or 80 years, men have exclusively led the United Nations. During that time, the world has not become more peaceful, equal, or cooperative. Violent conflicts have reached their highest levels since the UN’s founding, trust in multilateralism continues to erode, and member states selectively invoke international law, wield vetoes to shield allies, and withhold contributions, pushing the institution toward recurring financial crises. The Sustainable Development Goals have fallen off track, and in many countries, progress is reversing. As the UN prepares to appoint its next secretary–general, the question is no longer whether it needs a credible leader. If we measure credibility by outcomes over the past eight decades, continuity itself poses the greater risk. The real question is whether the UN will confront the structural power imbalances that have long undermined its authority. Appointing a feminist woman as secretary–general would take a necessary step in that reckoning.
Globally, the leadership gender gap remains stark. More than 110 countries have never had a female head of state. Since 1947, 20 UN General Assemblies convened without a single woman serving as permanent representative, and 72 countries have never appointed a woman to that role. These patterns highlight how deeply entrenched gendered power imbalances persist, both within the UN system and beyond.
The world now faces a global, cyclical polycrisis: genocide, gender apartheid, climate breakdown, shrinking civic space, a fractured aid architecture, declining political will, and a deepening crisis of trust between governments and the people they claim to represent. Short–term geopolitical and military interests increasingly override development priorities. An institution that repeatedly fails to prevent conflict, protect fundamental freedoms, or consistently apply international law raises serious questions about whether its leadership model requires disruption. Appointing a woman secretary–general will not instantly resolve these crises, but appointing another male leader is unlikely to do so either.
People continue to scrutinize women’s leadership more intensely due to gendered credibility biases, yet evidence shows women deliver more sustained outcomes. During the Covid pandemic, countries led by women acted earlier and experienced roughly half the deaths of countries led by men. Research also shows that women’s participation in peace negotiations increases the probability of a peace agreement lasting 15 years by 35 percent. Since maintaining international peace forms a founding purpose of the UN, sidelining the leadership model proven to improve peace outcomes undermines the institution at its core.
Multilateral institutions have regularly recognized that the world cannot solve its most pressing problems without women’s full participation. The UN regularly sets norms on women’s leadership while reflecting asymmetrical power dynamics. For instance, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women issued General Recommendation No. 40 in 2024, guiding states to achieve fifty–fifty parity across decision–making roles. Similarly, the Pact for the Future emphasizes women’s full participation and equal leadership opportunities in political and decision–making spheres. Yet when the UN fails to meet its own standards, it undermines both its credibility and its ability to hold member states accountable.. Since 1945, 48 men and only 8 women have competed as candidates for UN secretary-general, yet in eight decades the office has never been held by a woman.
The case is less about symbolic representation and more about evidence. Research shows that diversifying leaders’ experiences improves governance and breaks entrenched institutional patterns that fail to deliver equitable outcomes. Yet when feminist ideals enter institutions without confronting entrenched power, they risk reinforcing the hierarchies they seek to transform. Representation must therefore pair with institutional reform. Advocating for a woman at the UN’s helm cannot mean recycling the same geopolitical elites. Leaders must amplify voices from the global majority and commit to transparency and accountability.
In practice, feminist leadership advances equity by confronting institutional bias, redistributing decision-making power, and ensuring collective voices shape global outcomes. It strengthens institutions to respond to recurring crises with transparency, accountability, and sound financial stewardship by replacing rigid top-down power structures with collaborative, intersectional, and empathetic approaches that build trust, well-being, and more sustainable long-term results.
Reform efforts are already underway. The 1 for 8 Billion campaign secured greater transparency in the secretary–general selection process, including financial disclosure requirements for candidates. Yet civil society and media still face uneven access to accountability forums, largely dependent on political discretion. Calls for a feminist woman to lead the UN have grown compared to previous selections, but only her actual appointment would demonstrate a commitment to challenge entrenched hierarchies and embed perspectives shaped by structural inequities at the heart of multilateral leadership.
The credibility of the next secretary–general, and of the UN itself, depends not only on who the member states select but on whether the selection process reflects fairness and openness embedded in the UN Charter. The General Assembly should play a substantive, proactive role in signaling its preferred candidate, rather than allowing decisive negotiations to remain behind the closed doors of the Security Council. Rebuilding trust in the UN requires strategic political courage and inclusive leadership. Without these, the institution cannot regain credibility or effectiveness.
a global affairs media network
Why a woman at the helm makes a more credible, effective UN
Image via Adobe Stock.
