Being ‘at the table’ is often celebrated as progress, but what happens when women occupy seats yet struggle to be heard, valued, or allowed to lead? In this candid conversation, filmmakers, entrepreneurs, and advocates delve into the complex realities behind representation, quotas, and power. From Nepal’s political landscape to corporate and social spaces, we examine whether numerical inclusion translates into genuine influence, how systemic biases continue to sideline women, and what structural and cultural changes are needed for presence to evolve into real authority. The discussion unpacks the difference between symbolic gestures and meaningful participation, highlighting that true progress demands both representation and the power to shape decisions.
Does having women ‘at the table’ matter if they are not heard or taken seriously?
People speak from where they come from; they advocate for what they know. That is precisely why we need people from different backgrounds, so that multiple voices are available and we can decide who truly represents and influences us.
Shreya Subedi and Pratiskshya Devkota, Queer filmmakers and content creators
Shreya and Pratiskshya: Yes, representation is the crucial first step. We need women at the table before we can even address questions of credibility and influence. The real problem is that women’s leadership capability is constantly questioned before they ever get the chance to lead. Research by Tali Mendelberg and Christopher Karpowitz in The Silent Sex shows that women can be physically present but functionally silent. In majority-rule settings, women speak significantly less than their numbers suggest they should, as institutional rules often silence them. We see this happening in our country at present. Without diverse representation in our upcoming elections, the same voices and perspectives will continue to circulate. Getting women to the table matters immensely; it must be the foundation. But we must simultaneously ensure they are heard once they arrive.
Darsana: Presence certainly matters, but presence alone is not sufficient to ensure meaningful participation. In Nepal’s context, women make up around 41% of local representatives, which reflects significant progress towards gender inclusion. However, the majority of these roles are concentrated in deputy or secondary positions, where decision-making authority often remains limited. Without access to executive power and leadership roles, particularly in political spaces, women’s participation risks becoming symbolic rather than transformative. True representation requires not only numerical inclusion but also the ability to influence policies, shape priorities and exercise authority. Empowering women in leadership positions is therefore essential for achieving genuine and lasting democratic inclusion.
Akanchha: Just having women at the table does not matter if they are not heard or taken seriously. In my experience, women are sometimes included for appearance’s sake, to demonstrate gender equality, inclusion and diversity. Many times, it becomes more about fulfilling a quota than practising real inclusivity. I do not agree that simply having a woman at the table is enough. What matters is whether she is heard and taken seriously. If that is not happening, then she does not truly have a say in influencing decisions or making an impact. Presence alone is not enough if it does not translate into actual participation and influence.
Yukta: It is undeniably important to have women and individuals with diverse perspectives at decision-making tables. However, mere presence is not enough. We must also question which women are being included and whether their selection is based on merit or proximity to powerful male figures. Representation should reflect competence, independence and genuine inclusion, not patronage. In many cases, the inclusion of women becomes a symbolic gesture, allowing powerful men to project an image of progressiveness while maintaining control over decision-making processes. True inclusion requires creating space for women who can contribute meaningfully, exercise autonomy and influence outcomes rather than simply fulfilling representational expectations.
Can quotas create real change, or do they only change how things look on the surface?
Until women’s authority in power is genuinely validated by the public, quotas risk functioning as temporary mechanisms rather than long-term foundations.
Darsana Rijal, Vice President, Yuwa
Shreya and Pratiskshya: Quotas are absolutely necessary in societies structured around privilege, whether based on caste, gender, sexuality, race or identity.
Without quotas, the privileged will continue to occupy these positions and control the narrative about why quotas are not needed. People speak from where they come from; they advocate for what they know. That is precisely why we need people from different backgrounds, so that multiple voices are available and we can decide who truly represents and influences us. Critics of quotas often come from positions of privilege. Quotas help level spaces within society, government and institutions that are not inherently fair. Real change happens when those different voices bring diverse priorities, lived experiences and solutions to shared problems. Surface-level diversity becomes substantive change when quota-supported leaders have the power to shape policy and shift culture.
Darsana: Quotas are vital for driving structural change, particularly within Nepal’s deeply patriarchal society. The constitutional requirement reserving 34 % of federal parliamentary seats for women represents a significant milestone for gender inclusion. However, filling these positions remains challenging. Many women enter parliament through proportional representation rather than direct elections, highlighting persistent public hesitation to elect women leaders. This suggests that legal mandates alone cannot transform social attitudes. Voters must be sensitised to accept and support women in leadership roles. Until women’s authority in power is genuinely validated by the public, quotas risk functioning as temporary mechanisms rather than long-term foundations.
Akanchha: Quotas, like many policies, have both advantages and limitations. They were introduced to provide opportunities to those who previously lacked access. However, there have also been instances where quotas have been misused or taken for granted, diminishing their perceived value. That said, I believe quotas create real opportunities. Although they may initially appear to bring superficial change by simply including those previously excluded, over time this inclusion can translate into genuine decision-making power. Without quotas, some individuals might never reach spaces where influence can be exercised.
Yukta: Quotas are often misunderstood as a ‘gift’, when in reality they are corrective mechanisms designed to address long-standing systemic barriers faced by underserved populations. They are tools to improve representation where structural inequalities have historically limited access to power.
However, it is equally important to examine who is brought forward through quotas and whether their agendas and perspectives are genuinely heard. Without meaningful participation, quotas risk becoming forms of tokenism rather than instruments of change. They should therefore be viewed not as the final goal, but as a transitional step towards inclusive systems where equitable representation occurs naturally and voices are empowered to influence decisions.
