- Cheryl Hendricks will hold a GlobeLecture on December 11, 5 pm on “Implementing the Women, Peace and Security Agenda in Africa: the need for a reset”. More information here.
Can you briefly introduce yourself, your work at the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation, and how it connects to your present stay with the ANCIP project at the Research Centre Global Dynamics?
I am Professor Cheryl Hendricks, the Executive Director of the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation (IJR) in Cape Town, South Africa. Previously, I held positions such as Head of the Africa Institute of South Africa, Professor and Head of the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Johannesburg, and Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Security Studies. Currently, I am a visiting Professor at the University of Johannesburg and an Honorary Professor at the Thabo Mbeki School of Public and International Affairs. I also serve as Chair of the Board of the Women's International Peace Centre (based in Uganda) and of the Advisory Board for the International Journal of African Renaissance Studies (University of South Africa). I regard myself as a Feminist and a Pan-Africanist scholar and practitioner, working to bridge the divide between academia and practice for many years. My focus areas are peace and security in Africa, specifically peacebuilding, preventing violent extremism, transitional justice, women peace and security, as well as South African foreign policy.
Conflicts in Africa cannot be managed solely through military means. They stem from widening inequality, marginalization, lack of service delivery, lack of accountability, corruption, and a growing lack of trust in institutions and leadership. ANCIP focuses on non-military interventions, which aligns with my work on preventing conflict and building sustainable peace in Africa. During my stay here, I am analyzing the implementation of the Women, Peace, and Security Agenda in Africa, the Civilian Joint Task Force, and other civilian initiatives to counter violent extremism in Nigeria. I also intend to write about the unfolding process of the National Dialogue in South Africa.
In Peace and Conflict Studies, feminist perspectives on war and the recognition of women's contributions to peacekeeping have gained momentum. Can you outline how the academic field has changed in that perspective from your point of view?
Feminist International Relations theorists have focused on the absence of women's experiences in International Relations and aimed to make visible the impact of war on women and their roles in war and peace. They studied the gendered nature of militaries, militarization, conflict, and peace processes, and emphasized women's agency in these contexts. From this emerged a growing scholarship on women's roles in the security sector, armed liberation movements, peacekeeping, mediation, and peace-building, with an emphasis on women's agency. Many feminist scholars were also anti-militarist, which contrasted with gender activists, practitioners, and policy-makers, who focused more on women as victims, their representation in peace and security decision-making structures and processes, and on the meaningful inclusion with gender mainstreaming as a tool to accomplish these goals.
The Beijing Platform for Action in 1995 was one of the earliest frameworks that outlined the impact of war on women and highlighted the importance of protecting women in conflict and including them in peace processes. It also emphasized increasing women's participation in conflict resolution at the decision-making level and protecting women in armed conflict situations and under foreign occupation; reducing military expenditure and the availability of arms; promoting non-violent forms of conflict resolution; promoting women’s contribution to fostering a culture of peace and providing protection for refugees and the displaced (far more comprehensive that UNSCR 1325). The Windhoek Declaration on Mainstreaming a Gender Perspective into Multidimensional Peace Support Operations in 2000 and UNSCR 1325 emphasized women's participation in peacekeeping, including increasing the number of women in national militaries and the police.
However, as the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda moved from academia to intergovernmental organizations and NGOs, the focus shifted primarily to inclusion rather than transformation of peace and security as a whole. Much of the academic literature has also argued for including women in peacekeeping and mediation and has gone the step further to provide statistical “evidence” of the sustainability of peace agreements when women are included. There is far less critical feminist analysis of current peace processes – this is what is needed from academia. Institutionalizing the WPS agenda has, in many ways, blunted what was potentially a transformative movement for peace and security and we need to regain this focus.
In 2017, FemWise-Africa, a Network of African Women in Conflict Prevention and Mediation hosted by the African Union, was established. You have been a member since 2019. Can you introduce the work of FemWise-Africa and assess what networks like this can contribute to conflict prevention?
