How can we obey the law against war? Through more women in political and leadership roles.

Despite its unsuccess in preventing the remilitarization that led to World War II, the signing of the Kellogg-Briand pact on August 27, 1928 remains a significant chapter in history and a reminder of the dangers of war.

The fact that 62 nations overtime signed an agreement that renounced the use of war as an instrument of national policy, promoted diplomacy and called for peaceful settlement of disputes between signatory states spoke volumes of the urgency to make wars a thing of the past following World War I. An urgency which sadly exists till this very moment.

While 1928 marked an important year with the signing of the pact by Frank Kellogg and Aristide Briand, the year was also significant for changing social attitudes and increased political equality for women in the United Kingdom (UK) as they were granted equal voting rights with men. Roughly 8 years earlier, the same rights had already been granted to women in America through the 19^th Amendment to the United States constitution. Fast forward to 2015, only then were women in Saudi Arabia finally granted similar voting rights. A testament to decades of marginalisation.

This got me thinking:

Could the predominantly male centric perspectives on matters relating to conflicts and wars be fuelling wars globally? Are our views on conflicts through the prism of patriarchy the problem?  And, would the world be more peaceful if we had more women leaders?

Regarding the latter question, Former President of the United States Barack Obama seems to think, YES. According to him, “If more women were put in charge, there would be less war, kids would be better taken care of and there would be a general improvement in living standards and outcomes.”[1] Many activists believe that if women had political power, they would not pursue war.[2] Connecting it to decades of activism rooted in maternal love. And point to the fact that women’s participation in legislature advances gender equality and increases peaceful policies.

Whereas others believe such arguments are linked to gender stereotypes and are quick to name the likes of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who waged a huge war in the Falklands. They also claim that women leaders participate in more violent disputes and tend to be more aggressive leaders to compensate their perceived weakness.

Whichever side you choose, there are arguments for and against.

The truth is that historically; women leaders have been few. Between 1950 and 2004, according to data compiled by Katherine W. Phillips, professor of leadership and ethics at Columbia Business School, just 48 national leaders across 188 countries—fewer than 4% of all leaders—have been female. [3]

I do support more women in politics and leadership because representation matters and I am interested in what they bring to the table: different perspectives, experiences, the types of solutions they propose, leadership style etc. There is an increasing recognition of the untapped potentials, skills and talents of women in leadership and politics. And that their participation is essential to building strong democracies.

Even in global peace talks, studies have shown that female participation is the secret to ensuring lasting peace.[4] Yet data shows that, only 4% of signatories to peace agreements between 1992 and 2011 were women, and only 9% of negotiators.[5]

According to Madeleine Albright Chairman of the National Democratic Institute, women in power “can be counted on to raise issues that others overlook, to support ideas that others oppose, and to seek an end to abuses that others accept.”[6]

To obey the law against war, we need newer ideas, perspectives and outside the box solutions. Solutions which we have greater chances of achieving if women are fully represented by having a seat at the table, at political and leadership levels where majority of the predictive, preventive and corrective decisions regarding conflicts and wars are taken.

In Novelist Chimamanda Adichie’s inspiring TED talk on “The danger of a single story”, she speaks about the unintended consequences of a single domineering narrative on any issue. They form incomplete truths.

The consequences of gender bias are that they further reinforce stereotypes and deny millions of women the opportunities to contribute towards outlawing wars. We need to encourage fair representation, empower and support more women at political and leadership levels. Because they can help end wars and bring about lasting peace. It’s time they get the chance.

[1] Abigail S. (2019, Dec. 22) “Obama said that if women ran the world, there’d be less war. Here’s the research.” Accessed https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/22/obama-said-that-if-women-ran-world-thered-be-less-war-heres-research/

[2] Josie G. (2017, October 30) “Would the world be more peaceful if there were more women leaders?” Accessed  https://qz.com/1115269/would-the-world-be-more-peaceful-if-there-were-more-women-leaders/

[3] Ibid

[4] Chizitera N. (2018, June 5) “The secret to ending a war? More women in peace negotiations.”

Accessed  https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/women-in-peace-negotiations-end-wars/

[5] Ibid

[6] Sandra P. (2018, February 28) “Why Women in Politics?” Accessed https://womendeliver.org/2018/why-women-in-politics/

* This essay was first published as part of the – How can we obey the law against war essay competition in 2020.

‍

‍