In Hindsight: The Search for the Next Secretary-General
In April, the selection and appointment process for the next Secretary-General began in earnest as four candidates for the position presented their vision for how they would lead the UN and answered questions from members of the General Assembly and civil society.
This selection and appointment process for the tenth UN Secretary-General is unfolding against a background of shifting global power dynamics and geopolitical uncertainty. The next Secretary-General will take over an organisation that is impacted by financial constraints, ongoing reform processes, and escalating crises. These concerns were apparent in the emphasis candidates put on the importance of restoring trust in the multilateral system and the UN, as well as in their vision for the role of the Secretary-General.
The four current nominees are:
- Michelle Bachelet Jeria (Chile) nominated by Brazil, Chile and Mexico on 2 February, with Chile withdrawing its nomination on 24 March;
- Rafael Mariano Grossi (Argentina) nominated by Argentina on 26 November 2025;
- Rebeca Grynspan Mayufis (Costa Rica) nominated by Costa Rica on 3 March; and
- Macky Sall (Senegal) nominated by Burundi on 2 March.
Virginia Gamba (Argentina), who was nominated by the Maldives on 11 March, had her nomination withdrawn on 25 March.
One of the differences between the current process and the one that took place in 2016 has been the low number of candidates—four compared to nine at this stage in 2016. Another difference has been that several candidates were nominated by countries of which they are not nationals. Although there is a strong sense that it is time for a woman Secretary-General and that it is the turn of the Latin American and Caribbean region to provide the next Secretary-General, two of the candidates are men, and one is from Africa.
Unlike 2016, one of the candidates, Bachelet, was nominated by a group of countries (Chile, Brazil and Mexico) rather than a single member state. Chile, however, withdrew its nomination before the start of the interactive dialogue sessions. The joint letter issued on 25 November 2025 by the presidents of the Security Council and the General Assembly and the 2025 General Assembly resolution on the revitalisation of the work of the General Assembly provided clear guidelines for the withdrawal of candidates, stating that this needs to be done through formal notification to the two presidents. For instance, the Maldives’ notification led to Gamba being withdrawn as a candidate. However, while the joint letter made clear that candidates could be nominated by a member state or a group of member states, it was not explicit about the status of a candidate if one of the members of a nominating group of states were to withdraw. It is now clear from Bachelet’s case that the formal withdrawal of one member of a nominating group does not affect the status of the candidate, so long as there remains at least one member state supporting the nomination.
An innovation with respect to the 2016 process is the expectation that candidates disclose their sources of funding at the time of nomination. Compliance with this requirement to date has been perfunctory, however, with none of the candidates nominated at the time of writing having disclosed the amount received for their campaign in the documents submitted at the time of nomination.
The General Assembly informal dialogues or hearings were perhaps the most significant innovation introduced in 2015/2016. They opened up the process, allowing member states to engage directly with candidates. They also brought the race to the attention of the wider public. But they were not without criticism. Observers noted that sessions were too short, questions were often lengthy, and exchanges could feel more like prepared statements than genuine dialogue.
The feedback from 2016 has been taken on board by the President of the General Assembly. The sessions have been extended—from two hours to three—and stricter time management has been introduced, including limits on the length of time for questions and answers, and candidates need to immediately respond. To some extent, these changes helped streamline the sessions, but more succinct and less repetitive questions might have allowed candidates to provide more in-depth answers in the allocated time. Although many of the questions and answers focused on themes that were widely anticipated, and member states had already heard from the candidates in other fora, the hearings helped provide a broad audience with a better perspective of some of the differences among the candidates and where they stand on key issues. If additional candidates are nominated, they are expected to take part in an interactive dialogue session, although there is no formal obligation to do so.
Security Council Report’s recent research report, Power, Process and Participation: The Search for the Next Secretary-General, is a comprehensive guide to understanding the rules, evolving informal practices, and key actors shaping the selection and appointment process. It also maps anticipated Council and wider dynamics, as well as key issues at different stages of the process, and outlines possible options for addressing related challenges. This In Hindsight highlights some of the anticipated activities and issues that may arise between May and the expected start of the Security Council straw polls at the end of July.
Meetings with Council Members
The candidates who took part in the interactive dialogues in April are expected to move into the next phase, where they will be engaging with Council members in an informal meeting format. In 2016, these meetings took place in the mission of the Council president and were conducted in June, July and October.
The immediate challenge for the Security Council is to agree on the modalities for meeting candidates. Members are expected to discuss this in May during China’s presidency of the Security Council. They will need to decide where meetings should be held, what format they should take, and how structured or flexible the discussion should be. One issue regarding the format that may come up is whether a slightly less informal setting compared to 2016 could promote greater transparency, including the possibility of issuing press elements following each meeting, as Council members did when the mandate of António Guterres was renewed in 2021.
One criticism of these meetings in 2016 was that they did not give members more information about the candidates’ positions and views than what had already come up in the General Assembly hearings. While Council members may not all have the same idea about the type of leadership needed from the next Secretary-General, there are some traits that they were able to agree on in the joint letter. These included managerial abilities, experience in international relations, as well as diplomatic, communication, and multilingual skills. Members will be looking for ways of eliciting answers from candidates that could provide a clearer understanding of whether they have these qualities—as well as additional skills they individually attach importance to.
