PEACE TALKS. Who listens?

Executive Summary

PEACE TALKS Who listens?

The Role of Women in Political Transformations for a More Just, Peaceful, and Inclusive Society.

01 INTRODUCTION Freedom. Peace. Justice. Three years after the eruption of the 2018-2019 Revolution, the echoes of these ideals still reverberate across the nation. While the ousting of the Bashir regime was a watershed moment in the history of Sudan, it also illustrated that the journey towards the ‘new Sudan’ had only just begun. The transitional government, led by former Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, set five key priorities for the transitional period; chief among them were the questions of sustainable peace and advancing a democratic transition. However, socioeconomic grievances went unaddressed, peace remained elusive, security sector reform was not on the agenda, and women’s legitimate demands for reform were met with performative politics.

Despite public commitments to bolster the role of women in all tiers of governance and decision-making processes, and despite calls by civil society, women, and feminist organizations to move from rhetoric to action, the transitional government offered little more than empty platitudes. To use the words of the former Prime Minister, the changes were “below ambition.” The Criminal Act and Personal Status Law continue to protect perpetrators of violence against women and girls (VAW/G) and the much-celebrated Juba Peace Agreement (JPA) that was meant to “silence the sound of the rifle and restore hope to millions of IDPS and refugees”1 has amounted to nothing more than ink on paper.

The international community and Sudan’s politico-military elites celebrated the JPA as a triumph ushering in a “new era for the people of Sudan.” If anything, the JPA ushered in a new era and threw a lifeline to ‘payroll peace’ actors2. While the JPA stresses the role of women in peacebuilding and calls for the codification of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, the human rights violations and gender-based violence committed by its signatories continue unabated. A mere year after the international community and elites hailed the JPA as a historic breakthrough, the military and the signatories to the JPA orchestrated a coup that dealt a heavy blow to the transitional period and cast a shadow of doubt on the implementation of the agreement.

The impetus for this research was to better understand women’s lived experiences and the intersecting factors that shape their manifold perspectives on peace and security. The objective of this paper is twofold. First, to center women’s diverse voices, knowledge, experiences, and contributions to peacebuilding. Second, invite discussions and conversations – across divides and outside of echo chambers - on the issues of peace and state-building that have long been deferred. The group discussions, limited as they were, offered valuable insights but also gave way to profound questions that remain to be answered. This summary document highlights the key themes, takeaways, and reflections that emanated from the discussions.

1

Former Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok’s Resignation Speech De Waal, Alex (2019) Sudan: a political marketplace framework analysis. Occasional Papers (19). World Peace Foundation and the Conflict Research Programme, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK 2

02 WHOSE PEACE AND SECURITY? Sudan’s history is littered with peace processes and agreements brokered through international efforts, including the recent Juba Peace Agreement. These processes remain structurally flawed as they approach peace and security through the narrow prisms of liberal peace3, militarism and masculinized state security, thereby privileging the demands and priorities (wealth and power sharing) of warlords, elites and international actors, to the detriment of citizens.

What do peace and security mean?

Experiences of insecurity before, during and after conflict are gendered, and women’s insecurity is particularly heightened by long-standing and interlocking structures of violence and inequality. However, the understanding of security (state security) that underpins men-led peacebuilding efforts often fails to consider the multidimensional threat to women’s security and the continuum of violence that shapes and disrupts their day-to-day lives. When asked what security means to them, Respondents broadly framed security as a precondition to peace. Feeling safe and secure evoked thoughts of a tranquil life, free from fear.

Emphasis was also placed on freedom, the provision of basic services, and living a stable life.

