Skip to main content

Secret vote on WHO bodes ill for future of global health



With the future of global health more uncertain than it has been in more than a decade, the first hats have been tossed into the election ring for top leadership at the World Health Organization. It is a dire time for WHO, which has seen its financial and political support erode steadily for the last decade, its credibility suffering mightily over its slow and sloppy response to the 2014 Ebola outbreak.
Everybody is talking about how best to reform the WHO, arguably the best vehicle for coordinating the ever-changing global health agenda. But a new election process using secret ballots for appointing the next director-general is hardly a promising start.
The director-general (DG) vote will take place at the World Health Assembly in May 2017 in an unprecedented, one-country-one-vote procedure conducted via secret ballots. Some are concerned this new, secretive process is unlikely to produce a leader who can restore the WHO’s position of global leadership, its respect, authority and financing.

How the leader of the World Health Organization is chosen

For the first time since it was founded in 1948, the WHO will select a new DG via a process that gives Niue, population of 1,612, an equal vote with China, population of 1.4 billion – and Lichtenstein, population 33,720, equal voting power with India, population 1.25 billion.
Procedurally, candidates have until September to formally put their names in nomination and will campaign around the world throughout the fall and winter of 2016. In mid-January, the 34 members of the WHO executive board (which includes China and some of the largest donors: the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, Sweden and France) will formally interview the candidates, selecting three finalists. The finalists will then have five undoubtedly peripatetic and frantic months to make their cases all over the world.
And then, for the first time in its history, the 194 members of the World Health Assembly will vote, by secret electronic ballot, choosing the next leader, who will formally take the helm at WHO in Geneva on July 1, 2017.
more

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Le Troisième Mandat de Louise Mushikiwabo à l'OIF : Entre Précédent et Principe Démocratique.

Le Troisième Mandat de Louise Mushikiwabo à l'OIF : Entre Précédent et Principe Démocratique. L'Alternance à l'OIF : Pourquoi un Troisième Mandat Fragilise la Crédibilité de la Francophonie. Introduction Louise Mushikiwabo veut un troisième mandat à la tête de l'Organisation internationale de la Francophonie. Son annonce, faite bien avant l'émergence d'autres candidats, rappelle une tactique familière en Afrique : affirmer qu'on a le soutien populaire sans jamais le prouver publiquement. La méthode est rodée. Des dirigeants africains l'utilisent depuis des décennies pour prolonger leur règne. Ils clament que "le peuple le demande" ou que "les partenaires soutiennent" cette reconduction. Aucune preuve formelle n'est nécessaire. L'affirmation devient réalité politique. Mais voilà le problème : la Francophonie prêche la démocratie, l'État de droit et l'alternance au pouvoir. Peut-elle tolérer en son sein ce qu...

Pourquoi les sanctions américaines contre le Rwanda sont-elles si importantes ?

Pourquoi les sanctions américaines contre le Rwanda sont-elles si importantes ? Auteur : The African Rights Campaign. Londres, Royaume-Uni Publié en : mars 2026   Introduction Lorsqu'un gouvernement est accusé d'exécutions extrajudiciaires, de déplacements massifs, de violences sexuelles, de violations des droits de l'homme et du pillage systématique des ressources naturelles d'un pays voisin, la réponse diplomatique attendue est un démenti catégorique, étayé par des preuves. Le Rwanda ne l'a pas fait. Lorsque le département américain du Trésor a imposé des sanctions aux Forces de défense rwandaises (FDR) et à quatre de leurs commandants les plus haut placés, le 2 mars 2026, la porte-parole officielle de Kigali, Yolande Makolo, a délivré une déclaration que les analystes diplomatiques étudieront attentivement pour ce qu'elle omet conspicuement. Elle a dit que les sanctions étaient « injustes », qu'elles ciblaient « uniquement...

Why US Sanctions Against Rwanda Are So Important

Why US Sanctions Against Rwanda Are So Important Author: The African Rights Campaign. London, UK Published: March 2026   Introduction When a government is accused of extrajudicial killings, mass displacement, sexual violence, human rights abuses, and the systematic pillage of another country's mineral resources, the expected response in international diplomacy is an unequivocal denial backed by evidence. Rwanda did not do that. When the United States Department of the Treasury imposed sanctions on the Rwanda Defence Force (RDF) and four of its most senior commanders on 2 March 2026, Kigali's official spokesperson Yolande Makolo made a statement that diplomatic analysts will study carefully for what it conspicuously omitted. She said the sanctions were 'unjust,' that they targeted 'only one party to the peace process,' and that they 'misrepresent the reality and distort the facts.' Rwanda's government, described by Bloomb...

BBC News

Africanews

UNDP - Africa Job Vacancies

How We Made It In Africa – Insight into business in Africa

Migration Policy Institute