The future of the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda will not be determined by how many women are present in security institutions. It will be determined by whether those institutions are willing to create the conditions under which women’s expertise, perspectives and experiences can shape the decisions that matter. Until that happens, inclusion will remain visible, but influence will remain elusive.
In 2013, as NATO’s gender adviser in Afghanistan, I spent time with Afghan policewomen serving at the Kabul City Police Centre. Many travelled to work in civilian clothes because wearing a police uniform made them targets for harassment, intimidation and violence. Some had been widowed by conflict and were supporting families while working in dangerous conditions. But they wanted more than protection. They wanted a say in the decisions through which their security and their country’s future would be determined.
Those conversations shaped how I understood the United Nations’ (UN) WPS agenda. The challenge was never simply getting women into institutions. It was ensuring their experiences and expertise had authority and could influence decisions.
As we approach the 26th anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 – which created the WPS agenda – on 31 October, that challenge remains.
Today, few international security organisations can be accused of ignoring WPS. The UN and NATO have adopted extensive policies. Military gender advisers are embedded across headquarters and operations. Training is routine. References to local women’s participation and gender perspectives are now commonplace in security and protection policies.
By many measures, WPS has been a success. But has this activity changed who participates in and influences institutional decision-making?
Research I’ve conducted over the past few years comparing the UN’s protection framework and NATO’s human security agenda has suggested the answer is most often ‘No.’ Gender commitments, participation mechanisms and specialist advisers are increasingly visible within institutions, but they frequently remain disconnected from the places where priorities are set, resources are allocated and operations are planned.
This distinction between inclusion and influence matters. For years, progress has often been measured by counting women’s representation and participation. How many women attended meetings? How many consultations or engagements were conducted? How many gender advisers were deployed?
These are valuable implementation indicators but tell us little about whether women’s views are influencing outcomes.
Across both institutions, participation is often interpreted as consultation rather than authority. Women and civil society organisations may be asked for information and local perspectives while being excluded from processes through which institutions define security problems, set protection priorities and determine responses.
Gender advisers frequently operate within internal advisory or external engagement functions rather than decision-making structures themselves. The problem is partly cultural: gender is often treated as a women’s issue rather than an operational issue.
In some military settings, recognising gendered differences in security experiences is viewed as political or discriminatory rather than as a means of understanding unequal risks and outcomes. As a result, while gender advisers may be formally embedded and consulted, they often remain largely disconnected from the places where key decisions are made.
This gap allows institutions to demonstrate commitment to the inclusion of WPS commitments while leaving existing authority structures and power relations largely unchanged. That is an operational problem.
Modern security challenges require a sophisticated understanding of local environments, social dynamics and human behaviour. Local women often possess knowledge about community security concerns, conflict dynamics and emerging threats that external actors lack. When institutions treat participation as a box-ticking exercise rather than a source of decision-relevant knowledge, they risk missing information critical to mission success.
The problem is also one of timing and sequencing. Interviewees in my research repeatedly described gender expertise and participatory processes being introduced after key planning assumptions had already been established. Advisers are brought in late. Consultations occur after priorities have been determined. Guidelines focused on gendered issues are added once the main planning is complete. Under these conditions, gender considerations and participation may shape implementation, but rarely influence strategy.
Another challenge is accountability. Most organisations are relatively good at counting activity. They can report how many consultations took place, how many personnel completed training and whether policy requirements were met. They are far less effective at evaluating whether participation changed decisions, altered planning assumptions or influenced resource allocation. In practice, accountability systems often measure presence rather than effect.
My research describes this outcome as institutional containment. WPS commitments are incorporated into organisational processes while remaining weakly connected to authority. Participation becomes visible, expertise is recognised and procedures are established, yet power remains concentrated in familiar places.
The lesson is not that WPS has failed or that security institutions need more policies, more advisers or more consultation mechanisms. Instead, organisations need to focus on the relationship between inclusion and influence, and between participation and authority.
Gender expertise must be incorporated early enough to shape planning. Participation must be recognised as a source of decision-relevant knowledge, not merely evidence of consultation. Responsibility for implementation must extend beyond specialist advisers to commanders and senior leaders. Accountability systems must assess influence, not simply activity.
The distinction is crucial because transformation, a key aspiration of the WPS agenda, doesn’t automatically follow from inclusion. Increasing the number of women in a room won’t necessarily change what’s discussed. Consultation doesn’t guarantee influence. Representation doesn’t automatically redistribute power.
My research suggests that meaningful change occurs only when expertise, participation, influence and decision-making power become connected. The policewomen I met in Kabul understood this long before most institutions did. What they sought was not simply a place within existing structures but the ability to shape them.
That remains the central challenge for the WPS agenda today. For defence organisations confronting increasingly complex security environments, that may be the most important lesson of all.
Leave a comment