Security means…

“Stability at the level of the family, society, and state” – FGD1, al-Fashir “Not experiencing problems at home, on the street, or in the workplace” FGD, al-Dalanj “Being able to express your opinion freely. It means feeling safe internally and externally. It means peace” – FGD1, Nyala “It’s the sense of feeling of being able to lead a normal life” FGD, Kadugli

Peace is…

“Living like every other human being. Enjoying basic human rights. Not feeling afraid for my safety or my family. It means feeling my humanity” FGD2, al-Fasher “Not living in fear. It means not to wake up every day and be stricken by grief and loss” - FGD2, Kassala

3

Assal, Abdul-Jalil, and Egemi (2020)

“Security in cities and towns, adherence to laws, the provision of basic services such as education, health, roads, clean water, and the elimination of social disparities. – ad-Damazine “People having good jobs, eating well, and living well” FGD, Khartoum

Respondents also ascribed to peace values such as harmony, peaceful coexistence, forgiveness, tolerance, democracy, equality, freedom, and justice.

Everyday (in)security

When asked whether or not they felt safe, the answer was a resounding no from the vast majority of respondents. By and large, women expressed that cities are unsafe for both men and women, but that women and girls generally experience insecurity more acutely and that the impacts of insecurity are gendered and shaped by intersecting identities. This heightened sense of insecurity was attributed to the state of ongoing conflict, the militarization of society, and pervasive structural violence reified by social norms. These intertwined factors curtail the already limited space available to women and work in tandem to upend their lives. Taking the everyday as a point of departure allows for reframing what is considered a security threat and how women’s insecurity is compromised in both the so-called private and public spheres.

Sources of insecurity

The State: protector or perpetrator?

Following the Juba Peace Process, hopes were pinned to the agreement and promises were made. While the signatories were busy professing peace and peppering their speeches with slogans such as peace is beautiful (alsalam samih) the situation on the ground remained grave, and those living in conflict-affected areas were no better off, if not worse off4. According to respondents from al-Fashir since the signing of the agreement, crime appears to have increased, arms proliferate, and more attacks have been reported. Respondents in al-Fashir and Nyala emphatically stated that the security situation deteriorated after the signing of the peace agreement. One respondent explained: “The country has long been in a state of disarray, but after the JPA, we have been caught up in a state of security crisis, and the situation has deteriorated. We are almost back to square one. Peace does not materialize without security. The reason we are at this point today is because of the leaders who purport to speak in the name of the revolution”. An internally displaced woman from Zamzam (an IDP camp in al-Fashir) explained that the armed groups who entered the city after the signing of the JPA exacerbated the already tenuous security situation, particularly in IDP camps. Others added that more people have been displaced since the signing of the agreement5.

The targeting of specific ethnicities, religious minorities, or marginalized groups is a theme that emerged in several discussions. These accounts of targeted violence expose the cracks in the state’s veneer of citizen protection and call into question the extent to which militarization and securitized approaches are detrimental to

4

ACLED (2020) https://acleddata.com/2020/08/27/riders-on-the-storm-rebels-soldiers-and-paramilitaries-in-sudans-margins/ Accessed 12.12.2020 5

FGD1, al-Fashir

citizens’ physical, economic, and social security. Through the state-centric approach, the state calls the shots on who to provide security to and who to deprive of it. This in turn determines whose security is prioritized and why; whose life is considered more valuable and whose is dispensable.

The Society In most discussion groups, social norms were identified as a significant threat to women’s physical and psychological security. Respondents from al-Fashir, Nyala, and Khartoum expressed that when women occupy male-dominated spaces, they are regarded as trespassers and treated as such. This theme was particularly salient in Kasala. Respondents expressed that societal norms constitute a major threat and play a significant role in shaping and delimiting women’s lives. The term ‘closed or conservative community’ was frequently used by respondents to describe their context. In this closed community, traditions and customs amplify insecurity by fostering a culture of fear and reprisals. A respondent stated: “This feeling of insecurity isn’t new. As a woman, fear is planted in you early on. It starts with trivial things like being forbidden from playing in the street or having a curfew and gradually evolves into limiting your career choices. As a woman, you live in a state of fear from the moment you are born until you die. You are constantly scared of your father, brother, neighbours, etc”. Others expressed that their lives are characterized by a perpetual sense of anxiety because they are constantly under the watchful and judgmental gaze of society.

