What Becomes of Leadership?

Armed conflict changes far more than the territorial or political boundaries of a state. It disrupts everyday life, reshapes social relationships, and exposes inequalities that have often existed long before the first shot was fired or the final peace agreement was signed. In these times of crisis, women often take on responsibilities that are overlooked in traditional accounts of war. They organize community initiatives, keep families together, document violence, secure access to basic necessities, and preserve spaces where civic life can continue despite the collapse of formal institutions. Their contributions rarely appear in military histories or diplomatic discussions, yet they are often essential to helping communities survive conflict and start rebuilding afterwards.

The significance of these experiences, however, lies in what happens to this leadership once the immediate crisis begins to fade. Conflict can increase women's visibility in public life without giving them lasting political influence, creating a gap between public recognition and real political power. This tension remains a central theme in feminist research on war and peace. Although women often step into leadership roles during conflict, these roles do not always continue once institutions are rebuilt and societies return to more familiar political and social structures. The question, then, is not whether women lead in times of conflict; history has shown that they do. The more important question is whether that leadership is recognized as political authority once societies move from surviving war to building peace. The following interview features Syrian journalist Lina Chawaf, who has dedicated much of her career to promoting independent media and advocating for women's rights.

Question: Women often play crucial roles during conflicts from organizing communities to keeping families and local networks alive. For example, before the Syrian civil war, women's participation in the workforce was relatively low. Yet throughout the conflict, many women became providers or organizers and community figures out of necessity. My question is, do you think this visibility has translated into genuine empowerment today or were women simply expected to carry additional burdens in the absence of functioning institutions?

Answer: In Syria, over the last fifteen years, many men have been occupied with fighting and the war itself. As a result, if you look at Syria during this period; you mainly see women, children, and the elderly. So, as you mentioned in your question, this has placed a significant burden on women and pushed them into more active roles out of necessity. But this did not happen because society was fully convinced of women's participation; rather, necessity brought women to the forefront. Institutionally however, after conflict, women often become less visible than they were during the conflict itself. When we started our revolution, one of our main goals was freedom: freedom of expression and women's rights. Unfortunately, this has not been achieved. That is why we need an institutional environment that guarantees these rights, and we need them to be embedded in Syrian law. I believe that if the law becomes a civil law framework, it could solve many of these problems.

Question: Despite all the contributions women make during conflicts they are frequently excluded from formal peace negotiations and reconstruction processes once the conflict ends. Why do you think this gap still exists?

Answer: In the case of Syria, this gap still exists for two main reasons. The first is the authority that has taken control of the country. Yes, they are Islamist, and in many ways they have been even stricter than before, especially in opposition-held areas. The second reason lies in social traditions, which continue to create barriers and deepen this gap. These practices are often justified in the name of religion, particularly Islam, even though, in my view, this does not reflect the true principles of Islam. So, I believe these two factors — political authority and social tradition — are what continue to create this gap.

Question: In moments of political crisis, why do you think independent media, especially media that gives visibility to women and social issues, becomes one of the first targets of pressure and control?

Answer: When I was working for a private radio station in Syria before 2011, before the revolution, it was already difficult to be a woman in leadership, in media, and in public life in general. The authorities had placed many barriers and red lines that we were not allowed to cross. But during the conflict, when people started screaming for freedom and women also started asking for their freedom, it created tension between men and women. It was as if they were facing each other. Men began to feel that they might lose the power and authority they had over women, and for them, that was frightening. That is why, in many ways, it became even more difficult during the conflict. I remember one journalist, or citizen reporter, who was working with us at the radio. He was demonstrating for freedom, and he was so passionate, shouting "freedom, freedom." Then suddenly he started talking about his sister and how he had locked her at home. I asked him, "But you are demonstrating for freedom — how can you lock your sister at home?" He said, "No, this is another kind of freedom. This is not the freedom I want." That shows how deeply tradition and society affect these attitudes. The Assad regime, and also Islamist and more radical groups, put even more pressure on women's rights. So, in the end, it is largely about society, but it became much more visible because women started to feel that this revolution was also theirs.

Question: Many people in conflict affected countries continued their work from exile or through diaspora networks after being forced to leave their homes. Do you think exile can become a space for political voice and leadership or does distance from the country create a new limit for those trying to influence change?

Answer: We can work from exile, yes. But if we do not have political parties and an environment where different political views can be exchanged, we will not have the kind of country we wanted — the kind of country the revolution began for. There has to be diversity in political parties, diversity in media, and diversity in education. This is what creates an environment of democracy, an environment that accepts differences, and at least an environment of freedom of expression. So yes, from exile we can continue, but it is not the same. We have to keep fighting from the inside as well. There has to be harmony.

Question: How can media tell the stories of women in conflict without reducing them to suffering and without ignoring the violence and injustice they experience?

Answer: I will tell you a story. I remember when we were always talking about women and trying to bring women's voices to the radio, to let women speak. I remember there was a teacher calling us from an opposition-held area inside Syria. She was always advocating for women's rights and was very motivated to change the situation of women inside Syria. She used to participate in our women's program every Saturday. After a couple of months, I heard that she had died by suicide. I was shocked. I tried to find out why, and I learned that she had been beaten by her husband for a long time. She would come to school with bruises on her body and face. She had tried to resist this, but unfortunately society did not create a protective environment for her. The law did not protect her. There was no support system around her. She found herself completely alone. And in the end, she took her own life. So how do we deal with this, in conflict or even outside of conflict? We have to be careful when we talk about women's rights. It is not enough to simply push women, motivate them to rebel against traditions, and fight for themselves without giving them the tools to do so. One of those tools is giving them a platform for their voices and involving them directly in the process of change.

Question: In conflict zones, women who take leadership roles often have to prove their legitimacy more than men even when they are doing the same work. Sadly, why do you think women's authority is still questioned so easily in times of crisis?

Answer: As you said, women often have to make double, even ten times the effort to become leaders. The conflict environment gives people a kind of green light to criticize at a very high level, often crossing personal boundaries and invading your privacy as a woman and as a leader. You see things on social media that you would never imagine seeing. There is this idea that men are stronger, and again, I do not think that is true. They also say that women are too emotional, so they cannot make quick or firm decisions. And I do not think that is true either. If there were no emotions, then look at all the wars in the world. It is men who create wars because they want to fight. Women often approach things differently. They think more, they take more time, and sometimes that can prevent a country from going to war, prevent disasters, and prevent crises.

Question: Syria's transitional government has only one female minister, Hint Kabat, who has said that she does not want to be treated as a symbolic figure. What would it take for women's presence in post conflict governments to move from symbolic representation to real decision-making power?

Answer: I think the most important step forward is reforming the law. I always come back to this point: the law matters most. If honor crimes are still recognized or tolerated within the legal system, that means women are still treated as less than men. That is why changing the law has to be the first priority. At the same time, we need political diversity. This is essential. And we need education, because as I said, we grow up shaped by these ideas and traditions. Education is what builds awareness, and awareness is what creates long-term change.

Question: If there is one lesson you would like future female leaders and decision makers to take from your experience what would be the lesson learned?

Answer: I think the lesson I have learned is to keep going. That is very important. I went through many moments when I felt desperate, disappointed, and without hope. But I was always able to stop and tell myself, no, I have to continue. Why? Because I always remember the women who had no voice, who could not speak, and who were always forced into silence. And I always find myself thinking that I have to continue, just to help carry the voices of women who still have no voice. That is the lesson I learned, and it is what keeps me going as much as I can.