-dominated negotiation tables - or through rejecting such spaces and driving change via ‘outsider’ activism?

A seat at the negotiation table

Ensuring the representation of female diplomats in formal peace negotiations is one way women’s needs can be voiced. For instance, female representatives of the Phillipine government during the Philippines Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB) made an active effort to include local women’s perspectives in negotiations. Over five months, the female-led team convened public dialogue on the peace process in thirteen regions across the Philippines, with 300 civil society participants (including women’s groups) in each session. This served as a basis for their discussions at the negotiating table. The results of such inclusion speak for themselves; the autonomous political entity born out of the agreement was required to set aside at least 5 percent of its official development funds for women’s programs and its government was required to establish a consultation mechanism for women.

Moreover, having female leadership in formal peace processes is imperative, as such processes provide key opportunities for transforming institutions and political structures in favour of gender equality. Peace agreements have a quasi-constitutional quality; they often outline new democratic institutions, human rights and minority protections, and reform the justice sector. Thus, including women in the drafting of peace agreements is an opportunity to achieve other political gains for women. For instance, in Somalia, the Transitional National Charter (TNC) established a 245 member Transitional National Assembly (TNA) with a quota of at least 12 per cent female representation. Increased gender equality in politics consequently contributes to more enduring peace as countries with greater gender equality and with women in positions of leadership are more likely to resolve conflicts without violence and are less likely to use military force to resolve international disputes.

Nonetheless, seeking inclusion through formal representation has limitations. Firstly, receiving a formal diplomatic post requires extensive professional qualifications, which tends to mean that only urban, professional and privileged women gain a seat at the table. Similarly, what segment of women gain access to formal representation has significance. For instance, whilst women’s groups were included at the negotiation table in Burundi, such groups were perceived as representing only the Tutsi ethnic community. Clearly, it is essential to democratize peace processes beyond representation in formal peace processes. Finally, feminist scholars have critiqued that the inclusion of women in traditional male military institutions is largely nominal. Women are brought into negotiations in line with an ’add women and stir’ approach, where women remain in the minority and are unable to actually determine the terms of the dialogue or meaningfully contribute to peace processes. This calls for complementing formal representation with pressure for genuine inclusion through activism.

Representation through informal peace activism

Exclusion from the halls of power has not stopped women from voicing their needs; women are “actively excluded but not absent”.  In fact, informal peace activism beyond the negotiation table has become a burgeoning force of female influence in peace agreements. A Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security study found that in approximately 43% of 63 formal peace processes surveyed, there was clear evidence of women’s groups pushing for peace (alongside the formal processes) through informal advocacy. Women’s groups also informally work for peace by starting local-level conflict resolution peace initiatives, legitimating peace negotiations through public protest advocacy and promoting gender equality and democracy.

Joining forces: combining formal representation with outsider activism

It seems the most effective method of integrating women’s voices in the peace processes is through formal female negotiators harnessing the power of, and incorporating the demands of, diverse local women’s groups. As Otto argues, this strikes an optimal balance between upholding accountability through local, progressive and anti-militarist ‘outside’ movements while also working from the ‘inside’ to transform mainstream institutional practices and mindsets. Female diplomats in formal negotiations should draw upon the expert advice of women’s groups who are more in tune with local communities' grievances. Women signatories in the aforementioned Philippine CAB did so, incorporating recommendations formulated by local women’s groups in their arguments. Miriam Coronel-Ferrer, the chairperson of the peace negotiation and CAB signatory, noted that female negotiators “were backed up by a strong and active contingent of women outside of the formal table” in what was “a delightful dynamic of women inspiring fellow women.”

Reimagining peacemaking with women in the center – evaluating progress and envisioning ways forward 

Given the clear benefits of women’s inclusion in peace processes, how has the international community worked to support formal and informal female participation?

In 2000, the UN Security Council adopted the landmark Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, which recognized women’s critical role in peacemaking and advocated for increasing representation through both formal decision-making processes and local women’s initiatives. One must not understate the significance of this resolution: as scholar Carol Cohn opines, for women in war-torn regions, local civic groups and working in NGOs, “just saying ‘1325’ evoke[d] a host of new possibilities and the promise of a radical change from politics-as-usual”.

