COMMUNITY

Dr. Fry, you have championed gender equality in the OSCE region for more than fifteen years. With CEDAW General Recommendation 40, the international standard is no longer “balance” or “critical mass”: it is full 50/50 parity. Why does parity matter for the credibility and quality of democracy, and for security in the OSCE region in particular?

The Inter-Parliamentary Union’s Universal Declaration on Democracy, adopted in 1997 holds that “a genuine partnership between men and women in the conduct of the affairs of society” is a key principle of democracy.[1]  There are several reasons why this is so.  Firstly, gender parity is critical to the credibility of democracy because it can increase public trust: cross-national surveys show that both men and women see political institutions as more legitimate and democratic when more women are elected.[2] As well, gender parity in parliaments can enhance gender-responsive accountability. The UN explains that to have gender-responsive accountability, women must be included in any oversight or accountability process and national commitments to women’s rights “must be among the standards against which public decisions are assessed.”  Without such accountability, the UN notes, the full realization of women’s rights is hindered. [3] There is also evidence showing that women’s participation can improve decision-making processes and promote collaboration across party lines.[4]

In terms of security, the NATO Association of Canada has highlighted research showing that representation of women in parliament decreases the chances of armed conflict, both internationally and domestically.[5] For its part, the World Bank has highlighted gender quality as “a critical predictor of stability and security,”[6] noting that women’s inclusion in peace processes positively impacts the durability of peace agreements.[7] Similarly, in its resolution 1325, adopted in October 2000, the UN Security Council recognized the role that women’s participation in the peace process can play in the “maintenance and promotion of international peace and security.”[8]

But most importantly, science has shown that women use a different cognitive process to make decisions, compared to men. Therefore, they bring a different perspective to decision-making that is needed to get a full 360-degree perspective instead of 180-degrees from men alone.

 

General Recommendation 40, adopted in October 2024, defines equal and inclusive representation as full 50/50 parity in all decision-making systems. Under Article 8, it extends this to international representation: diplomats, delegations to multilateral meetings and staff of regional organizations. How can GR40 support the OSCE’s work to ensure women’s equal and inclusive representation in international peace and security decision-making? And which institutional reforms do participating States most urgently need? And what role can parliamentarians play in turning it into national parity laws and transparent nomination procedures?

According to UN Women, women’s representation in peace processes is far below both the United Nations’ target of one third, as well as the parity goal set by CEDAW. In 2024, women comprised just 7% of negotiators ,14% of mediators, and 20% of signatories at peace tables.[9] Further, only 29 countries were led by women as of July 2025; and between 2015 and 2024, women accounted for just 23% of Permanent Representatives of the Member States in the UN Security Council.[10] Women also represent just 27% of national parliamentarians worldwide, which falls to 20% in the case of conflict-affected countries.[11]

In the OSCE region, data from the Inter-parliamentary Union show that in May 2026, female representation in national parliaments was 32.37%.[12]  In my own country, Canada, women represented 56% in the Senate and 31% of seats in the House of Commons as of 1 June 2026.[13]

The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights’ (ODIHR’s) Gender Parity Roadmap includes concrete actions states can take to achieve gender parity in alignment with the CEDAW Committee’s general recommendation No. 40. For example, parliaments can adopt national action plans on gender equality, informed by a process called Gender-Based Analysis, which Canada devised in 1995. This analysis uses sex disaggregated data, which allows us to look at the way in which women and men are differently affected by legislation and policy-making.

They can also adopt strengthened legislative measures to promote full parity, such as gender quotas or gender-targeted party and campaign funding.[14] A good example is what Canada did by funding an NGO called Equal Voice, to help promote women’s participation at all levels of legislatures, through learning how to fundraise, understanding how to run a campaign, and pushing for more women to be elected in the House and the Senate.

 

Women hold 166 of the 507 seats in the OSCE PA, about one in three, and four national delegations have no women at all. Women hold 31.6% of Bureau seats, and only 4 of the Assembly’s 20 Presidents since 1992 have been women. At the same time, the International Secretariat’s permanent staff has reached 50/50, and 8 of the 17 Special Representatives are women. What explains this gap between the staff and the elected side?

Although there is still a long way to go, as an organization, the OSCE PA has made some progress since we adopted our 2011Resolution on Women’s representation in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.  Looking at the most recent figures published in my 2026 Annual report on Gender issues, we can see that today women make up  33.8% of the Assembly, as compared to  only 23.7% in 2011.Looking more specifically at elected positions in the Assembly, as of September 2026, the OSCE PA Bureau is composed of 20 members, 6 of whom are women (30%). As you note in your question, this contrasts with the situation in the International Secretariat, where half of the permanent staff and 62.5% of the research assistants were women in June 2026.

