PHA-Exchange> DG elections sign on letter

[Mike Rowson]

Dear Friends



The Medical Students International Network (UK) together with Medact is
sending a sign-on letter to all Ministers of Health protesting about the
lack of democracy in WHO elections. Please find the letter, and list of
signatories at www.medsin.org/who4who and you can sign on by sending an
email to who4who at medsin.org.



The letter is also pasted below.

Many thanks

Mike Rowson

**************************************************





Dear Minister



*Election of WHO Director-General*



Following the tragic death of Dr Lee Jong-wook, we are taking this
opportunity to write to you about the election of the next Director-General
of the World Health Organization in November 2006. We are a diverse
international group of organizations and individuals, including donors,
academics, NGOs, community groups and health care professionals *[rephrase
when we have final list of signatories].* We all share a concern for global
health, especially the health of the world's poorest people.



WHO is responsible for upholding the right to health of more than six
billion people. Fundamental democratic values such as transparency should
therefore underlie this election. At present, however, the election process
does not uphold these values (as defined in article 31[7] of the WHO
constitution, and by Rule 52 of the Rules of Procedure of the Executive
Board).



Two concerns stand out in particular:

·        None of the Executive Board discussions during the election process
are held in public, and voting is by secret ballot.

·        All Executive Board members are officially representatives of their
respective governments. Some have no public health background, and political
agendas easily dominate. The Board itself has only 32 members, leaving 160
UN member states unrepresented in the process.



Past elections for the post of Director-General have raised many concerns
about procedures, including allegations of improper pressures put on
countries to back certain candidates; a voting process that skews results
perversely towards weaker candidates; candidates themselves making promises
that do not meet global health needs or WHO priorities; and lack of access
for the public at large to join the debate.



In your capacity as Health Minister of a UN member state, we urge you to use
your influence to highlight the problems with the present system, and
encourage the adoption of a more transparent and equitable process. The
options need to be debated: requiring candidates to publish and widely
circulate manifestos and make themselves available for public debate would
be a good start. Reform of the electoral process should also be discussed,
including moving to an open ballot and widening the franchise to include a
broader range of member states.



We also respectfully propose that all Ministers of Health discuss in advance
their reasons for backing certain candidates with relevant civil society
organizations in their own countries, or at least discuss the key attributes
they seek in a Director-General. This would uphold the WHO constitution,
which states that "informed opinion and active co-operation on the part of
the public are of the utmost importance in the improvement of the health of
the people." It would also promote a key aspect of the right to health
identified by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in a
recent General Comment – the participation of the population in all
health-related decision-making, including at the international level.



As organizations especially concerned with the health of the poor, we
believe WHO should represent the interests of the least powerful – by
definition those most likely to have their right to health denied. It is
therefore vital that the Director-General is selected on his or her ability
to be accountable to the vulnerable in an increasingly unequal world, and to
lead the changes needed to improve global health. We ask countries to
consider that the selection of such a leader would, in the longer term,
confer more benefits on all countries (including your own) than the
shorter-term advantages that many often believe to accrue from selecting a
candidate according to more self-interested criteria.



Without a transparent election process it is extremely difficult to make
progress towards these goals. Our suggestions may not influence the current
election process, but we would welcome your comments. We hope that you will
be able to discuss them with your colleagues when you gather in Geneva in
November. Steps could also be initiated then to set long overdue electoral
reforms in train that would be in place for subsequent elections.



Yours sincerely
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20061102/12792cc6/attachment-0001.html>