Allowing Greater Access to Candidates
In parallel with the meetings with Council members, there will most likely be other opportunities for the candidates to present their vision on how they intend to address major issues on the international agenda. One option that has been put forward is to organise additional informal dialogues in different locations where the UN has a significant presence—Geneva, Nairobi, Bangkok, and Panama City.[1] This would provide opportunities for broader engagement. Among other ideas reviewed in the report, additional possible formats include town hall-style events and one-to-one interviews with candidates, as well as civil society-organised debates. There is likely to be a civil society debate in Geneva in early June, and the UN Association-UK (UNA-UK) will be hosting a moderated presidential debate-style husting in London at the end of May. In addition, during the General Assembly interactive dialogues, the President of the General Assembly, Annalena Baerbock, announced that a “town hall” format event will also be organised.
General Assembly and UN Staff Input
There has been interest in the past for exploring ways of allowing the wider UN membership to express collective sentiment about candidates. Proposals for conveying the General Assembly’s views on the candidates reflect enduring concerns about inclusivity, transparency, and the perceived legitimacy of outcomes.
Proposals for the General Assembly to conduct its own straw polls, or otherwise survey member states’ views on candidates, have been one of the most contested issues in the process, as seen in the negotiations of the 2025 revitalisation resolution and the joint letter. Currently, there appears to be limited appetite among member states for any such proposal, alongside firm resistance among permanent members, who have consistently viewed these initiatives as encroaching on Council prerogatives. At the same time, civil society campaigns, such as 1 for 8 Billion, may explore the idea of informal polls of permanent representatives to gauge preferences among the wider membership.
Besides the General Assembly straw polls, the report reviews other options that have been suggested, including the idea of an additional dialogue session after the Council has put forward its recommendation and before the Assembly makes the appointment. This would remain within the Assembly’s powers and not formally change the Council’s role, but it is still likely to be controversial, particularly among some permanent members.
The report also builds on calls by analysts, such as Loraine Sievers, to better reflect UN staff perspectives.[2] One option would be to commission an anonymous, staff‑wide survey to capture views on leadership and management qualities, as well as strategic priorities. The survey findings could then be synthesised by an independent third party and fed back into the process, for example through a closed‑door staff town hall with candidates, without altering formal appointment modalities.
Security Council Straw Polls
By the end of July, Council members are expected to begin conducting straw polls to gauge support for candidates ahead of a formal Council vote on its recommendation. These informal ballots are used to determine the viability of the candidates, starting with undifferentiated ballot papers and moving to colour-coded ballots that differentiate permanent members from elected members. While it appears generally accepted that straw polls will continue to be a feature in the current process, key considerations will include the timing and frequency of the straw polls and when to move from undifferentiated to colour-coded ballots.
There is also likely to be difficulty in getting agreement on how much information to release following the polls. In 2016, although members had agreed not to release results, they were quickly leaked, which was particularly uncomfortable for the Council presidents who could only provide very limited information even though the results were widely known.[3] Members will need to decide if and how to release the results, the level of detail, and the modalities of communication. Members could choose to release limited information in line with the 2016 process, disclose the full details of the straw polls results, or provide partial or aggregated information, such the number of candidates that received “encourage”, “discourage”, or “no opinion expressed” votes. The limited transparency surrounding the straw polls was one of the main criticisms of the 2016 process.[4]
The Final Stages of the Process
The report also describes how the Council has made its recommendation in a private meeting with a secret vote, and the modalities through which the General Assembly has appointed the recommended candidate, and it examines relevant historical examples that may provide some options should the Council be unable to agree on a candidate by the end of 2026.
An issue that may re-surface at this stage of the process is the idea of a single term for the Secretary-General. The report reviews different options, such as the Council specifying a non-renewable term in its recommendation; early General Assembly action recommending that the Council considers a single term; or voluntary commitments by candidates. Some members have also called for more than one candidate to be recommended to the General Assembly, though Council agreement on this appears unlikely.
Concluding Observations
The selection process is unfolding against increasingly strained Security Council dynamics. Compared to 2015/2016, Council interactions are more polarised and transactional, reflecting wider geopolitical tensions and diminished confidence in multilateral cooperation. With the partial exception of France, the permanent members have largely coalesced around preserving flexibility of the process, while the elected members (E10) have sought—with varying levels of determination—to advance predictability, transparency, and a more structured process. Although the E10 have thus far demonstrated the ability to coordinate and overcome differences, cohesion may prove difficult to sustain if the distance among these members widens during the next steps of the process. Convergences across permanent and elected members on specific aspects of the process, or around particular candidates, could also materialise going forward.
As the General Assembly interactive dialogues showed, member states are aware that the UN faces increasing strains alongside significant geopolitical challenges. The next Secretary-General will need to have the requisite leadership, experience, and legitimacy in order to sustain confidence in the UN at a time of global uncertainty.
It will now be up to Council members and the wider membership to ensure that, in spite of the difficult dynamics and transactional pressures, this process delivers a Secretary‑General who rises above—rather than reflects—the limitations of this difficult moment.
[1] Adam Day, “UN Secretary-General Candidates Should Come to Geneva” (30 March 2026) https://theglobalobservatory.org/2026/03/un-secretary-general-candidates-should-come-to-geneva/
[2] CIC NYU, “Navigating the Next Secretary-General Selection and Appointment Process” (YouTube 2 December 2025) 1:08:50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ5xk–IqZY&t=1s
[3] Letter from the Permanent Representative of Japan to the United Nations to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council (1 February 2017) (A/71/774–S/2017/93).
[4] SCR, “The UN Secretary-General Selection and Appointment Process: Emerging from the Shadows” 12. See also A/71/774-S/2017/93 [16]; Letter from the President of the General Assembly to the President of the Security Council (13 September 2016) (S/2016/784).