Capitalizing on - and stoking the flames of - this culture of fear, the (in)security forces, too, have rendered the lives of women and girls more precarious by stifling public space and using violence or the threat of violence to maintain control.

Women’s rights activists and human rights defenders (WHRDs) continue to be targeted by the state apparatus, and physical and psychological violence is meted on them. If the state forces are not targeting women, then they are likely facing the wrath of society, backlash from the family - or all three.

Fear and uncertainty as a ‘way of life’6 Respondents from Kadugli and al-Dalanj articulated that life in the city is akin to living in a state of limbo; “there is no active war per se, but there is no peace either.” Several respondents shared the view that there is no sense of security because the situation is volatile and conflict can erupt at any moment. This “no war, no peace” (Richards, 2005) state is by no means unique to Kadugli. The feeling of physical and temporal dislocation was also articulated by some internally displaced women in al-Fashir. This state of in-betweenness that women find themselves in makes it difficult to reconcile with the past, foment a new sense of normalcy in the present or make plans for the future. Living in this state of limbo is characterized by haunting anxiety, fear and ambiguity. In the in-between, lives are stalled, dreams are suspended, and futures hang in the balance.

6

(L. Green, 1999)

Understanding Peace

The majority of respondents do not conceive peace in the narrower sense (negative peace). Still, the views of the few women who defined peace as the mere absence of war, warrant attention. Proponents of this view conceived peace as an outcome; something that comes into being once an agreement is signed and hostilities cease. Although this narrow conceptualization was expressed only a handful of times, it is reflective of the current state of affairs, where the elites purport to ‘bring peace to the people’ simply by signing agreements.

For most respondents, peace and peacebuilding constituted a process, a way of life, and a long journey towards stability and security, one that starts with “stability in the family, society, and the state as a whole”. Most respondents contend that peacebuilding is a shared responsibility and that peace at the macro-level (state) and micro-level (individual, home, and community) are very much interdependent and unless all actors work in concert and pull in the same direction, peace will remain elusive. “Every member of society has a role to play; the state, citizens, and even the family. From children to adults, these roles vary.

If we all fulfil our roles, we will arrive at our destination. However, we will not move forward if each person forsakes their commitment and responsibility” – FGD1, al-Fashir.

Peace: the building blocks

Security, Stability, and Development Security, stability, and development were the three words most frequently ascribed to peace. In most discussions, it was observed that respondents used the words peace and security interchangeably. In all target areas, the vast majority of women suggested that security and stability are preconditions to peace, often expressing that “security is the foundation for everything” and that peace and development cannot materialize in the absence of security.

Moreover, a host of historical and structural factors have long exacerbated the disparities and injustices between and within regions and fomented grievances which found expression in civil conflicts. Against this backdrop, respondents in all target cities argued that the lack of (or uneven) development correlates with the breakout of conflicts and peace was defined by most, if not all, as the ability to put food on the table and to have clean water and proper sanitation. It is children – girls and boys – going to school. It is deaths averted by having access to healthcare facilities and services. It is the development of basic infrastructure and the completion of a road that claimed many lives. It is equal access to employment opportunities and decent livelihoods for all. Peace as some respondents put it is “to eat well, work well, and live well”.

Mending the social fabric Given the colonial legacy of ‘divide and rule’ (adopted by political elites) and the historical roots of the Inqaz Regime’s value-laden Civilization Project, it is no surprise that discrimination and ‘othering’ was an overriding theme throughout the discussions. The state’s systemic discrimination remains, to this day, highly significant in the polarization and militarization of ethnic identities. Respondents

stated that people are aware that “the conflicts are contrived for political gain” and yet have succeeded, to some extent, in widening the gap between groups that have previously coexisted peacefully.

(Re)building trust, redressing past and present grievances, and transitional justice were running threads throughout the discussions. Much emphasis was placed on rekindling and repairing relations. The majority spoke of a peace rooted in respect, peaceful coexistence, and an appreciation for diversity, expressing a dire need for learning about and from each other. Peace for women in Kasala means “accepting all people, irrespective of their ethnicity, how they look, or their color”.

