The United Nations is searching for its next secretary-general even as it faces one of the most consequential periods in its more than 80 years. An unprecedented financial crisis, mounting violations of international law, deepening geopolitical divisions, an ongoing climate crisis, a global retreat from democracy, and a rapidly intensifying backlash against gender equality are testing not only the organization’s effectiveness but also the credibility of the United Nations system writ large. For the U.N. to meet these challenges, visionary leadership is a must.
Yet only eight candidates have been nominated for secretary-general to take over from António Guterres in January, and seven are still standing. Of the nominees, those remaining are Michelle Bachelet from Chile, Maria Fernanda Espinosa from Ecuador, Rafael Grossi from Argentina, Rebeca Grynspan from Costa Rica, Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett from Guyana, Olara Otunnu of Uganda (a recent entry), and Macky Sall from Senegal. The number nominated was less than two-thirds the number put forward during the 2016 selection process, when 13 individuals entered the race. With the first of a likely series of Security Council straw polls expected later this week, such a limited field raises troubling questions. What does this shrinking pool of candidates reveal about global confidence in the United Nations? What does it reveal about the determination of U.N. member states to identify the strongest and most effective possible leader?
Research and interviews we conducted for the Global Network of Women Peacebuilders (GNWP) show that one of the issues is not only that member states don’t nominate enough candidates but also that they need to put forward more women candidates, not simply to correct a historic imbalance – no woman has ever served at the helm of the U.N. — but to expand the pool of visionary leaders capable of guiding the U.N. through its challenges. The U.N. needs leadership committed to strengthening multilateralism, bridging the humanitarian-development-peace nexus, upholding international law, advancing the role of women in peace and security, and demonstrating an unwavering moral compass in the face of growing geopolitical polarization.
Today, the public call for a woman to be named secretary-general is even stronger than in 2016. The president of the Security Council and the president of the General Assembly, in their November 2025 joint statement launching the search process, explicitly exhorted member states to “strongly consider nominating women as candidates,” noting “with regret” that no woman has ever held this position. As of March 2026, 112 member states have expressed either “strong” or “very strong” support for the appointment of a woman secretary-general, based on official statements delivered in U.N. forums, according to the GNWP. The campaign 1 For 8 Billion, which advocates for “an open, inclusive and merit-based selection process” for selecting the secretary-general and which is a partner of the organizations each of us represents, has declared, “Enough is enough. After 80 years of men-only leadership it is time for a woman to serve as UN Secretary-General. Member States should therefore only consider nominating women candidates.”
A Peak Behind the Curtain
Yet, only four of the seven remaining candidates are women. To understand why, we interviewed former U.N. secretary-general candidates from 2016 Susana Malcorra and Vesna Pusić, and Jean Krasno, the chair of the WomanSG campaign to elect a woman to the post.
Although there is no formal regional rotation rule, many member states consider 2026 to be the turn of the Latin American and Caribbean group. This unwritten rule, however, does not prevent other regional groups from nominating candidates. According to Krasno, a U.N. expert and tenured faculty member at City College New York, the biggest factor explaining why there are fewer candidates for the secretary-general selection this time around is the state of the organization itself. “Who wants to lead this organization right now? It is in such a mess. With this confluence of deficiencies and crises, we’re in a very different situation from the one we were in back in 2016. So with these complex problems, I’m happy we have six nominations. And I applaud those who have the courage to step forward.”
Malcorra, former foreign minister of Argentina, cautioned against drawing simple comparisons with 2016, arguing that was an unusually large and diverse field of candidates and was “the exception rather than the rule.” That year, unprecedented transparency reforms “encouraged a broader range of leaders to come forward.” Those reforms, many of which were proposed by civil society groups such as 1 for 8 (then 7) Billion, introduced public hearings, greater civil society engagement, and a stronger emphasis on merit — all of which remain in place today. But if those norms are so well-established, why are fewer candidates coming forward today, when the U.N. needs strong leadership even more urgently?
Pusić, who served as Croatia’s second female foreign minister, argues that the 2016 process generated genuine hope. But, she added, “In the end, the decision was made in the same old way, brokered among the Security Council (SC) 5 permanent members,” creating “a sense of disappointment and a feeling that nothing can be changed within a petrified structure.”
