Participation vs. Power: Women’s persistent exclusion from peacemaking processes

Adopted in 2000, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 marked a turning point in global peace and security policy, establishing the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) Agenda.

The legislation established a global commitment to women’s participation in conflict prevention, mediation, and peacebuilding processes. Since the resolution was passed in 2000, more than 100 countries, alongside numerous regional organizations, have adopted regional and National Action Plans (NAPs) to implement the WPS agenda, realizing its radical aims of enhancing the role of women in conflict prevention and increasing women’s participation in peacebuilding. Yet, despite the proliferation of NAPs and notable shift in international discourse on the importance of gender inclusivity in conflict prevention and resolution, data indicates that women remain consistently excluded from peace processes. What accounts for this discrepancy between discourse and data?

Descriptive ≠ Substantive Representation

This gap between the promises of the WSP agenda and the reality of women’s continued exclusion arises from its focus on descriptive rather than substantive representation. Descriptive representation refers to the numerical inclusion of women in political arenas. By contrast, substantive representation concerns their genuine capacity to shape political decisions and outcomes. The WPS agenda has seen relative success in advancing women’s descriptive representation. It has gone a long way to normalize women’s presence in peace processes and related institutions and to reinforce the unique contributions of women mediators to conflict mediation and resolution.

However, women’s involvement in peace and security processes has often been limited to peripheral or subsidiary positions: observer roles, advisory positions, or symbolic appointments that increase women’s visibility in decision-making spaces without conferring them the authority to actually influence decision-making processes. Indeed, the gap persists because inclusion has been treated as a numbers game, not a question of power. As a result, women’s participation risks remaining symbolic, affirming women’s presence without challenging the gendered power structures that continue to govern decision-making in peace and security processes. 

A case study: the Horn of Africa

Across the Horn of Africa, the barriers to women’s meaningful participation in peace processes are stark. Countries like Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, and South Sudan face ongoing political instability, cycles of violence, and weak institutional structures that limit women’s access to formal decision-making spaces. Women mediators in these contexts are often at the forefront of local peacebuilding, using their networks, community knowledge, and negotiation skills to address the root causes of conflict. Yet despite their vital contributions, these efforts rarely translate into authority within official peace negotiations, leaving women’s influence largely peripheral.

Recognizing these gaps, the Agency for Peacebuilding (AP) launched a 2024 initiative to support women mediators across the Horn. The project creates a flexible, context-sensitive platform for collaboration, skills development, and regional knowledge-sharing, spanning Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, and South Sudan. By centering women’s priorities and strengthening their capacity for sustained engagement in mediation, the initiative represents a promising model for bridging the divide between local expertise and formal negotiation arenas. However, no one initiative can fix the problem alone. Without political will and sustained funding, even the strongest networks risk hitting a glass ceiling, and the project’s success ultimately depends on broader political will, institutional support, and long-term resourcing to ensure that women’s expertise can shape not just community-level outcomes, but national and regional decision-making. 

Looking ahead: from participation to power

The Horn of Africa illustrates the broader challenge facing the Women, Peace, and Security agenda: women’s presence alone is not enough. Presence alone is not power, and “being in the room” is not the same as shaping outcomes. True progress requires moving beyond symbolic inclusion to substantive power. It requires ensuring that women are not only participants, but decision-makers who can set agendas, negotiate agreements, and shape the policies that govern peace and security. Initiatives like AP’s project demonstrate the potential of targeted support and cross-border collaboration, but structural change remains essential. Only by confronting entrenched gender hierarchies and embedding women’s authority into formal peacemaking processes can the WPS agenda fulfill its promise of transforming peace and security for all.

This blog article is based on and inspired by the paper

G. Ferraro, & A. Marsh (2026). Participation Without Power: Women Mediators and the Limits of the WPS Agenda in the Horn of Africa. In H. Mitanoska, “Power and Representation in Global Political and Social Transformations” (pp. 71-84). Luiss Women in International Affairs – Rome & International Humanitarian Law Youth Initiative – Cairo Publisher.

The FULL PAPER can be accessed here: Power and Representation in Global Political and Social Transformations