In Nyala and al-Fashir peace entails “addressing past grievances and meeting the needs of people, across all spectrums of society, regardless of the color of their skin, religious beliefs, political orientation or other identity markers”. Similarly, in ad-Damazine, respondents shared the view that the journey towards peace necessitates “renouncing tribalism and working as one” or else, as a woman from Kasala put it, “lives will be lost in vain because of the ‘my tribe’ your tribe rhetoric”. In several discussions, social peace was also framed as inseparably bound to equality and the elimination of violence. The rallying call for a Sudan free from all forms of discrimination was echoed in all focus groups.

Expanding on this point, women from ethnic or religious minorities articulated the vulnerability they face and the discrimination they are subjected to. This vulnerability calls for a more nuanced understanding of how intersecting identities shape women’s experiences of peace and conflict. A young Christian woman expressed that peace means “...the management of religious and ethnic diversity” underscoring that they are doubly marginalized because they “are Christians from peripheral states and because we are women. So I think religious diversity should be discussed on a governmental scale. To us, it is a vital issue. The religious, ethnic and linguistic diversity and their management is essential for peace”.

In this project of social transformation, transitional justice was regarded as a key building blocks. A respondent from Nyala expressed that any hope for lasting peace lies in acknowledging and redressing historical and present grievances as well as reconciling differences. She stressed that political reconciliations are not the answer because “a few days after a political reconciliation, the same problems resurface”. Ultimately, respondents contend that a community-up approach is crucial because in a climate infused with hate speech and othering, where trust is consistently broken and the social contract is in shreds, peace simply cannot be engineered. As a woman in Nyala highlighted, one of the reasons peace deals come undone is because they are pacts between elites that do not involve the very communities they claim to represent.

“Peace is like tea – you cannot give it to someone without first asking them what they want. People have to tell you what they want” - FGD, Khartoum.

03 WHERE ARE THE WOMEN? Sudanese political processes have been marred by tokenism and a failure to take the issue of broad-based participation seriously. Where women have been present in greater numbers, this has been partly due to two factors. First, the pressure from civil society and the international community to include women. Second, state and non-state actors alike have a vested interest in manufacturing illusory legitimacy through these processes.

The Politics of ‘Invited Spaces’

When asked about the extent of women’s inclusion in the JPP, opinions diverged widely. On one hand, some respondents believed that women’s delegations were successful in exerting influence and mainstreaming a ‘gender perspective’ into the agreement. The majority of respondents were of the opinion that while women were technically represented, their mere presence was vehemently resisted and therefore their participation was tokenistic and only served to further the conflict parties’ ends. Many respondents echoed the sentiment that “women were accessories in the process and women’s issues were an afterthought”.

Whose Guests?

There was consensus across the groups that the real stakeholders – those directly impacted by the conflict and outcomes of the peace process - were not genuinely represented. Some respondents argued that Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), refugees, and combatants were present in Juba, however, the grounds for their selection and the extent of their influence remain a mystery. Some respondents also expressed that allegiance to an ethnic group or an armed movement dictated women’s stance on peace and security issues. A respondent from al-Dalanj expounded on this view: “you will speak in a manner consistent with the interests of those who sponsored your participation. You will not offer a different opinion or contradict what they say”. In other words, women and other underrepresented groups are invited into uninviting spaces where the odds are stacked against them, their presence is unwelcome and their voices are considered background noise - a distraction from the ‘real’ issues at hand.

Women in Informal Peace and Conflict Resolution Structures

Opinions diverged on the role of women in local mediation and conflict resolution processes; however, across the board, respondents argued that women are not part of conflict resolution and peacebuilding processes owing to the fact that their public role, in general, is hampered by social norms and dominant narratives that perpetuate the idea that “women do not have a role to play and never did”. In Kadugli, the group expressed that women are virtually absent in conflict resolution mechanisms such as native administrations and that NAs include women only when it is in their interest. Similarly, several respondents from ad-Damazine expressed that local decision-making structures are dominated by men “who do not value women”.

