UN80: A Crisis of Political Trust

By Javier Surasky

One aspect that has received little attention in analyzing the current crisis of multilateralism is trust. Duncan defines political trust as “reciprocity between rulers and the ruled, and among different interest groups and classes, to maintain adequate levels of well-being and a shared sense of justice,” emphasizing that it’s a collective phenomenon, distinct from individual trust.

In its Trust report, the OECD adds that “trust gives us confidence that others will act as we expect, whether in a specific action or a set of actions,” noting that it relies on both facts and how they are perceived.

From this perspective, it’s easy to see why trust is a cornerstone of international governance and a prerequisite for effectiveness. A lack of trust wastes time and opportunities while increasing the burden of bureaucracy in decision-making.

This understanding of political trust also helps us identify four levels of trust—or distrust—that interact in politics:

Political Trust: Levels of Work

Source: Author’s own elaboration

This framework helps us consider the root causes behind the UN80 process and its potential impacts, depending on how its implementation unfolds.

The crisis facing the United Nations isn’t just about funding—it’s about trust. The argument for cutting contributions or delaying payments by member states is rooted in distrust of the UN’s ability to act effectively and efficiently.

This argument carries weight because many people worldwide share this perception of the UN’s work. Only a small group of experts and those directly benefiting from its successful interventions truly appreciate the UN’s contributions to a better world. In an era where communication is key, the UN has lost the narrative battle to conspiracists and bad-faith actors.

Images of government officials and UN representatives meeting in lavish halls and palaces to discuss poverty and underdevelopment have become infuriating to many. The UN’s repeated failures to advance issues that matter to people, while framing failed meetings as partial successes, haven’t helped its reputation as a trustworthy organization.

Numerous promises of reform in the UN’s administration and management—globally, regionally, and nationally—often fall short. As the UN’s official Reform page notes, “UN Secretary-General António Guterres has made proposals to reform the United Nations since the beginning of his term in January 2017.”

Yet progress has been slow and insufficient. UN officials clinging to their positions, resistance to change, and the political maneuvering of countries that benefit from the status quo further erode trust in the organization’s ability to transform.

Some might argue that the real reform needed to make the UN trustworthy is impossible—that it requires changes to its Charter, which the five permanent members of the Security Council would never allow, among other challenges. This may be true, but the impossibility of achieving an ideal reform shouldn’t be an excuse for failing to implement feasible changes, some of which could be driven by the will of the organization’s top officials through better management and accountability practices.

The lack of transparency in the UN80 process, the absence of a clear, straightforward explanation of why it’s happening now, the initial steps that don’t clearly target the organization’s highest levels, and the perception that it’s a desperate move without a clear growth strategy all lead me to believe that the so-called UN80 reform will end up fostering even greater distrust in the UN, both internally and in its public image. As currently presented, UN80 is yet another blow to the already limited trust in the UN and, by extension, in multilateralism as a way to address shared challenges.

The selection of the next UN Secretary-General in 2026 will be pivotal. It could mark the first step in the arduous process of rebuilding trust in multilateralism, which requires a trustworthy UN, or it could signal a continuation of the “wait-and-see” approach.

A new Secretary-General, chosen through a transparent process, with clear ideas rather than vague, all-encompassing projects, capable of engaging not just member states but the diverse stakeholders within the UN, and backed by the General Assembly against predictable resistance from the Security Council, is essential. They must be committed to defending the UN’s core principles.

Defending the UN is more critical than ever, but some misunderstand this as defending its buildings and bureaucracy, managing damage control amid the earthquake shaking the organization. The UN is not its buildings, summits, or bureaucracy. The UN is the unwavering ideal that a more just, peaceful, and equitable world is possible—but it requires us all to work together, trusting one another to act swiftly, effectively, and efficiently, guided by the organization’s founding purposes.