Why the UN needs women’s leadership

In the 80 years of its existence, the United Nations has never been led by a woman. That fact is often invoked as a symbol of unfinished progress. But symbolism is not the real issue. The question is not whether a woman Secretary-General would be historic. The question is whether it would be consequential – and, more importantly, what the costs of continued absence are.

The honest answer is: yes, it would matter, but not for the reasons most commonly stated.

The UN was built to serve all of humanity. Yet evidence suggests it is still led, overwhelmingly, by one half of it. Women represent just 27.5% of parliamentarians globally, according to the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU). The latest figures from IPU and UN Women also show that women held just 22.9% of cabinet seats worldwide as of January 2025, down from the previous year. At the current pace, according to UN Women, equality in the highest positions of power will not be reached for another 130 years. Some 106 countries have never been led by a woman.

Within the international system, the picture is mixed. GWL Voices’ report Women in Multilateralism 2026 found that 46% of the world’s 62 major multilateral organizations are currently headed by a woman, a figure that would have seemed improbable a generation earlier. Yet 21 of those same institutions have never been led by a woman. The UN sits at the apex of a system in which, since 1947, only 8% of all permanent representatives to the organization have been women, according to the same study. Within the Secretariat, parity in senior management has been maintained for several years, a genuine achievement. But representation lags in field missions and, of course, at the very top.

This is not incidental. It is structural. And its consequences reach far beyond optics.

Would a woman Secretary-General automatically shift this? No – leadership does not work that way. One appointment, however significant, does not override geopolitical realities or budgetary constraints.

And there is a harder question that advocates rarely raise: women appointed to leadership in inherently conservative institutions often face strong pressure to conform, not to transform. Tokenism at the top, without structural reform beneath it, can lend legitimacy to an unchanged system rather than challenge it.

These are real risks. They deserve honest engagement, not dismissal.

Beyond symbolism: what the evidence shows

The argument for greater representation of women at the UN is not that it offers a quick fix. It is that the evidence consistently points toward better outcomes, across multiple domains, when women are meaningfully included in leadership and decision-making.

Start with peace and security, the UN’s foundational mandate. Between 1992 and 2019, women made up just 13% of negotiators and 6% of signatories – the people formally signing agreements – in major peace processes. In 2024, women represented only 18% of negotiators in UN-led processes, a reduction from 23% in 2020. None of the peace agreements concluded in 2023 included a woman signatory.

This matters because the evidence on outcomes is stark. Research published in the journal International Interactions, drawing on the Uppsala Conflict Data Program, found a robust correlation between peace agreements signed by women and durable peace. It also showed significantly higher rates of implementation and more substantive political reform provisions. Separate analysis found that women’s participation increases the probability of a peace agreement lasting at least 15 years by 35%. When civil society groups, including women’s organizations, are included, an agreement becomes 64% less likely to fail.

These are not marginal differences. They are the difference between agreements that hold and those with higher risk of collapse.

This connects to a broader pattern in how leadership shapes institutional priorities. Women leaders often bring a stronger orientation toward prevention, coalition-building, and long-term risk management. Preventive diplomacy, which aims to stop conflicts before they erupt, remains chronically underfunded and politically understated. Yet prevention is vastly less costly, in human lives and financial terms, than crisis response. An institution whose leadership is more attuned to anticipation over reaction is better aligned with the idea that structural problems, left unaddressed, become catastrophic ones.

The Council on Foreign Relations’ Women’s Power Index documents a related pattern in governance: countries with greater women’s parliamentary representation show lower risks of civil war and state-perpetrated human rights abuses. A country is nearly five times less likely to respond to an international crisis with violence when women’s representation in parliament increases by five percentage points.

None of this proves that women are inherently more peaceful, a claim that research does not support. What it does suggest is that inclusive leadership produces better information, wider networks of trust, and more durable political buy-in. These are institutional advantages, not merely moral ones.

Representation and reform are intertwined

Critics may argue, not unreasonably, that focusing on representation distracts from more pressing challenges: financing gaps in the trillions for peacebuilding, climate action, reform of international financial institutions, geopolitical deadlock in the Security Council, sovereign debt crises across the Global South, and SDG targets that are roughly 85% off-track or stalled.

These challenges are real. They demand structural responses, reformed international financial institutions, more equitable trade architecture, and renewed multilateral cooperation.

But representation and structural reform are not competing agendas. They are intertwined. Institutions led by people who have navigated structural barriers are, in practice, less likely to have institutional blind spots about them. When decision-making rooms reflect a broader spectrum of experience, including voices from the Global South, the analysis sharpens and the solutions tend to stick.

There is also the matter of institutional credibility. The UN champions women’s political participation, equal pay, protection from violence, and girls’ education. Yet without parity in its own highest offices, it increasingly appears aspirational rather than transformational. That gap erodes the legitimacy on which the organization’s convening power depends.

For Member States, including permanent members of the Security Council, this should not be viewed as a concession to symbolism or pressure. It is an investment in institutional legitimacy. A more representative UN is a stronger UN, one better equipped to convene, mediate, and implement.

What would actually change things?

A woman Secretary-General would be consequential. But she would not, by herself, be sufficient. What is needed is a set of interlocking structural commitments.

First, Member States must move beyond rhetorical support and actively nominate qualified women for the Secretary-General role and for senior appointments across the system. The talent pool is not the constraint – it never was. Across the UN system, women already lead complex portfolios in peacekeeping, humanitarian response, development finance, and public health.

Second, parity at the top must be accompanied by pipeline investment: mentoring, sponsorship, and transparent accountability mechanisms at every level. Progress in some areas, such as achieving near parity at the Under-Secretary-General level, demonstrates that change is possible when there is political will.

Third, the selection process is ultimately in the hands of the Security Council with the endorsement of the UN General Assembly. This does not diminish the case for public dialogues and informal hearings. They should be strengthened in support of a selection process based on merit.

Finally, the conversation must be broadened. True representation includes regional balance, generational diversity, and a range of professional backgrounds. Today’s interconnected global challenges demand leadership capable of thinking across these intersections, not within bureaucratic silos. Young leaders, in particular, have been clear: they want institutions that are not only representative but also responsive.

A test of credibility and capacity

The UN faces one of the most demanding moments in its history. Armed conflicts are multiplying. Climate records are repeatedly broken. Inequality is widening within and between countries. Trust in global institutions has eroded across much of the world.

But there is also opportunity. Technological innovation offers new tools for transparency and inclusion. Sustainable finance is expanding rapidly. Youth engagement in global issues and support among younger generations for international cooperation remain strong.

This is not the moment for an organization to be running at half capacity. A more representative UN, at every level, starting at the top, is not a concession to pressure. It is an investment in institutional effectiveness and impact. The evidence points in one direction. What remains is the political will to act on it.