Building Everyday Peace Women’s organizations and WRHDs are at the forefront of building everyday peace, yet their contributions to peacebuilding receive very little attention and are rarely documented. Before, during, and after conflicts, women-led grassroots organizations fill in the vacuum created by the state; providing food and basic healthcare and education services, spearheading income-generating initiatives, providing support to SGBV survivors, organizing awareness and conscientization campaigns, mediating local conflicts, and fostering a culture of peace. At the heart of these activities is the desire and will to construct peace that is people-centered and community-driven.

Reconciliation and Local Conflict Resolution Conflicts have torn apart communities and eroded trust through violence and violent othering discourses. Respondents explained that women’s grassroots organizations and networks are promoting dialogue, cultivating relationships, and restoring the trust deficit across social, political, economic, ethnic, and other divides. One such form of organization that was cited in al-Fashir, Nyala, and al-Dalanj for example is the women’s caravans. Women would travel long distances to mediate local conflicts, offer solidarity, or to provide humanitarian aid to affected communities. They do so through convening women on either side of the conflict and mediating by leveraging social and kinship ties, rebuilding connections of mutuality, but most of all, finding new ways of relating, communicating, and healing.

Countering the Culture of Violence Respondents identified several initiatives spearheaded by women and youth that seek to undo the process of othering. Two such examples are Sudan without Racism and Mubadroon M’aak who organize community forums on social peace and coexistence as well as raise awareness on peacebuilding and the importance of sustaining peace.

These initiatives draw on various forms of art such as acting, singing, and drawing to raise awareness and educate communities on the effects of conflict and the importance of building and sustaining peace. Two such examples are Masrah al-Shari’ or the Street Theatre and Mashla’aib Cultural Drama Group, youth-led initiatives in al-Fashir and al-Dalanj that aim to sensitize communities on peaceful coexistence through short sketches that are performed in public spaces. Respondents also added that women leverage the power of the local media, particularly radio shows and local news outlets, to keep issues such as violence against women and girls in the public eye.

Invented Spaces Social media has opened new avenues for participation for those who are barred from accessing the so-called public sphere. Through Whatsapp and private Facebook groups, young women explained that they have eked out safe spaces to discuss and raise awareness on social and political issues. One other interesting avenue is women’s jabana (coffee) gatherings.

Through these gatherings, women are able to meet regularly to discuss community issues, exchange information, and mediate family-level conflicts.

Moreover, in some IDP camps in al-Fashir, women have formed associations and protection networks to raise awareness of security concerns and to engage in discussions on how to tackle the violence they face.

Similarly, in Khartoum, a woman from the Self-Help Initiative mentioned that a conflict-resolution committee was established in Umbadda (a neighborhood in Omdurman). One of the tasks of the committee is mediating domestic violence cases. Although their work is met with resistance, she explained that they overcome the challenges through “solidarity, consultations, and trusting one another”.

04 PARTICIPATION: MEANINGFUL FOR WHOM? Meaningful participation appears ad nauseam in project proposals and policy documents but there is little clarity on how to translate it into practice. Given the malleability of the term, ad-hoc interventions tend to prioritise tokenistic participation more than substantive and legitimate representation to ensure that diverse groups of women are part and parcel of local and national decision-making processes. As such, international-led (and national) efforts that advocate for the inclusion of women in peace processes focus more on an 'adding and stirring' approach that in no way agitates or upsets the status quo.

When asked what meaningful participation means to them (personally and collectively), participants defined the term in diverse ways. For participants in al-Dalanj, meaningful participation means “being part of the solution”, and “putting strategies in place and working towards clear goals”. This notion was also expressed by women in al-Fashir who argued that meaningful participation has little to do with the number of women. “It is the ability to speak to and address women’s issues. If one woman is able to influence change, that to me, is meaningful participation”. Similar views were shared by participants from Nyala who argued that participation “on paper” does not count and that it “must be impactful and felt by the society”. Most participants were critical of nominal forms of participation, such as consultations, contending that there is a need to “not only be part of the consultative process but also being part of the devising solutions”.