In fact, an analysis found that explicit references to women in peace agreements increased significantly after the passing of Resolution 1325, from 11 per cent to 27 per cent of agreements. The NGO Working Group lobby behind the resolution has also worked on popularising the Resolution among local women’s groups, leading workshops where women peace activists from countries including Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), El Salvador, Fiji, Iraq, Kosova, Liberia, Rwanda, and Sri Lanka could share their strategies for deploying 1325 in their local contexts.

Despite this, Resolution 1325 has led to little change in practice. Whilst references to women did increase following Resolution 1325, enduring barriers to representation (see below) mean that only 16 per cent of peace agreements contain specific references to women. More importantly, textual inclusion should not be an end in itself but merely a step towards achieving actual gender equality on the ground. Sustained implementation of 1325 is severely lacking. For instance, in the UN Mission to East Timor, UNSC 1325 was inadequately implemented. One must agree with Otto’s analysis that, despite 1325, “women's inclusion has been more of an exercise in appearances rather than one of substantive change”.

How can persistent obstacles to female participation be overcome?

Understanding and overcoming barriers to genuine representation

Barrier 1: Continued lack of representation and implementation

Efforts must continue to strengthen female diplomats, women’s groups, and crucially, the complementary relationships between the two. Understanding and overcoming institutional and personal barriers faced by female diplomats in conflict resolution is a good first step, already undertaken by women’s networks such as the Women in Diplomacy project based at the London School of Economics. Helping women’s groups reach out to such diplomats is equally important; this can involve offering groups expert support in drafting contributions to a peace agreement, giving training on the specialist language and conventions around ceasefires and fostering diplomat-civic ties so groups can meet with and submit position papers directly to negotiators and mediators.

Moreover, including women’s voices in peace agreements is just half of the battle. Creating accountability mechanisms so that gender-oriented promises in peace agreements are actually implemented is essential. Such mechanisms could entail demanding targets and benchmarks within the agreement that could be used to measure progress, or reinvigorating demands for Resolution 1325 to come with a UN expert implementation panel.

Barrier 2: Mediators’ and belligerents’ resistance to female participation 

Despite evidence pointing otherwise, many male mediators are resistant to promote female inclusion in negotiations, fearing that it may “derail the process”. This is informed by a longstanding belief in a trade-off between trying to end violence imminently versus undertaking a more comprehensive, gender inclusive approach to peace agreements. There is a fear that if those who are fighting fail to reach a ceasefire because of disagreements over gender inclusivity, little stability will be possible and thus everyone, including women, will be worse off. On the other hand, if gender equality issues are sacrificed to the achievement of a ceasefire, the ceasefire is likely to achieve very little in terms of a more equal society essential for long-term peace. The end result is that mediators prioritise short-term results (ie ending fighting) even if at the cost of women’s participation.

The first solution to this is increasing awareness of proven links between women’s engagement and the durability of peace. The International Peace Institute’s (IPI) findings have disproven the supposed trade-off - qualitative analysis of forty in-depth country case studies shows that when women participate meaningfully in peace agreements, they increase the chances of both short term agreement and a long term durable peace system arising.

Secondly, pressure from international organisations is necessary: in the aforementioned 40 cases, belligerents only included women’s groups in peace talks when local and international organizations lobbied strongly for their participation.

Barrier 3: Contextual/cultural limitations

Despite findings disproving the trade-off between female representation and reaching urgent agreements, one must acknowledge that in certain cultural or political contexts, mediators demanding formal female representation is a deal-breaker for belligerents. Insisting on such representation becomes counterproductive, as it prevents a ceasefire which brings stability for women. If resistance is very strong during negotiations, it may be more tactical for women’s groups to remain outside of official talks, generating pressure from the outside via the media or mass action.

Conclusion

Women’s participation is essential to establishing enduring peace in conflict ridden societies. Appreciating this requires both redefining the purpose of peace agreements (from achieving a negative peace to a positive peace) and acknowledging how female lived experiences bring a new perspective to the table. When it comes to integrating female perspectives, combining formal ‘insider’ diplomatic representation with progressive and local civic activism is the most promising strategy. Achieving results requires strengthening female diplomatic-civic ties, replacing myth with fact when it comes to the effects of women’s representation on reaching short term agreements, leveraging international pressure and maintaining flexibility in culturally-specific contexts. Under such circumstances, female peacemakers have the potential to usher in a new era of peace.

By: Lili Krasznai

*Nor should one exclude the possibility that increasingly, given the increasing share of women in many national militaries and in the UN peacekeeping force, women bring not just community-based, non-military perspective to negotiations, but important military and technical expertise.