With multilateralism seemingly in retreat, a hostile US administration, major powers waging unilateral wars, and a sharp budget cut, the position of UN secretary-general is surely one of the world’s toughest jobs right now. Who would want to fill the shoes of António Guterres, whose second five-year term ends in December?
As the countdown to a new leadership era at the United Nations begins, eight candidates with impressive curricula vitae are lining up for consideration. Their collective task, should they succeed Guterres, will be nothing short of monumental: they must overhaul an entire institution that has long been haemorrhaging trust among both its member states and the global public. The candidates’ opening statements all cite a pressing need to inject new life into the UN, increase transparency, and return the body to its core mandate of preventing conflict before it spirals out of control.
Senior UN trade official Rebeca Grynspan Mayufis of Costa Rica, an early frontrunner in the race, has argued openly that the organisation has grown “too distant from the daily needs of people.” Ecuadoran diplomat Ivonne A-Baki has offered an equally blunt assessment, calling the global body “slow, fragmented, and expensive.” Meanwhile, Macky Sall, the former president of Senegal, has taken aim at the UN Security Council, accusing it of being “the last vestige of a bygone world order.” These candid critiques reflect a widespread recognition within diplomatic circles that the architecture of international governance is in desperate need of repair.
Yet the mechanism designed to fix the United Nations is itself mired in secrecy and institutional inertia. The opaque selection process involves a series of secret ballots held by the 15-member Security Council. Within this influential body, the five permanent members (P5)—the United Kingdom, France, the United States, Russia, and China—wield absolute veto power. As a result, while candidates have successfully identified the deep-seated problems plaguing the institution, diplomatic realists note that a strident reformer is unlikely to emerge victorious from such a filtered and conservative process.
Secret straw polls officially commenced on 30 July, with the five permanent members and the ten non-permanent members casting their confidential ballots. Because the candidates have no way of knowing which country cast which ballot, they are forced to navigate a labyrinth of uncertainty, trying to deduce shifting allegiances and figure out precisely who to target with renewed lobbying efforts. With its intricate manoeuvring, high-stakes diplomacy, and potential for Machiavellian power plays, the process has frequently been compared to a papal conclave.
So far, three rounds of voting have taken place, with Rebeca Grynspan Mayufis and Carolyn Rodrigues Birkett, Guyana’s permanent representative to the UN, currently leading the pack. However, veteran observers insist that these early ballots are primarily part of an ongoing diplomatic negotiating process rather than a true, definitive indication of the candidates’ ultimate prospects. Another round of voting is expected to take place soon.
Should a clear frontrunner emerge from these initial hurdles, a further round of polling will follow, during which the P5 will use different coloured ballot papers to signify their stance. A “discourage” vote from even one of these permanent members means a candidate could face a potential veto. Once a candidate secures the support of at least nine Security Council members without triggering a veto from any P5 member, the nomination will advance to a full vote at the 193-member General Assembly, which is widely expected to rubber-stamp and back the Security Council’s official recommendation.
Conventional wisdom in diplomatic corridors holds that a candidate from South America will prevail this time around, given that only one of the nine secretary-generals to date has hailed from the region. Furthermore, there are currently five female candidates in the running, prompting many international relations experts and member states to argue that it is well past time for a woman to take the helm of the world body.
Much of the lobbying by candidates this year has been strategically targeted at the United States, given Donald Trump’s open hostility toward the UN, the country’s withdrawal from 31 of its affiliated organisations, and the president’s persistent threats to slash its funding. Maria Fernanda Espinosa Garcés, a secretary-general candidate and former Ecuadorian defence and foreign affairs minister, underscores the delicate reality facing all contenders: “It’s symbolically, financially, and politically vital to have the trust and the backing of the United States.”
Yet another potential pitfall lies ahead on the diplomatic calendar. In theory, a successor from the current crop of candidates should be chosen by December. However, any member state retains the procedural right to throw a spanner in the works by nominating a brand-new candidate at virtually any point in the process. Compounding these anxieties, speculation has been rife in diplomatic circles that Trump might attempt to foist the head of FIFA, Gianni Infantino, into the role.
While such an appointment seems unlikely given Infantino’s recent troubles after trying to sell off rights to the World Cup, the US president remains a known and unpredictable disruptor on the international stage. Because of the way the selection process is purposefully designed—granting immense, concentrated power to the P5 members—it is more than likely that the world will witness significant political drama before any white smoke rises from the East River.