Participants from ad-Damazin believe participation to be meaningful when “it is not tokenistic and clearly outlines and addresses women’s basic needs and priorities”, when “women are equally represented in decision-making positions at all levels”, and “their voices are heard”. In Kasala, the term was associated with “having a role in society”, “having the space to make decisions”, and “having women in decision-making positions such as unions, government, and the legislative council”. In Khartoum, one participant also added that “meaningful participation means people speaking for themselves, from the start to the end of the process”.

“if you include me at the consultation stage that means you have already arrived at an analysis of the issues. Why am I not part of this analysis? Why am I an afterthought?”.

FGD1, Nyala

Meaningful Participation: roadblocks and opportunities Political will: the lack of political on the part of the government, political parties, and armed groups was highlighted by many respondents as a significant factor in hampering women’s meaningful participation.

Addressing the structural barriers: there was consensus among the groups that women's participation and inclusion at all levels necessitate responding to the intersecting and systemic factors that hinder women’s participation in all facets of life. Insecurity, economic empowerment, legal reform, and addressing social norms were among the top priorities listed by respondents. Respondents also contended that if the issue of SGBV is not addressed, women will not be able to engage in meaningful ways. In doing so, some stressed the need to work alongside men, explaining that in some contexts, efforts that do not involve men can be futile at best and detrimental at worst.

Strengthening women’s capacities: across the groups, women emphasized the importance of building on and strengthening women’s capacities to engage in political processes. This perceived limited capacity was mainly attributed to the long-standing exclusion of women from the so-called public sphere; limiting their access to training and resources.

Additionally, respondents affirmed that women from rural (and urban) areas with little social capital and few or no links to civil society lack access to information on formal – and informal – political processes. Some respondents expressed concern that the public space is more open to women who already have influence.

Older, more experienced, educated urban-based women were thought to monopolize opportunities both at the local and national levels. Respondents pointed out that civil society and international organizations are equally guilty of being exclusionary because

they tend to prioritize urban centers and invest in specific groups of women. As a respondent from Kasala put it: "It's always the same faces in each and every workshop and the information or training they receive does not trickle down."

Inclusive Practices were framed as central to women’s meaningful political participation. it was emphasized throughout the discussions that participation becomes meaningful when women's diversity, experiences, perspectives, and priorities are reflected. Respondents argued that there is a pressing need for convening women from different sections of society to bridge knowledge gaps, share experiences, encourage discussions around difficult conversations, and build trust across political and social divides. Through these spaces and forums, it is essential to call into question not only the systems that reinforce the subordination of women but also the practices, discourses, and ideologies within women's movements that perpetuate patriarchal ways of thinking and doing. As some respondents stated, "we need to build a bridge that brings us all together".

Exercising power and influencing change at all levels through long-term strategies: Beyond the peace process, respondents explained that meaningful participation also entails the inclusion of women in decision-making at the local level (in homes, committees, unions, and community-led structures), and at the national level (government institutions and political parties). The need to move from quick fixes and short-term band-aid solutions to long-term strategies was frequently expressed.

Respondents called for imagining women's participation outside the frames of conflict and peace processes that lead to short-lived agreements: "We should not operate under the assumption that we will always be in a state of conflict or work towards peace agreements.

We need to work on more permanent and long-term things, such as the constitution. We should already start thinking about women's

engagement and how we can be represented in constitution drafting committees". A respondent from al-Fasher also stressed the importance of women’s meaningful engagement in security arrangements: “if women are not part and parcel of the security sector reform (SSR) processes, our issues will be discarded. They [conflict parties] will resort to quick fixes. We have to understand that SSR is not a military issue. It concerns us as civilians and women.”

A shift from who to what and how: a shared view was that meaningful participation has less to do with which women are appointed and more with their commitment to promoting women's rights and their ability to deliver.

