Right Livelihood Features AEI’s Jamila Raqib on How Women Resist Conflict, Patriarchy and Exclusion

Published on June 19, 2025

Sima Samar and Jamila Raqib on How Women Resist Conflict, Patriarchy and Exclusion

What does it mean to fight for justice and human rights in times of conflict, repression and political transition, while being excluded from decision-making because you are a woman? In this exchange, 2012 Right Livelihood Laureate Dr Sima Samar and Jamila Raqib, Executive Director of the Albert Einstein Institution and legacy holder of 2012 Laureate Dr Gene Sharp, explore how gender adds a profound and often dangerous layer to the struggle for rights.

Samar, former Afghan Minister of Women’s Affairs, has defended girls’ education under regimes intent on silencing them. Raqib supports grassroots organisers around the world in applying nonviolent strategies—including the 198 methods of nonviolent action—to confront repression and expand civic space.

This conversation took place at the UN Commission on the Status of Women in New York in March 2025.

Jamila:
There’s been a lot of attention on women’s inclusion in peace processes, how that leads to more sustainable, more democratic outcomes. But increasingly, we’re focusing not just on presence, but on leadership. And that has very direct links to a movement’s effectiveness.
We need as many people as possible to take ownership of the movement space. This cannot be a small group fighting on behalf of everyone. We need the participation of older people, children, individuals from all walks of life. And there’s also a strong connection between women’s leadership and a movement’s ability to remain nonviolent. Women are able to do something that really creates a dilemma for authoritarian systems and violators of human rights.

Sima:
I believe discrimination and inequality are the root causes of conflict. For me, it starts at home—when a man believes he is superior to the women in his family. That same mindset flows into schools, streets, society and, ultimately, escalates into national and international conflict.
The link between gender and conflict is inseparable. We cannot have sustainable peace without the participation of women. Nobody can speak on behalf of a woman, because men don’t experience what we experience. The impact of conflict on women is completely different.
Afghanistan is a clear example. We reformed laws. We achieved some freedoms, like access to education, to justice. We had female prosecutors, judges, police officers. And then suddenly, all of it was gone. Public life is now fully controlled by men, using culture and religion as tools of exclusion.

Jamila:
Yes, I completely agree. It’s heartbreaking. There were moments in our history when people were genuinely hopeful—hopeful for their children and for the future. And yet, every few years, we seem to go backwards. There’s no indication that things are getting better.
For many women now, the strategy is just to survive. But when survival becomes your only strategy, there’s no room left for meaningful participation—in your community, your country or even your own family. What is often framed as crisis management, I see as something deeper — a design. The system is set up in such a way that we’re always responding to crises. We don’t have the time, space or energy to think about what alternatives might look like, let alone organise around them.

Sima:
Exactly. And let’s remember UN Resolution 1325. It’s been more than 20 years. There are now multiple Security Council resolutions about women’s participation in conflict resolution. But in practice, decisions are still made by men—often behind closed doors, sometimes even just over the phone.
And even when women are included, we have to look critically at how. Look at Colombia, women were included in the peace process, but now that progress is slipping.
In Afghanistan, the government peace delegation had 21 members. Only four were women. How much space were they really given to speak? What impact could they have?
I always say: we must make space for ourselves. But we also need the capacity and opportunity to make that space count. Our participation should not be symbolic. As I said once on a local TV programme, we’re not there to make the table colourful. Yes, we wore green and yellow and red scarves. But that’s not the point. The point is: Are we heard? Are we trusted? Are we shaping decisions?

We cannot fix this world if more than half of the population is not included in the decisions that affect all of us.

Jamila:
Exactly. That kind of symbolism is dangerous. We’re thinking a lot about transitions—how movements negotiate after nonviolent resistance. But many of these transitions fail to deliver democratic outcomes.
One reason is the exclusion of the very people who fought for change. Even when they are in the room, their role is symbolic. That doesn’t lead to sustainable or inclusive societies. If you leave people out of the process, they won’t feel represented in the outcome.

Women are not waiting to be included. They are already leading and organising in powerful ways, often behind the scenes. We often take women’s contributions and attribute their success to charismatic men, and this is a mistake.

Sima:
And it’s not just women who are excluded. Victims of conflict, people with disabilities, ethnic minorities. Many are left out. Yet women and children are the majority of those impacted.
In Afghanistan, many were disabled because of war. These people should be part of the process. If not, the result is just an exclusive power grab. That’s not democracy. It’s not about protection. It’s about control.

Jamila:
Yes. And unless power is genuinely redistributed, nothing truly changes. The structures stay the same.
What we’re seeing globally is not random—it’s a backlash. Leaders invent enemies so they can present themselves as protectors. Look at Turkey. The arrest of the mayor of Istanbul—there’s talk of a coup, but it’s clearly about removing a political rival. It’s the same playbook everywhere. Keep people afraid. Use the media. Declare yourself the saviour. We saw it in Afghanistan too.

Sima:
Yes. And often it’s done in the name of protecting women. In reality, it’s about power.
I think we need to be cautious with language too. There’s a tendency now to replace the word “victim” with “survivor.” But that doesn’t change the reality of what women endure.
Personally, I still see myself as a victim of war and conflict—even though I survived. Calling all women “survivors” risks softening the seriousness of what has happened. It can even mask the need for justice and accountability. Patriarchy is on the rise and gaining more power everywhere.

Jamila:
That’s a powerful point. I think there’s often a disconnect between principles and practice. Between how we talk about these issues and what we actually do.
We speak of gender equality, women’s empowerment, protection. But at the same time, countries fund wars, build weapons, and invest in militarisation.
And we know this—war is not good for women.

Sima:
It’s not good for anyone.

Jamila:
Exactly. And yet, so many wars are justified in the name of protecting women. It just doesn’t make sense.

Sima:
(nods)