By Florence Iheme, Senior Expert, INCAS
More than two decades after the landmark adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) on Women, Peace and Security, we are still grappling with a stark reality: women remain largely absent from formal peace negotiation tables, particularly at the highest political levels. Despite countless studies and policy declarations affirming the link between women’s participation and more sustainable peace agreements, women continue to be marginalised in Track 1 mediation processes, those led by States and international actors at the national, regional and global levels.
This is not just an issue of representation. It is a structural problem that undermines the quality and effectiveness of peacebuilding itself. Women and children are disproportionately affected by the consequences of violent conflict, and yet they are often denied a seat at the very tables where the terms of peace and post-conflict reconstruction are determined. The contradiction is glaring, and it weakens the legitimacy and durability of peace agreements reached without their input.
Part of the problem lies in the limited mandates and narrow political calculations of those facilitating negotiations. Mediators and convening actors often prioritise short-term ceasefires or power-sharing arrangements over inclusive, long-term solutions. In doing so, they fail to engage the broader constituencies that are essential to reconciliation and social cohesion. Women, in particular, are often told that their perspectives are not relevant to the "hard politics" of negotiation, even though their community-based networks are frequently the first to address the practical needs of peace and recovery on the ground.
One of the most under-utilised levers of change in this space is the regional organisation. Institutions like the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) at the sub-regional level, and the African Union at the continental level, have a comparative advantage: they are well positioned to promote norms across multiple countries, build capacity among mediators, and shift political cultures from within. Regional organisations can develop and strengthen normative frameworks that explicitly require inclusive peace processes. They can also invest in the institutional structures that make inclusion possible, for example, gender units, rosters of trained women mediators, and inclusive dialogue platforms. Finally, they have the legitimacy to run region-wide sensitisation efforts that challenge harmful narratives about gender roles in peace and security.
Change will not come through frameworks alone. Accountability is key. Regional organisations must not only encourage inclusive practices but also measure progress. Where inclusion targets are missed or commitments ignored, there must be consequences, or at least honest, public conversations about the gaps between promise and practice. Inclusion must be seen not as a box-ticking exercise but as a core component of credible mediation.
Progress has been made in some areas, but the pace remains uneven and, too often, symbolic. We know what works: when women participate meaningfully, peace agreements are more likely to be implemented and sustained. What we lack is the political will and operational commitment to make that participation standard, not exceptional.
In this moment of global uncertainty and regional fragility, we cannot afford to keep sidelining half the population in our peace efforts. The responsibility lies not only with States and international actors but also with regional organisations, whose reach and influence give them a powerful role in shaping what peace processes look like, and who they serve.