Emphasis was also placed on moving past the age-old question of who to what, denoted by actionable strategies, and, stressing the dire need for responsive accountability mechanisms. As a respondent from al-Fashir stated "It's not a question of who; it's a question of why and what. Are you able to do something to advance women's priorities? Do you take women's diverse issues into account?”

Data on women and women's participation: respondents pointed to the lack of data on women's participation not only in peace processes but in local and national decision-making structures. As a respondent from Nyala put it: "we need data so we can have a genuine reading of the impact of women's participation, whether in political or peacebuilding processes, in reality".

Logistical support and sustainable funding: respondents explained that grassroots organizations and local initiatives tend to be severely under-resourced, with no core funding to cover the basics, such as transportation and communication costs. Most respondents indicated that women's grassroots organizations are stretched thin and often fund activities from their own pockets. One of the issues highlighted by respondents in al-Fasher is the tendency of

donors and international and national NGOs to work through intermediary entities or through organizations they have previously worked with.

As one respondent aptly put it: "international organizations have customers that they work with regularly, which makes it very difficult for the rest of us to access funding". Moreover, the context and the needs are not taken into account. Respondents explained that activities tend to be concentrated in cities because "when we say we want to work where the needs are most pressing [rural and peri-urban area], the response is often that there is a limited budget".

Lastly, respondents highlighted that it is difficult for women to respond to emergency situations and sudden outbreaks of conflict without flexible funding. "These incidents require an urgent response. By the time we hear back about funding, the conflict will have escalated".

05 REFLECTIONS “Leaving peacemaking to conflict parties is the biggest calamity. We have examples of this. They [conflict parties] do not care about sustaining peace or the impact on citizens. They have attained their goals, but what will we do?” - FGD, al-Fashir

Women have an important role to play in unpacking and critically engaging with concepts such as peace and security. It is abundantly clear that the current euro-centric, liberal, and men-dominated peace architecture and conceptual frameworks are not fit for purpose. This begs the question of whether it is time to reinvent the wheel and strive to change the rules rather than simply learn them. As one respondent put it, the current crisis presents an opportunity to reflect on gaps, opportunities, and the structural changes that need to take place to ensure greater levels of inclusion for all marginalized groups, in ways that are meaningful to them. This requires understanding women’s wartime and peacetime experiences not only as victims but as actors in their own right and creating new sites of knowledge production.

Whereas “payroll peace actors” are more concerned with configuring power and resources for personal gains and defining progress in terms of political settlement and power-sharing agreements, diverse groups of women envision a collective peace that prioritises the welfare of society as a whole. Human security and stability, social peace, economic and social rights, balanced development, and the elimination of structural and cultural violence are seen as fundamental conditions for achieving sustainable peace. Women's myriad perspectives and worldviews, therefore, offer a more holistic understanding of peace that seeks to transform attitudes, beliefs, practices, and systems - a collective vision of peace predicated on freedom, justice, and equality for all.

The answer to the age-old question of where are the women is: they are everywhere. While women are sidelined from formal and informal peace processes, they conquer and invent spaces for everyday negotiations and peace talks. With very few resources and support, women at the grassroots level navigate structural barriers, create opportunities for building bridges across ethnic, religious, and cultural divides, (re)build trust, and bring communities together to foster a shared understanding of peace. These women operate within deeply entrenched patriarchal systems and do so at great personal risk, and yet, in the face of impediments, they remain undeterred, defiant, and resourceful. Tenacious and committed as they are, these women shoulder a very heavy burden and are often left to their own devices to pick up the pieces of broken peace promises.

Lastly, meaningful participation means different things to different people. Some might be content with nominal forms of participation, such as consultation, so long as their needs are met. Others might be more interested in being represented (or representing), in different capacities, within the current structures. And some might want to do away with the peace table altogether. This invites a rethinking of traditional engagement modalities and reflection on what a people-centered peace and state-building process could look like. Some questions that must always be in full view are: how are these different forms of participation meaningful, when, and for whom?