Introduction:
Ghana has been a signatory to the United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 since its adaption in 2000. As a sign of commitment to the resolution, Ghana has developed two (2) National Action Plans (NAPs) tailored to the context-specifics of the country. The first Ghana National Action Plan also known as GHANAP I was developed in 2012 for the period of 2012-2015 and the second one, GHANAP II, developed in 2020 for the period of 2020-2025. The GHANAP II is Ghana’s key strategy to promoting the participation of women at all levels of decision-making and to protect women and girls from Gender-based violence, sexual related violence and all forms of discrimination against women and girls. GHANAP also seeks to build the capacity of women for increased participation in decision-making.
Since its implementation, the Foundation for Security and Development in Africa (FOSDA) in its monitoring report titled “GHANAP 2 Evaluative Monitoring Report (Phase1)” revealed a notably upward trend in women inclusion in security institutions such as the Ghana Immigration Service, Ghana Prison Service and the Ghana National Fire Service. The Ghana Immigration Service has also implemented a Gender Policy as an effort to mainstream gender equality.
While GHANAP II is a step in the right direction, it misses out on four (4) crucial elements – empowering young women as implementers, engaging men as allies, collaborating with traditional systems to transform harmful practices, and tackling the structural barriers that violate women’s right and undermine their agency. These are critical issues that need to be addressed in the fulfilment of UNSCR 1325.
The Missing Link: Empowering Young Women as Implementers
One of the objectives of the GHANAP is to build the capacity of women in conflict management and peacebuilding and to also increase women participation in decision-making on Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) issues across all levels. At face value, this sounds like a good initiative (and it is), but capacity-building typically focuses on training women in skills relevant to conflict management and peacebuilding. This can be problematic because it often treats women as beneficiaries of knowledge rather than implementers with ownership over programmes and resources. The GHANAP II also risks presenting women as victims all the time instead of recognising the agency of women alongside the challenges that confront them. The NAP also fails to recognise indigenous ways in which women already participate in conflict management and peacebuilding. Women usually play a vital role in traditional rituals and healing ceremonies which are vital to peacebuilding. For example, the Nawuri women used magico‑religious rituals, songs, demonstrations and outreach as a way to bring peace to their community during Nawuri-Gonja conflict of the 1990s. Queen mothers often also hold powers that can be used to fuel peace in their traditional areas. Market women in Ekumfi-Narkwa's informal peacebuilding roles have also been documented. Ignoring the existing ways through which women partake in peacebuilding ignores their agency, Moreover, after such training exercises, women might not be given leadership roles or decision-making power in society to implement their newly found knowledge. Additionally, the objective of increasing women’s participation which aims at “putting women on the table” is tokenistic as it focuses on surface-level inclusion and ignore structural and systemic barriers that inhibit women from exhibiting real decision-making authority. Such initiatives continue to treat women as beneficiaries of change rather than real agents of change. “Putting women at the table” approaches such as these would usually have women in places without any real power, a sort of “add and stir” approach – which is detrimental to the agency of women and is an actual violence to women all on its own.
The Blind Spot: Ignoring Structural Issues that Violate Women and Girls and Undermine Their Agency
In the GHANAP II’s effort to support the capacity of women, it focuses heavily on capacity-building programmes rather than addressing the deeper structural barriers that sustain inequality and violence. Barriers such as economic inequalities that hinder the ambitions of many girls, weak justice systems that fail to hold perpetrators accountable, and patriarchal laws and policies that restricts women’s rights and advocacy are significant issues that the GHANAP does not address. Young girls, especially those in marginalised communities, are often doubly disadvantaged by these structural barriers. Without deliberate efforts to dismantle these barriers: such as discriminatory inheritance laws; access to quality education; period poverty; and entrenched poverty; gender discriminatory land tenure systems, they remain excluded from opportunities to lead, influence, and implement change. These structural barriers also promote silence on sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV). Failing to acknowledge and address issues such as the aforementioned; that are deeply embedded in the fabric of our society, the NAP would fail to achieve systemic change. Interventions would only end up addressing symptoms by putting some women in conveniently high decision-making spaces without any real power to make decisions.
