The State of Global Conflict and the Role of Gender in Leadership

The world appears to be becoming increasingly dangerous, and this perception is not unfounded. The number of armed conflicts globally has more than doubled since 2010, rising from 86 to over 170 in recent years. While conflicts like those in Ukraine, Israel and Gaza, and Sudan dominate headlines, a common thread emerges: these wars are predominantly waged by men. This raises a critical question: would the world be more peaceful if more women were in leadership positions?

From former U.S. President Barack Obama to former Irish President Mary Robinson, many argue that having more women in power would lead to significant positive changes, including fewer wars, better care for children, and improved living standards. Barack Obama has stated that more female leaders would result in a "less warlike" world, while Mary Robinson emphasizes that women’s leadership is "necessary" for a more peaceful world. However, the evidence on this front is not entirely straightforward.

The Myth of the "Peaceful" Woman Leader

While the idea that women are inherently more peaceful than men may be compelling, history and research challenge this narrative. Christopher Blair, a political scientist at Princeton University, points out that women leaders have historically been just as likely as men to initiate conflicts. Margaret Thatcher, for example, was known for her assertive leadership during the Falklands War, while Hillary Clinton, as U.S. Secretary of State, was hesitant to pursue peace talks with the Taliban due to concerns about appearing "soft." These examples suggest that women in leadership roles often feel pressured to adopt traditionally masculine traits to prove their competence.

This pressure to conform to masculine stereotypes is particularly evident in hypermasculine political environments. Giorgia Meloni, Italy’s first female prime minister, chose to use the masculine form of her title, signaling her alignment with traditional leadership norms. Similarly, women leaders are often penalized more harshly than men for backing down from threats, which incentivizes them to escalate conflicts rather than resolve them. This dynamic underscores the challenge of attributing peaceful outcomes solely to gender.

The Complexity of Women’s Leadership

To better understand the relationship between gender and peace, it is important to recognize that women leaders are not a monolithic group. Author Angela Saini, who has written extensively on gender and power, argues that women are just as capable of aggression as men. Historical examples like Indira Gandhi, who declared a state of emergency in India in 1975, or the Rani of Jhansi, who led a rebellion against British colonial rule, illustrate that women leaders can be as assertive and conflict-prone as their male counterparts.

This complexity highlights the need to move beyond simplistic assumptions about gender and leadership. When asked if women could make the world more peaceful, Saini emphasizes the importance of considering "which women" are in power. She warns against idealizing a world dominated by women like Margaret Thatcher or Liz Truss, who embody traditional masculine leadership styles. Instead, she advocates for a more nuanced understanding of how leadership intersects with gender, culture, and context.

The Broader Context of Gender Equality

While the question of whether women leaders would make the world more peaceful is intriguing, it is also limited. The reality is that societal structures and cultural norms play a far more significant role in shaping conflict and cooperation. Historically, the number of women in leadership positions has been so small that it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions about their impact. However, research suggests that women’s participation in other areas, such as peace processes and parliaments, can have a measurable impact.

Studies have shown that involving women in peace negotiations leads to longer-lasting agreements, while women’s representation in parliaments is associated with lower defense spending and more peaceful democracies. These findings suggest that the relationship between gender and peace is more about systemic change than individual leadership. In other words, the presence of women in leadership positions is just one piece of a larger puzzle.

Creating a More Peaceful World

Ultimately, the path to a more peaceful world requires more than just increasing the number of women in leadership roles. It demands a fundamental transformation of the systems and structures that perpetuate inequality and conflict. As psychologist Cordelia Fine notes, the societal changes required to bring about a world where women are truly in charge would be so radical that it is difficult to predict the outcomes based on our current reality.

Despite these challenges, there are reasons to hope. In countries like New Zealand, where gender equality is highly valued, leaders like Jacinda Ardern have demonstrated a different model of leadership—one that prioritizes empathy, collaboration, and long-term thinking. While the world may be trending toward more aggressive and hypermasculine leadership, these examples remind us that alternative approaches are possible.

Conclusion: The Need for Diverse Voices

The debate over whether women leaders would make the world more peaceful is a complex one, and the answer is not a simple yes or no. Instead, it is clear that solving the world’s toughest challenges requires a diversity of perspectives and experiences. As Mary Robinson aptly puts it, "solving the world’s toughest challenges needs all voices, not just those of half the global population." By embracing this principle, we can work toward a more inclusive and equitable world—one that is better equipped to address the conflicts and crises of our time.