March 9, 2026
Today the world is more violent, less cooperative, and less cognizant of international law. While gendered bias means we dismiss women’s leadership, evidence suggests that a woman at the helm of the UN could be good both for building peace and institutional credibility, writes Jesselina Rana.
F
or 80 years, men have exclusively led the United Nations. During that time, the world has not become more peaceful, equal, or cooperative. Violent conflicts have reached their highest levels since the UN’s founding, trust in multilateralism continues to erode, and member states selectively invoke international law, wield vetoes to shield allies, and withhold contributions, pushing the institution toward recurring financial crises. The Sustainable Development Goals have fallen off track, and in many countries, progress is reversing. As the UN prepares to appoint its next secretary–general, the question is no longer whether it needs a credible leader. If we measure credibility by outcomes over the past eight decades, continuity itself poses the greater risk. The real question is whether the UN will confront the structural power imbalances that have long undermined its authority. Appointing a feminist woman as secretary–general would take a necessary step in that reckoning.
Globally, the leadership gender gap remains stark. More than 110 countries have never had a female head of state. Since 1947, 20 UN General Assemblies convened without a single woman serving as permanent representative, and 72 countries have never appointed a woman to that role. These patterns highlight how deeply entrenched gendered power imbalances persist, both within the UN system and beyond.
The world now faces a global, cyclical polycrisis: genocide, gender apartheid, climate breakdown, shrinking civic space, a fractured aid architecture, declining political will, and a deepening crisis of trust between governments and the people they claim to represent. Short–term geopolitical and military interests increasingly override development priorities. An institution that repeatedly fails to prevent conflict, protect fundamental freedoms, or consistently apply international law raises serious questions about whether its leadership model requires disruption. Appointing a woman secretary–general will not instantly resolve these crises, but appointing another male leader is unlikely to do so either.
People continue to scrutinize women’s leadership more intensely due to gendered credibility biases, yet evidence shows women deliver more sustained outcomes. During the Covid pandemic, countries led by women acted earlier and experienced roughly half the deaths of countries led by men. Research also shows that women’s participation in peace negotiations increases the probability of a peace agreement lasting 15 years by 35 percent. Since maintaining international peace forms a founding purpose of the UN, sidelining the leadership model proven to improve peace outcomes undermines the institution at its core.
Multilateral institutions have regularly recognized that the world cannot solve its most pressing problems without women’s full participation. The UN regularly sets norms on women’s leadership while reflecting asymmetrical power dynamics. For instance, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women issued General Recommendation No. 40 in 2024, guiding states to achieve fifty–fifty parity across decision–making roles. Similarly, the Pact for the Future emphasizes women’s full participation and equal leadership opportunities in political and decision–making spheres. Yet when the UN fails to meet its own standards, it undermines both its credibility and its ability to hold member states accountable.. Since 1945, 48 men and only 8 women have competed as candidates for UN secretary-general, yet in eight decades the office has never been held by a woman.
The case is less about symbolic representation and more about evidence. Research shows that diversifying leaders’ experiences improves governance and breaks entrenched institutional patterns that fail to deliver equitable outcomes. Yet when feminist ideals enter institutions without confronting entrenched power, they risk reinforcing the hierarchies they seek to transform. Representation must therefore pair with institutional reform. Advocating for a woman at the UN’s helm cannot mean recycling the same geopolitical elites. Leaders must amplify voices from the global majority and commit to transparency and accountability.
In practice, feminist leadership advances equity by confronting institutional bias, redistributing decision-making power, and ensuring collective voices shape global outcomes. It strengthens institutions to respond to recurring crises with transparency, accountability, and sound financial stewardship by replacing rigid top-down power structures with collaborative, intersectional, and empathetic approaches that build trust, well-being, and more sustainable long-term results.
Reform efforts are already underway. The 1 for 8 Billion campaign secured greater transparency in the secretary–general selection process, including financial disclosure requirements for candidates. Yet civil society and media still face uneven access to accountability forums, largely dependent on political discretion. Calls for a feminist woman to lead the UN have grown compared to previous selections, but only her actual appointment would demonstrate a commitment to challenge entrenched hierarchies and embed perspectives shaped by structural inequities at the heart of multilateral leadership.
The credibility of the next secretary–general, and of the UN itself, depends not only on who the member states select but on whether the selection process reflects fairness and openness embedded in the UN Charter. The General Assembly should play a substantive, proactive role in signaling its preferred candidate, rather than allowing decisive negotiations to remain behind the closed doors of the Security Council. Rebuilding trust in the UN requires strategic political courage and inclusive leadership. Without these, the institution cannot regain credibility or effectiveness.