The Network of African Women in Conflict Prevention and Mediation, FemWise, is part of the Peace and Security Architecture of the African Union (AU). It is a mechanism of the Panel of the Wise, launched in 2017. FemWise aims to strengthen women's engagement in conflict prevention and mediation through advocacy, capacity building, and networking. It has approximately 500 members across the continent, has conducted capacity-building initiatives, and deployed women to support peace processes in Sudan and South Sudan. It is now forming national chapters and developing a policy framework for women and mediation for the AU.
The idea behind FemWise was excellent—to bring together women across the continent working on conflict prevention, mediation, and peacebuilding while connecting them to global networks. It has placed the WPS agenda within the AU's Peace and Security architecture. Africa, in many respects, has been at the forefront of implementing the WPS agenda, with numerous best practices and lessons to be shared. However, despite the thousands of women trained, the number of women leading mediation efforts is still limited, partly due to fewer peace negotiations taking place and that those that are do not prioritize women's inclusion. The focus is now turning towards localization, asking women trained in mediation to utilize their skills within their communities. Moving forward, these networks need more introspection on training, women's deployment, and their roles in peace processes.
What are the current challenges you see when it comes to the intersection of gender and security in the context of Africa?
Women and girls in Africa, as elsewhere, continue to face various forms of gender-based violence (GBV), including incest, child marriage, sexual harassment, rape, domestic violence, femicide, and human trafficking, along with the larger structural violence pervasive in many societies. To address these challenges, we need a holistic approach to security that tackles overall human insecurity in societies—not just for women, but for everyone. We must also focus on addressing patriarchy and cultural behaviors that drive GBV. Representation and policy frameworks are necessary but insufficient for overcoming centuries of violence. Despite South Africa's adoption of numerous frameworks on WPS and GBV, and having many women in decision-making positions, it remains one of the countries with the highest GBV levels. True change requires tackling the root causes of violence, not just implementing policies.
This year, you were a speaker at the seminar "Lessons from the Ukraine war and African governments' role in resolving the conflict." What lessons can we learn for a post-war regime in Ukraine based on cases in Africa?
Ukraine is still in the throes of war and is slowly coming to the realization that, eventually, they will need to negotiate. Women in Ukraine have played a central role in mobilizing support for their country. African women can learn a great deal from Ukrainian women in the way they have mobilized and taken center stage in promoting their country’s well-being. Conversely, one lesson that Ukrainian women can learn from Africa is to ensure that, after the war, they do not return to a pre-war gender status quo. Women must be part of the negotiations and the design of post-conflict reconstruction and peacebuilding efforts, and these efforts must be gender-responsive. Furthermore, the emphasis must be on healing from the trauma of war. Often, even after ceasefire agreements, the scars of war are still felt at home, in communities, and in society. Mental health and psychosocial support are essential components of post-conflict reconstruction.
You describe yourself as a Pan-Africanist. What does Pan-Africanism mean to you, and what impact can it have on security in Africa?
Pan-Africanism was a driving factor behind the formation of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), its successor the AU, and is embedded in Agenda 2063. It has roots in anti-slavery and anti-colonial struggles, but it still holds relevance in today’s context. For me, Pan-Africanism is about the re-humanization of our societies and promoting dignity and respect for all. It is about unity, equality, solidarity, self-reliance, and ethical leadership. It provides a compass in a world filled with narrow nationalism, chauvinism, transactional values, and where differences are prioritized over our common humanity.
In recent years, there has been growing criticism that traditional approaches to conflict management and peacekeeping are insufficient. What can we learn from cases in Africa, and how do you imagine the future of conflict management?
There is much talk about resetting peace and security, with the UN launching a "New Peace Agenda" and reviewing the Peacebuilding Architecture. However, the future of conflict management must go beyond adapting tools to fit new conflict contexts, which are often characterized by multiple simultaneous conflicts and actors who disregard the rules of war. We need to return to fundamental questions about how we want to coexist, the principles that will govern our relationships, and the structures and processes needed to achieve peace, security, equality, justice, and prosperity for all. The future of conflict management is less about adapting peacekeeping techniques and more about defining new social contracts and accountability mechanisms to enforce them.
The interview was conducted by Damaris Weißbach and Roman Krawielicki