Who does this serve? A gendered perspective on perpetual barriers to reintegration in Sierra Leone and Colombia

This research examines persistent gendered barriers to reintegration experienced by female ex-combatants, focussing on the cases of Sierra Leone and Colombia, two post-conflict contexts separated by over a decade yet facing strikingly similar challenges. Representing distinct regional and temporal contexts, these case studies allow for a comparative analysis that highlights the persistence of gendered barriers across diverse political landscapes. Despite the adoption of international frameworks such as United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security, and recommendations made by academics and practitioners, barriers to women’s reintegration including access to childcare, education, and vocational training remain inadequately addressed. This paper interrogates the disjuncture between rhetorical commitments to gender-sensitive Disarmament, Demobilisation, and Reintegration (DDR) processes and their implementation. With women’s experiences remaining relatively static over decades of policy evolution, this paper asks who is truly served by such developments: the reputations of policymakers and their institutions, or those whom policies are supposedly designed to protect? By focussing on this disconnect, this research highlights the limits of institutional will and the symbolic nature of many gender mainstreaming efforts. Taking a comparative approach, this paper analyses official statements, media reports, archival materials, and academic literature to assess how post-conflict gender policies are introduced, framed, and implemented. Analysing press releases and media statements celebrating policy announcements alongside academic critiques of their practical implementation reveals the persistence of gaps between policy rhetoric and practice. By assessing the cycle of DDR policy execution, this research highlights how recognition of differentiated needs persistently takes precedence over comprehensive and meaningful implementation. The findings of this paper urge a shift from symbolic commitments towards transformative practices which genuinely address structural barriers to reintegration, contributing to critical debates on gendered approaches to peacebuilding and symbolic policymaking.