5 Analysis

As stated in this paper, when negotiations began in 2012, only one woman held the role of negotiator. Following Arnstein’s framework, the form of participation taking place at this stage in the negotiations could be considered Consultation. Consultation is defined by Arnstein as the power holders inviting citizens’ opinions (Arnstein, 1969). While this definition includes the invitation for the opinions of the citizens, the important distinction between Consultation and the higher rungs lies in the dynamics of power. In this stage of negotiations, the state continues to control the modes of participation and therefore has the power to restrict the input and opinions of the citizens. Consultation gives the outwardly appearance of participation but continues to lack assurance that citizen input will be considered by the state. Because of this, Consultation can fall under the umbrella of tokenism, where tokenism is the symbolic act of the inclusion of citizen input rather than placing legitimate value on the input of the citizens. However, by the end of the negotiations, the form of participation taking place could be considered as Partnership. This is because women had the ability to negotiate with the men and also engage in trade-offs once they were included in the process.

Previously, men had been in power and had held all of the negotiating roles, however, a redistribution of power occurred with the inclusion of women in the peace process. This redistribution of power led to participation as defined by Saxena. The finalized peace agreement would impact everyone in Colombia so, having both men and women included in the process meant that all people had a role or influence in a decision that would impact them. Furthermore, the ability of women to organize effectively and identify their needs during the peace process was impressive. The National Summit of Women for Peace is an excellent example of actual participation. First, nine different women’s organizations effectively communicated to organize the summit itself. Then, at the summit, all the representatives were able to identify their needs and, in the end, put forth their demands as a collective.

In addressing deliberation, as defined by Heller and Rao, the peace process and negotiations themselves are perfect examples. The government and the FARC, through discussion and debate, were able to eventually reach a peace agreement. Moreover, the agreement can be seen as procedurally and normatively legitimate because those involved in the negotiations were not focusing on the best outcome for themselves, but rather the best outcome for the country. The inclusion of women in the peace process also adds to the legitimacy of the deliberation. Once included, women were able to reveal their preferences and stakes in the outcome of the agreement.

Women’s participation in the peace process can also be analyzed under the “gender-aware” approach that Cornwall examines in her writing. The involvement of women cannot be tokenistic in the way that it was at the start of negotiations in 2012. Creating space for women in the peace process is not an adequate approach to fostering intersectional negotiations. Furthermore, merely including women in the peace process is not a sufficient strategy for integrating gendered perspectives into the peace process. This strategy of inclusion does account for the dynamics of gendered power which place women in less assertive roles in society. To properly approach the inclusion of women, efforts must be made to reverse the socialization of women and thus empower them to organize around their collective needs. Another problem with the inclusion of a singular female negotiator is that her participation and voice may not represent the feelings of all women. In comparison, the National Summit of Women for Peace was a success in terms in of “gender-aware” participation because it was an example of a woman-only space. Thus, women were provided with a platform in which they could develop collective goals and confidence without interference from the complex power dynamics between men and women. Moreover, the participation of over 450 women from different ethnic, regional, and cultural backgrounds means that the formation of their goals will be informed by a complex variety of life experiences and will ultimately reflect the interests of all women, rather than a select few.