OPINION: The People Ought to Elect the Secretary-General
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. (Flickr, U.S. Mission to the UN Geneva)
Dominic Gordon (SFS ‘24) is a guest writer for the Caravel's opinion section. The content and opinions of this piece are the writer’s and the writer’s alone. They do not reflect the opinions of the Caravel or its staff.
In a world that is increasingly facing challenges that cross the traditional boundaries of states, international organizations are more necessary than ever. Though many international organizations are becoming more involved in our daily lives, we often continue to feel a distance from them. The United Nations has existed for 75 years, and many U.S. citizens still dislike it.
Much of this fear stems from the concern that citizens and governments will lose sovereignty to faceless bureaucrats who are not accountable to anyone other than a few rich and powerful individuals in charge of the modern international system. Though charges of the “deep state” produce many bizarre conspiracy theories, it is a legitimate concern that billions of U.S. dollars are controlled by an organization whose leadership is chosen by diplomats behind closed doors.
The United Nations has a Secretary-General, but many Americans don’t even know who he is. There aren’t any opinion polls asking U.S. citizens to rate the Guterres Administration. Seriously: you should Google “opinion polling of Guterres vs. Akanksha,” and you won’t find any. You will find information about the two candidates, but you won’t find anyone actually gauging the public’s reaction.
No one cares about the inner workings of the UN. That’s a problem.
Though the UN is an often-ignored part of life, it does wield a lot of power. The UN can legitimize interventions, resolve conflicts, and provide aid to countries around the world. In addition, the UN’s Secretary-General serves as a moral voice that, in theory, should be heard by all people in the world. Despite these powers, the UN remains a profoundly undemocratic institution. For the most part, the Secretary-General can only be elected with the consent of the Security Council’s “P5” superpowers: the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia, and China.
The P5 is an institution in itself that needs to be abolished. New powers like India, Brazil, and Nigeria deserve voices equal to those of the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia, and China. Though the UN’s General Assembly represents new powers, its system of selection more or less precludes any Secretary-General candidate from representing any group outside of the traditional P5 if their interests happen to conflict.
The UN thus acts as a tool to maintain the status quo among the traditional post-WW2 powers rather than as a body that can actually deal with global issues. The countries in the P5 possess a veto power that makes all UN business solely dependent on their support. The UN can try to address climate change, but it will inevitably deal with U.S. and Russian opposition, considering that those two countries have some of the highest fossil fuel consumption per capita rates in the world. The UN can talk about human rights, but China remains one of the world’s worst abusers of human rights. The United Nations can talk about promoting wealthy and stable post-colonial states in Africa, but not a single African state sits permanently on the Security Council.
Many people will stop here and say that the problem is with the P5: “We should expand the P5 and leave the UN the way it is,” they might say. But that logic permits a slippery slope.
What if an African state assumes a permanent seat on the Security Council? Add Nigeria, for example, and stand accused of ignoring southern Africa. Add more states to the Security Council’s permanent membership, and then the world’s states would have to deal with an even more inefficient organization. (Imagine six states being able to veto anything of substance, as opposed to five states vetoing anything of substance. It’s a bad idea.) The issue is not with how small and elite the P5 is; the issue is with the entire idea of having an international body absent any international accountability.
If humanity wants to build a truly global community that can deal with global issues, it needs a union that truly fits that purpose. The people need a directly elected Secretary-General to define policies on a global scale without the constraints of state agendas.
A United Nations Secretary-General would serve the weaker post-colonial states by acting on their interests. A Secretary-General dependent on voters would most definitely be dependent on voters in the non-P5, which possess the vast majority of the world’s population. At the same time, direct-election would legitimize the UN by providing a face to a faceless institution. This election does not necessarily have to be partisan, but it should at least be more competitive than what we have now—namely, faceless bureaucrats nominating a candidate in a room. Finally, direct elections would provide the impetus for further reforms that could integrate and strengthen states around the world. For these reasons, and more, governments ought to begin investigating the costs of the creation of a directly elected Secretary-General.
Imagine what politics could be if people outside of the D.C. Beltway or New York City actually had opinions about the way international institutions are run. Imagine that China’s genocide in Xinjiang receives more than a few whimpers from the UN. Imagine an international body with legitimacy enough to actually command respect as an institution.
A UN beloved by all could secure the power necessary to end child poverty and negotiate complicated settlements to conflicts. Cross-cutting international coalitions made possible by a more democratic, accountable UN would elevate policy beyond mere nationalistic self-interest.
Many people will say it’s impossible to conduct international elections. The regular European Parliament elections prove them wrong. Many people will say it’s unrealistic for developing countries with multilingual populations to hold elections. India proves them wrong, too. Many people think that endowing an international organization with the capacity to enact substantive policy agendas would inevitably suppress the sovereignty of existing states. Arguably, the European Union already does have substantive power, yet it hasn’t abolished the Danish state.
We have the capacity to hold international elections. We have the ability to build supranational bodies capable of commanding respect across national boundaries. Why aren’t states doing that now? Why are we stuck trying to lightly reform a system that is and will always be broken?
The world deserves an elected international union with teeth. It needs a body that stands for international policy and international policy only. Developing countries are owed a global body that can make decisions without bowing to the whims of powerful states. It all starts with the direct election of the Secretary-General.
Have a different opinion? Write a letter to the editor and submit it via thecaravelgu.opinion@gmail.com for publication on our website!