Several factors contribute to this disparity. First, given the overall gender composition of the Assembly, it is important that member states ensure their delegations to OSCE PA have gender parity. This way women can run for positions in the Bureau and OSCE PA. Work needs to be done to better understand what barriers, if any, prevent women from standing for election to the Bureau.  Secondly, structural factors may also contribute to this disparity. Furthermore, other factors, such as geographical representation, also play a part in the election of members of the Bureau. The Rules of Procedure require members to take account of the national composition of the Assembly when considering the proposed candidates for the posts of President, Vice-President and Treasurer.

Gender parity in the International Secretariat is a great step, but we need to ensure delegations from each member state look for gender parity in their own delegation, that way more women can run for office and sit in the Bureau.

Women’s leadership of OSCE PA election observation missions has grown considerably since 1992. Looking outward, how can the OSCE use parity as a standard in its work across the region? Should observation missions systematically assess parity in candidate lists, electoral bodies and elected institutions, along with emerging threats such as gendered disinformation, AI misuse and political violence against women candidates? And should their recommendations explicitly reference GR 40?

As a reminder, OSCE PA observer missions are composed of members of the Assembly who have been nominated by their national delegations and appointed by the OSCE PA President. Women made up 38% of the participants in the five OSCE PA election observation missions that took place in 2025, which is close to the proportion of women in the OSCE PA. Until we have gender parity in the delegations, we cannot achieve equal participation in the election observation missions.

While the code of conduct for OSCE PA Election observers requires them to maintain strict political impartiality in the conduct of their duties, they are allowed – and expected – to address the gender dimension of the elections they cover in their official statements. Among other factors, they regularly highlight the presence or absence of gender quotas and the context surrounding women’s participation in politics (e.g. levels of abuse). In my view, we should absolutely encourage election observers to apply a gender lens when they report on disinformation, AI misuse, harassment and violence in an electoral context.  Violence against women journalists and politicians is a critical issue that I explored in my 2021 annual report. I think election observer missions are a valuable tool in helping us to assess and understand the participation of women in politics across the OSCE region.

 

We often talk about diversity and representation as questions of fairness. But is representation also a question of legitimacy? GR 40 speaks of the representation of women “in all their diversity”. When women, and the diversity of women, are missing from parliaments, delegations or international organizations, can the decisions those institutions take still be fully legitimate in the eyes of the people they serve?

Representation is indeed a question of legitimacy. More than twenty years ago, democratic theorists like Melissa Williams argued that democratic legitimacy requires the inclusion of women and other historically disadvantaged groups in legislative bodies. Since then, a number of empirical scholarly studies, implicating countries in North America, Europe and Australasia, as well as in the Middle East and North Africa, have found that the presence of women in decision-making bodies increases the perceived legitimacy of those bodies. This is true at two levels. The presence of women in a decision-making body positively affects the perceived legitimacy of decisions reached by that body (“substantive legitimacy”), and it positively affects the perceived legitimacy of the procedure by which that body reaches decisions (“procedural legitimacy”). Interestingly, a recent study of respondents across 12 countries found that these legitimacy benefits hold even when gender balance is achieved through quotas. Indigenous groups, 2SLGBTQI+, racialized groups, and other marginalized groups of women should be included when we look at participation, as they bring different perspectives to decision-making and legislation-making.

Democracy is based on the concept that representation of the population is important to decision-making. It is important to include intersectionality when we look at gender.

[1]        Inter-Parliamentary Union, Universal Declaration on Democracy.

[2]        Inter-Parliamentary Union, Women in Parliament: 20 years in review, p. 12.

[3]        United Nations Development Fund for Women, Who Answers to Women? Gender and Accountability, Progress of the World’s Women 2008/2009.

[4]        UN Women, Facts and figures: Women’s leadership and political participation, 15 September 2026.

[5]        Morgan Singer, The Parity Imperative: Why Women’s Political Representation is Imperative to NATO’s Peace and Security Agenda, NATO Association of Canada, 25 April 2026; Erik Melander, “Gender Equality and Intrastate Armed Conflict,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 49, No. 4, December 2005; Linda Robinson and Noël James, Women’s Power Index, Council on Foreign Affairs, 19 March 2026; and Mary Caprioli and Mark A. Boyer, “Gender, Violence, and International Crisis,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 45, No. 4, August 2001.

[6]        Catalina Crespo-Sancho, “Can gender equality prevent violent conflict?” World Bank Blogs, 28 March 2018.

[7]        Ibid.

[8]        United Nations Security Council, Resolution 1325 (2000), 31 October 2000.

[9]        UN Women, Facts and figures: Women, peace, and security, 20 October 2025.

[10]      Ibid.

[11]      Ibid.

[12]      The Honourable Dr. Hedy Fry, OSCE PA Special Representative on Gender Issues, Leaving No One Behind: Gender Equality in the OSCE Region – The Annual Report of the OSCE PA Special Representative on Gender Issues, 2026, p. 43.

[13]            Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), “Monthly ranking of women in national parliaments,” IPU Parline, Database, accessed 13 July 2026.

[14]       OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Gender Parity Roadmap: Seven steps towards the equal and meaningful representation of women and men in politics, 2025.