The problem runs deeper still. Pusić notes that the effective decision-making circle may have narrowed, warning that “it doesn’t feel like even SC 5 will be making the decision; more like SC 3, or even SC 2.” Member states making nomination calculations are not blind to this reality.
There is also a less visible obstacle rooted in domestic politics. Pusić argues that several recently elected government administrations do not want to support the nominees chosen by the previous administration. For example, Bachelet was nominated by her country, Chile, along with Brazil and Mexico. However, Chile withdrew its nomination for Bachelet after its November 2025 election, following a shift from a left-wing to a right-wing government. These withdrawals matter because they demonstrate how domestic political dynamics can override merit, stripping support from strong candidates.
Krasno noted that Virginia Gamba of Argentina, formerly the U.N. secretary-general’s special representative for children and armed conflict, was nominated by the Maldives, only to have the same country withdraw the nomination just two weeks later for reasons that are unclear. Krasno also noted that former President of the U.N. General Assembly María Fernanda Espinosa entered the race after being nominated by Antigua and Barbuda rather than by her own home country of Ecuador.
These factors help explain why few candidates have been nominated so far. Clearly, it is not for a lack of globally qualified leaders. As Malcorra noted, “there is a deep bench of highly qualified candidates, including many women.” The real challenge is that the structural conditions surrounding the selection process discourage member states from putting forward candidates.
The Integrity of the Search Process
Apart from these structural challenges, a key difference among the candidates is their dedication to maintaining the integrity of the search process. Krasno notes that the November 2025 joint letter from the Security Council and the General Assembly presidents launching the search asked candidates currently serving in the U.N. system to consider suspending their work for the duration of the campaign “with a view to avoiding any conflict of interest that may arise.” Grynspan complied, but Grossi did not. The 1 for 8 Billion campaign has asked every candidate to uphold its Principles for Integrity in UN Secretary-General Campaigns, including a pledge to protect the secretary-general’s independence from member states and to reject the backroom deals that trade senior U.N. posts for votes. Every woman in the race has pledged not to horse-trade with the P5. Neither man has.
Malcorra emphasized the need for member states to continue identifying and nominating highly qualified candidates, especially women, before the first straw polls, as a way to ensure “openness and ambition…rather than waiting for consensus to emerge around a small number of names.”
Beyond nominating candidates, member states could act collectively to demand a woman be selected as secretary-general. Although the Security Council recommends a candidate, the appointment ultimately requires General Assembly approval, and under Resolution 11(I) of 1946, a simple majority — at least 97 of 193 members — is needed. The 112 member states that have already expressed strong support for a woman secretary-general comfortably exceed that threshold. The Assembly has never actually voted down a Security Council recommendation, but it has never needed to. As Krasno recalled, the Africa Group, which consists of 54 members, once warned the Security Council it would block any non-African nominee in the General Assembly. The Council listened, selecting Boutros Boutros-Ghali and later Kofi Annan. “It can be done,” Krasno notes.
The implications of these dynamics in the search for a new leader extend far beyond the U.N. The position is a moral and political anchor for the U.N. system. It shapes how the United Nations responds to crises, how it interprets its Charter, and how it is perceived by the world. Research and experience on the role of women in peace and security – especially since the U.N. Security Council adopted resolution 1325 in 2000 requiring member states to protect women and girls in conflict zones and involve women in issues of peace and conflict – has repeatedly demonstrated that inclusive leadership is not only more legitimate but also more effective in preventing conflict, sustaining peace, and rebuilding societies after crises. Yet today, the field of candidates for secretary-general of the world’s largest, most representative global body does not fully reflect the urgency or complexity of the moment.
Ultimately, this is a test of political will. The legitimacy of the U.N. system depends not only on who is chosen, but on who is given the chance to be considered. If member states are serious about strengthening the United Nations, advancing gender equality, and restoring confidence in multilateral cooperation, then they should expand the field, broaden the vision, and nominate the leaders this moment demands.
(Acknowledgment: The Global Network of Women Peacebuilders extends its sincere gratitude to Susana Malcorra, Vesna Pusić, and Jean Krasno for generously sharing their time and insights in interviews for this article.)
