By Javier Surasky
In 2026, the United Nations will select a new Secretary-General (SG) amid a conflictive environment marked by geopolitical tensions and both situational and structural crises within the organization itself.
As the
selection process approaches, its presence is increasingly felt in political,
academic, and even some media debates. But how is the Secretary-General chosen
at the UN?
The answer
is full of gaps. To begin with, there is no formally established process that
lays out specific timelines or procedural steps to follow, and the debate
around some of the existing informal guidelines is reopened with each
selection.
In the
early years of the UN’s existence, the selection of the SG was an opaque
process. The Charter of the Organization does not specify it, limiting itself
to stating that the General Assembly shall appoint the SG upon the
recommendation of the Security Council. This means that the veto power of the
five permanent members is built into the process, allowing any of them to block
a candidate without offering any explanation.
As a first
consequence, the SG selection process is dominated by negotiations among the
great powers, with debates often taking place far from public scrutiny, behind
closed doors. The level of secrecy was such that Kurt Waldheim, chosen in 1971,
found out about his selection by the Security Council when it was publicly
announced—he was unaware that he had even been considered for the post.
A second
element: we speak of a “selection” and not an “election” because the Security
Council (SC) proposes only one name to the General Assembly (GA), which can
either accept or reject it—though rejection has never happened. It was the GA
itself that requested, during its first session, that the SC submit only a
single name (Resolution 11(I) of
1946). A significant development occurred in 1981 with the introduction of
so-called “straw polls,” in which each member of the SC indicates their
support, neutrality, or opposition to a candidate through an informal process
that does not require official SC meetings. Although the identity of each
voting country remains unknown (the procedure is secret), since 1991, colored
ballots are used: red for the five permanent members (with veto power) and
white for the non-permanent ones. This process quickly “filters out” candidates
with real prospects, and results are often leaked to the public.
A third
element: while it is said that SG serves for five years with the possibility of
reelection, this is not a written rule. It is the SC that proposes the length
of the mandate, and the GA that accepts it. In special circumstances,
exceptions have occurred: Trygve Lie was appointed in 1946 directly by the GA
for a second three-year term, later extended, after the SC was unable to agree
on a candidate due to cross-vetoes. To date, all SGs have been reelected except
for Dag Hammarskjöld (who died in office) and Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the first
SG elected after the Cold War, who was vetoed by the United States in the SC
despite the support of the other 14 members for his renewal.
Fourth:
there is no formal rule, nor a firmly established practice, requiring regional
rotation for the position. Western Europe has had four SGs, Asia and Africa each
have two, Latin America and the Caribbean have one, and Eastern Europe has none.
However, it has become a constant that none of the SGs are nationals of any of
the five permanent members of the SC (the P5).
Finally, there
is no “job description” against which to evaluate candidates’ qualifications.
The role and functions of each SG have evolved in response to both the
political space available during their mandate and their individual
capabilities, courage, and personality. So far, all SGs have held high-level
political positions in their countries, except for Kofi Annan, who had a long
career within the UN. For context: the youngest SG at the time of appointment
was Dag Hammarskjöld (age 48) and the oldest was Boutros Boutros-Ghali (age
70). The average age of the selected SGs is 58 years; however, considering only
those chosen after the Cold War (four SGs), the average age increases to 65.
As early as
1996, the first serious attempt to regulate the process was made (the “Wisnumurti
Guidelines”), sparking a new debate in 2006 with Canada’s submission of a non-paper
on the issue.
In
2015–2016 a reform was implemented to make the SG selection process more
transparent and democratic. Backed by a group of States and civil society
actors under the “1 for 7 Billion” campaign (now “1 for 8 Billion”), the GA adopted Resolution 69/321. It established
public calls for candidates via a joint letter from the presidents of the SC
and GA, public disclosure of candidates’ names, CVs, and “vision statements,”
and informal dialogues between candidates and Member States. The resolution
also encouraged the nomination of female candidates, acknowledging that the UN
has never had a woman SG.
This
process was first applied in the 2016 selection, which included 13 official
candidates (seven of them women). It resulted in the appointment of António
Guterres—the first SG born after the founding of the UN, who was reelected in
2021. Although there were no other contenders, the GA insisted on applying the
2016 process: Guterres submitted a new vision statement and participated in an
interactive dialogue with GA members in May 2021.
The same
rules will apply for the next SG selection, which is once again expected to
result in the appointment of a woman. Regional expectations also suggest the
possibility of a candidate from Latin America and the Caribbean, though neither
of these outcomes should be taken for granted. By the end of 2025, a joint
letter from the SC and GA presidents is expected to launch the call for
candidates, likely before the end of October. In the first half of 2026, the GA
will organize informal hearings, after which the SC will make its recommendation
for formal adoption by the GA. The chosen candidate will assume office on
January 1, 2027, presumably following the standard five-year renewable term.
For now,
all we can do is follow developments in real time to discover who will hold the
post in the years to come. We’ll know soon, and the name chosen may reveal much
about the organization's future.