More results, less politics? “Who will be the next leader of the beleaguered WHO?”
Summary
This episode explores the upcoming WHO leadership race, the challenges facing the organization, and the qualities needed in its next leader. Jocalyn Clark, international editor of the BMJ, shares insights from her recent article and interviews with global health experts.
Episode description
WHO is in an existential crisis, the worst in its 78 year history. It is beset by financial crisis, staff reductions, and geopolitical friction.
That’s what experts interviewed by Jocalyn Clark, International Editor of the BMJ, told her, as she recounted in an article [https://www.bmj.com/content/393/bmj.s911] published today, entitled “Who will be the next leader of the beleaguered WHO.”
Jocalyn Clark and I have been friends and colleagues for decades. So it was a particular joy for me to discuss the WHO Director-General election with her on my podcast.
Jocalyn interviewed global experts familiar with WHO and created a composite picture at this point in the WHO Director-General race. The race has kicked off although no candidates have yet come forward — they have until September 2026 to do so. The race culminates in an election at the World Health Assembly in May 2027.
She also heard from her interviewees that the desired profile of the next DG is a ‘polymath’ — someone who has technical expertise, can raise money, and has sophisticated diplomacy skills.
Opinion was divided on whether DG candidates should spend time courting the US to try to get it to rejoin. We agreed that US return to the organization before the May 2027 election was unlikely but that it would be desirable for candidates to at least create the enabling conditions for a future return.
My mantra for this campaign: ‘more results, less politics.’ Jocalyn and I drilled into what technical expertise really means. WHO substitutes process for results. The future leader should focus relentlessly on results [https://open.substack.com/pub/singerp/p/successful-un-80-reform-requires?r=1ytch0&utm_medium=ios]. These are achieved in country and are the primary responsibility of countries themselves. WHO should be there to help; it should be able to measure and manage its contribution in support of countries. Jocalyn and I both agreed that the “norms and standards” brigade was just not specific enough about this, too process-oriented, and maybe a bit backward looking.
We also batted around what it meant to be less politicized. We agreed that diplomacy was key: the elevation of the DG’s relationships from health ministers a decade ago to also include foreign ministers, finance ministers, and heads of state and government today was a good thing. But on specific issues, like conflict, there was some disagreement among Jocalyn’s interviewees about whether the DG should ‘take a stand.’
I argued for the importance of neutrality and impartiality, a fundamental value of UN organizations. I spoke about a recent report [https://www.centerformedicalintegrity.org/publications/attacks-on-health] released by the Center for Medical Integrity on how WHO monitors and communicates on attacks against health care. I thought this report was excellent and every candidate should be pressed on whether they agree (or not) with its recommendations — including strengthening the verification methodology, increasing transparency to enable independent scrutiny, and addressing systematic bias and underreporting.
Finally, we talked about the insider / outsider issue. Normally, if an organization is in crisis, you would want an outsider. In Jocalyn’s reporting, for this reason, people were tilting towards an outsider. But I don’t subscribe to the saviour theory of WHO DGs. We agreed that insider candidates should distinguish themselves from the current path and offer their prescription for improvement.
It was a fun conversation between friends. We plan to do it again as the race unfolds and specific named candidates put themselves forward. I hope you enjoy the conversation too — check it out above or wherever you get your podcasts (under ‘Global Health Insights’). Read Jocalyn’s article [https://www.bmj.com/content/393/bmj.s911] in the BMJ. And let us know what you think!
If we are not careful, we could get more politics and less results.
Resources
Jocalyn’s article in the BMJ: https://www.bmj.com/content/393/bmj.s911 [https://www.bmj.com/content/393/bmj.s911]
Center for Medical Integrity Report: https://www.centerformedicalintegrity.org/ [https://www.centerformedicalintegrity.org/]
Keywords
WHO leadership, global health, international health policy, WHO crisis, health leadership, global health reform
Chapters
00:00 The Mood in Geneva: Concerns for WHO's Future
02:49 The Process of Selecting WHO's Next Director General
05:11 Insights from Jocalyn's Research and Reporting Methods
07:55 Diverse Opinions on the Future of WHO's Leadership
10:30 The Profile of the Ideal Director General
13:13 The Role of the United States in WHO's Future
15:38 The Challenge of Balancing Politics and Results
18:10 The Need for a Results-Oriented Approach in Global Health
26:17 Building Trust and Credibility in WHO
28:26 Navigating Politics and Diplomacy in Global Health
29:55 The Fine Line of Political Neutrality
35:40 The Impact of US Withdrawal on WHO
41:05 Looking Ahead: Candidates and the Future of WHO
This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit singerp.substack.com [https://singerp.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]
