When António Guterres steps down as United Nations secretary-general at the end of 2026, he will leave his successor with plenty to do.

Many challenges will remain, including the animosity among members and myriad global challenges, from ongoing wars and economic shocks to the worsening effects of climate change. But the next U.N. chief faces the additional woes of an international body starved of cash and at odds with its most powerful member: the United States. The second Trump administration has proved itself no fan of multilateralism and sees the U.N. as a bloated organization doing little to serve U.S. interests. In fact, skepticism toward the U.N. is now on the rise in many countries.

For good reason, voices as respected as Graça Machel, the deputy chair of The Elders – the body created by Nelson Mandela to bring ethical guidance to global governance – have called the selection of the next U.N. secretary-general “one of the most consequential decisions the international community will make this decade.”

No doubt the U.N. needs – and is worth – saving. But as someone who once worked in the body’s executive office of the secretary-general, I know the process for selecting a new chief does not lend itself to finding a savior at the best of times. And in the current geopolitical climate, the prospects are next to nil. Moreover, any U.N. secretary-general is bound by the political and bureaucratic constraints under which they operate.

Yet even if asking the occupier of the office to restore the U.N. to relevance single-handedly is expecting too much, a secretary-general can wield substantial influence if they understand the potential and the limits of the role.

According to the U.N. Charter, the secretary-general “shall be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”

While the General Assembly – all member states of the organization – has ultimate authority, it is the Security Council that makes the decision. And because the........

© The Conversation