The Disconnect: Fighting vs. Collaborating with Traditional Systems
The GHANAP II proposes advocacy against traditional and cultural practices that harm women and girls but does not propose collaboration with traditional authorities to transform those harmful practices. Traditional authorities are strategic partners in advocacy for the elimination of cultural practices that harm women and girls in the society. By collaborating with them, they would serve as a mouthpiece in society that calls for a stoppage to these harmful practices and leads to a better implementation of the NAP. This is a good leverage for legitimacy amongst deeply traditionally-centred members of society, reduces resistance to advocacy efforts to promote gender equality and peace. Traditional systems also have women in positions of power such as queen mothers and healers that can be leveraged for advocacy efforts. By recognising and emphasising the collaborative role queen mothers play alongside chiefs/kings, the GHANAP II would stand to gain broader community support, legitimacy and reduce resistance. The involvement of traditional authority would ensure that gender equality resonates more deeply within local communities while harnessing the power and influence of respected women leaders to challenge harmful practices, promote positive change, and sustain long-term transformation.
The Oversight: Engaging Men as Allies
Another group of people the GHANAP II ignores totally are men. In recent times where the importance of gender mainstreaming and positive allies cannot be emphasised enough in dismantling and overcoming harmful but entrenched norms and practices, , the GHANAP II fails to recognize, let alone harness the strategic relevancy of men in promoting and sustaining advocacy and action for the agency of women. In deep-rooted patriarchies like Ghana where men often hold key leadership positions both at home and in the public domain, we cannot hope to achieve gender equality and promote the participation of women in conflict reconstruction and peacebuilding if we are not going to include the men. Without engaging men, implementation of the GHANAP risk backlash or worse, tokenistic support. Men can be important advocates for equality to challenge harmful norms and promote change from the grassroot level.
Recommendations for GHANAP III
As the GHANAP II is in its last year and Ghana and its Ministry of Gender, Children and, Social Protection (MoGCSP) is planning for the next NAP, there needs to be some reconsideration on the strategies being used and more consideration should be given to measures and strategies that would lead to sustainable and long-term transformation of our Ghanaian society for women to take up meaningful and impactful positions on issues pertaining to their security, wellbeing, peacebuilding and conflict transformation.
GHANAP III should make a shift from tokenism to genuine empowerment. It should prioritise the meaningful participation of women not just as beneficiaries, but as implementers, decision-makers, and agents of change. Whilst training and capacity building for young women is important, it should establish mentorship and leadership development programs that would build their skills and ensure that they have access to real decision-making power in conflict prevention, peacebuilding, and security process.
It should also aim to address the structural barriers that confront women by integrating measures that tackle economic inequalities, reform discriminatory policies and strengthen the justice system to ensure timely and survivor- centred responses to SGBV.
Collaboration with traditional authorities is paramount in challenging harmful cultural practices. The NAP should recognise and engage with chiefs, queen mothers, and traditional councils to this regard. This collaboration will reduce resistance and legitimise to advocacy efforts.
The GHANAP III should seek to actively engage with men as allies in the bid to promote the participation of women in decision-making. It should integrate programs that educate boys and men on positive masculinity traits, the value of gender equality, and their role in preventing SGBV. It should also promote community dialogues that challenge patriarchal norms and encourage men to advocate for the rights of women and girls.
Most importantly, GHANAP III should recognise that women are not a homogenous group and should integrate an intersectional lens to develop programs that address the diverse needs of the diverse groups of women – women with disabilities, women in rural areas, women in marginalised group, and others.
CONCLUSION
Although GHANAP II represents an important step towards achieving gender equality and the implementation of UNSCR 1325 in Ghana, it fails to address the structural, economic, and social barriers that continue to marginalise women. A truly transformative NAP – GHANAP III – must look beyond tokenistic participation and capacity-building initiatives to embrace a holistic approach that recognises and empowers women as implementers, confronts deep-rooted patriarchal norms, and integrates men and traditional leaders as essential parts of change. By prioritising structural reforms, investing in grassroots leadership, and fostering inclusive dialogue with all stakeholders, GHANAP III can pave the way for a sustainable and meaningful realisation of gender equality, peace, and security in Ghana.