When people think about how the United Nations (UN) chooses its Secretary-General, they usually picture the final vote in which the General Assembly appoints the successful candidate. That assumption is perfectly reasonable. It is, after all, what the UN Charter appears to envisage. In practice, however, the decisive moments usually come much earlier.

That earlier stage consists of a series of confidential votes inside the Security Council, known as straw polls. These informal votes are not mentioned in the UN Charter, yet they have become one of the most influential features of the selection process. Understanding how they work helps explain why some candidacies gain momentum while others lose support.

Their importance goes beyond predicting who is ahead in the race. Straw polls reveal where power lies in the selection process, and how that power is exercised long before a formal recommendation reaches the General Assembly, the UN’s most representative body.

Southern Voice’s recent survey, Rethinking UN Leadership, found that only around 4% of civil society practitioners across the Global South said they believe the UN has sufficient political authority. Respondents identified the concentration of power in the Permanent Five as the main reason. Straw polls offer one of the clearest illustrations of how that concentration shapes the selection.

A race before the real race

A straw poll is essentially a confidential test vote involving all 15 members of the Security Council. The Council is made up of five permanent members with veto power (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States) and ten elected members that serve two-year terms.

Each member votes separately on every candidate using one of three options: Encourage (in favour), Discourage (against) or No opinion (abstention).

During the early rounds, each vote counts the same: all ballots are identical. There is no way of knowing whether a Discourage vote has come from a permanent member, who can ultimately block a candidate, or from one of the ten elected members. 

After a few rounds, the Council usually introduces colour-coded ballots, although there is no fixed rule on when this happens. Red ballots are used for the five permanent members and white ballots for the ten elected members. From that moment on, not all votes carry the same political weight.

The Council repeats this exercise several times during the selection process. How many? Nobody knows in advance. In 2006, Ban Ki-moon emerged Secretary-General after four straw polls. In 1996, Kofi Annan’s appointment required nine. Although the results are never officially published, they are frequently leaked within hours. Those leaks have enabled the media to shed light on an otherwise closed process.

All votes are equal, but some are more equal than others

A straw poll is not just a snapshot of support. It also shows precisely where support and opposition are coming from.

The 2016 race offers a good example. During the fifth straw poll, Vuk Jeremić of Serbia received eight Encourage votes, six Discourage votes and one No opinion. At that stage, he was still considered a viable contender.

A few days later, the Council held its first colour-coded straw poll. Jeremić’s overall numbers barely changed: seven Encourage votes, seven Discourage votes and one No opinion. This time, however, diplomats could see that three of the seven Discourage votes had come from permanent members. His level of support had changed very little, but his chances of becoming Secretary-General had virtually disappeared.

The Security Council could recommend more than one candidate

Article 97 of the UN Charter simply states that the Secretary-General is appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. It does not specify how many names the Council may recommend. The practice of forwarding a single candidate developed over time and is not required by the Charter. As a result, the General Assembly has never had a real choice. It appoints the only candidate the Security Council puts forward.

The 1 for 8 Billion campaign argues that the Security Council should instead recommend a shortlist of two or more candidates, as permitted by the UN Charter. That would allow the General Assembly to choose between candidates for the first time, giving all 193 Member States a more meaningful role in selecting the UN’s next leader.

A bigger role for the General Assembly

The straw polls explain how the Secretary-General is chosen today, but they also raise a broader question: how can the UN make the selection of its highest leader more inclusive, more transparent and more representative of the “people of the world” it is meant to serve?

The same Southern Voice survey identified a way forward. Around half of respondents identified strengthening the General Assembly’s role as one of the most important opportunities to improve the organisation’s legitimacy. One way to strengthen that role is for the Assembly to exercise the authority it already has. It can reject the Security Council’s recommendation if Member States consider that the candidate does not meet the standards expected of the UN’s highest office. This requires Member States to engage earlier, scrutinise candidates more closely and take collective responsibility for one of the world’s most consequential appointments.

The way the Secretary-General is chosen is itself a test of the kind of multilateralism the UN wants to represent.

RELATED POSTS