Why might women still lack influence even when they are well represented in leadership roles?
For presence to translate into power, we need more women in leadership across all levels and industries. Current numbers are not sufficient.
Akanchha Joshi, Co-Founder, SnackOn
Shreya and Pratiskshya: This stems from deep-rooted misogyny embedded in political environments worldwide. Women face far greater pressure to perform because they are doubted before they even begin. Society justifies this bias through seemingly logical arguments about experience, precedent and traditional qualifications, ignoring that many of these ‘objective’ standards were created by men, for men.
Researchers Michelle Ryan and Alexander Haslam identified the ‘glass cliff’ phenomenon, in which women are often promoted to leadership roles during times of crisis or organisational decline. They receive the title but inherit impossible situations with limited institutional support. When things go wrong, the woman leader is blamed, reinforcing stereotypes.
There is also the double bind: research shows that when women act assertively, they are perceived as less likeable, which can reduce their influence. Men exhibiting identical behaviour are viewed as decisive leaders. It is a rigged system.
Darsana: Power within leadership roles in Nepal remains unevenly distributed. Nearly 90% of deputy mayor positions are held by women, yet even when these women contest elections again, they are often encouraged to run for the same deputy roles rather than executive positions.
As a result, meaningful authority frequently remains out of reach. Although women are visibly present in leadership, their influence is constrained by party hierarchies, institutional practices, and broader patriarchal norms. Representation alone does not guarantee power.
Akanchha: One reason is numbers. Women in decision-making roles are still fewer compared to men. A woman may lack mentorship or a sense of security and authority, particularly if she is the only woman in the room. Cultural upbringing also plays a role. Women are often raised to be quiet, receptive, and accommodating. This can cultivate hesitation in speaking out or asserting strong opinions. These social patterns contribute to why women may struggle to exercise full influence, even when they hold leadership positions.
Yukta: Progress is often measured by numbers, yet influence cannot be measured numerically alone. The critical question is how many voices are genuinely heard and valued. In Nepal, leadership continues to be shaped by masculine norms. Women are often given roles and responsibilities without the corresponding authority. The system frequently favours women who adapt to existing power structures rather than those who challenge them. Genuine progress requires enabling women to exercise independent leadership and participate as equal decision-makers.
What role can men play in ensuring women have real influence?
In Nepal, leadership continues to be shaped by masculine norms. Women are often given roles and responsibilities without the corresponding authority.
Yukta Poudel, Strategy and Partnership Officer, Samaanta Foundation and Programme Manager, Karkhana Samuha
Shreya and Pratiskshya: Men need to recognise that they have been conditioned to view leadership as inherently masculine. This narrative benefits them and continues to persist because of that advantage. However, women thriving benefits everyone; equality is not a zero-sum game. Men must actively listen to women without preconceived notions and advocate for them in spaces where women are absent.
They should examine their own biases and understand that divisions based on gender, caste, class, or race are often perpetuated to maintain existing power structures. Progress requires recognising that we are challenging systems, not one another.
Darsana: Men can advance women’s leadership by actively supporting and advocating for women candidates. Amplifying women’s voices in both formal and informal spaces can make a significant difference. Many men are unaware of the privileges afforded to them by social structures. The lived experiences of working women and working men often differ considerably due to deeply rooted gender roles that shape expectations and opportunities.
Akanchha: Men can act as facilitators. When a woman’s voice is overlooked, a male colleague can encourage her to share her ideas and visibly support her perspectives. This is not about seeking validation but about collaboration. Creating space, offering support, and guiding in moments of hesitation can ensure that influence becomes meaningful rather than symbolic.
Yukta: Meaningful change must begin with boys, not just men. Attitudes towards gender equality are shaped early, and homes play a crucial role in teaching respect and shared responsibility. As they grow, men can become stronger allies by knowing when to step forward in support and when to step back to create space. Visible allyship creates a ripple effect. Men can also use their privilege to question who has not been given the opportunity to speak and who remains excluded.
What needs to change for women’s presence to turn into real power?
Shreya and Pratiskshya: Society must genuinely believe in women’s capabilities and actively unlearn misogynistic conditioning. Women are socialised to prioritise appearance and validation, while men are encouraged towards leadership and ambition. When one woman fails, it becomes a judgement on all women; when one man fails, it is individual.
Research by Mendelberg and Karpowitz shows that decision-making structures matter greatly. Systems requiring consensus rather than simple majority rule can increase women’s participation and influence. We need institutional reforms that ensure proportional influence without requiring women to achieve overwhelming majorities. Real power comes when belief translates into structural change and women’s leadership is treated as normal, not exceptional.
Darsana: Nepal must move beyond numerical inclusion towards substantive inclusion. While quotas have improved representation, they have not yet translated into strong, visible influence. The country needs more women in executive roles who are directly elected, reflecting public trust. Political parties should nominate women in competitive constituencies rather than symbolic ones. Above all, lasting change requires a cultural shift that treats women with equal dignity and legitimacy in leadership.
Akanchha: For presence to translate into power, we need more women in leadership across all levels and industries. Current numbers are not sufficient. Women who already hold influence should mentor younger women entering the field. Strong networks and mentorship can build collective influence over time.
Yukta: Lasting change begins at home, ensuring that future women leaders have allies and support. Organisations must also recognise that women may bring leadership styles that differ from traditional male-dominated models. Effective leadership should be defined not by conformity but by inclusivity, innovation and impact.
Text: Kreenajala
