In 2015, after decades shrouded in secrecy, the process for choosing the next United Nations\u2019 secretary general was thrown into the open thanks to civil society that campaigned heavily for change. However, power over the final say continues to be wielded by the Security Council behind closed doors.<\/p>\n
The secretary general of the United Nations is arguably one of the world\u2019s most high profile roles. And yet, until a decade ago, the selection process was anything but. No formal application or nomination process existed. The decision lay largely in the hands of the Security Council and its five veto-wielding powers \u2013 Britain,\u00a0 China, France, Russia and the United States. Some candidates were even picked without their knowledge. In 1953, Swedish diplomat Dag Hammarskj\u00f6ld famously learnt that he had been selected as the next secretary general after a call from a journalist. It was April Fool\u2019s Day and he initially thought it was a joke.<\/p>\n
It was only in 2015 \u2013 70 years into the UN\u2019s history \u2013 and after intense lobbying by a coalition of civil society organisations and General Assembly member states, that the process was dragged out of the darkness. For the first time, a shortlist of candidates was made public, vision statements were required from nominees, and the wider UN membership were involved through interactive dialogues with the General Assembly.<\/p>\n
Civil society were consulted and the 13 candidates sparred in two open debates, broadcast by Al-Jazeera from the UN General Assembly Hall in New York. \u201cIt suddenly enabled a huge ecosystem of outside pressure and scrutiny and advocacy to bring the race to a global audience,\u201d said Ben Donaldson, an adviser to 1 for 8 Billion, a nongovernmental coalition focused on the secretary-general selection process, and campaigners behind the change.<\/p>\n
This year, however, there is no televised debate. The interactive dialogues, taking place this week between the four contenders \u2013 Rafael Grossi, Michelle Bachelet, Rebeca Grynspan, and Macky Sall (more are likely to emerge in the months to come) \u2013 and the UN\u2019s member states, will be streamed from New York. And a select number of questions from NGOs will be posed to them. However, for many observers, including Susana Malcorra, who ran for the role in 2016, this does not fully compensate for the hustings and civil society dialogue ten years ago.<\/p>\n
\u201cTheir elimination, in my view, goes against the need for the UN to be more open and transparent, because of the criticism that it is under these days,\u201d says the former Argentinian foreign minister and co-founder of GWL Voices, an organisation advancing women\u2019s leadership at the UN. It is organising its own livestreamed debate for candidates to exchange their views in Geneva on 9 June.<\/p>\n
Positive steps<\/p>\n
There\u2019s still much to praise in the latest selection process for the UN\u2019s tenth leader, according to observers. A September General Assembly resolution outlining the terms of the race that kicked off in November stipulates that candidates should declare their sources of funding \u2013 the first time this has ever been stated, though so far, little has been divulged on the official UN selection process website<\/a>. \u201cThis is a really positive step forward, at least on paper. It remains to be seen whether it’s properly adhered to,\u201d said Donaldson.<\/p>\n The resolution also recommends that nominees who have positions in the UN \u201cshould consider\u201d suspending their work while running for office \u2013 although in this case not all candidates have done so. While Grynspan, the Costa Rican economist, has stepped aside at the UN trade and development office (Unctad) to focus on her campaign, Argentina\u2019s Grossi has continued to work as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency.<\/p>\n States are also encouraged \u201cto strongly consider nominating women as candidates\u201d, hailed as a major step forward in acknowledging the need for a more equal and inclusive race that has yet to see a woman emerge as the winning candidate.<\/p>\n Where the transparency stops<\/p>\n But any major steps forward in opening up the process come to a halt from July onwards, when it disappears behind the doors of the Security Council.\u00a0 There, its 15 members mull over the best candidate for the role, with nine affirmative votes needed \u2013 and no vetoes from the five permanent members \u2013 for a recommendation to the General Assembly.<\/p>\n Donaldson laments the lack of any objective selection criteria.\u00a0 \u201cThey’re not communicating how they will assess candidates, which leaves scope for all sorts of politics and nebulous influences to come in and make a really decisive impact on the race,\u201d he said. So-called straw polls \u2013 an informal voting mechanism \u2013 are organised over the subsequent months to determine their recommendation and the results of these too, though often leaked, are also kept under wraps.<\/p>\n For Malcorra, who ran alongside six other women for the role, including former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark, this is also problematic in ensuring an inclusive race.\u00a0 \u201cThe fact that things are done behind closed doors makes it more difficult to assess whether there is not a bias against women,\u201d she said. \u201cThat’s something that traditionally has been the case on all fronts for women and only through more transparent processes has that barrier been broken,\u201d she adds.<\/p>\n Read more: Former UN chief runner-up and Argentine minister Susana Malcorra: \u2018A woman secretary general would capture the imagination of the world\u2019<\/a><\/p>\n This is also notoriously the point, in past processes, where powerful countries have sought to cut backroom deals by making their support conditional on securing certain top jobs \u2013 compromising candidates along the way. The ringfencing practice was the subject of a UN working group paper<\/a> last year.<\/p>\n The UN General Assembly patiently awaits the Security Council’s recommendation \u2013 which to date, it has never rejected \u2013 though with a growing sense of frustration, says Donaldson \u2013 that no deliberative process exists for the 193-member organ.\u00a0 There have also been calls over the years for the Security Council to put more than one candidate \u2013 though so far this has also failed to garner enough support.<\/p>\n Ronny Patz, a UN system analyst, said: \u201cIdeally, one would wish for the GA to actually have a choice. But realistically speaking, given the current geopolitics, for the Security Council to even agree on one candidate will already be hard.\u201d<\/p>\n Too much of a good thing<\/p>\n In today\u2019s highly politicised climate, any winner will have to walk a difficult tightrope between promoting their vision and the UN Charter\u2019s principles while keeping favour with those same countries that have been paying lip service to those rules. It\u2019s a juggling act that some have argued is hard to do in the spotlight.<\/p>\n