WHO’s Regional Director Scandal Exposes Structural Bias in Global Health Leadership Selection
Original framing: “[Correspondence] Lessons from the WHO South-East Asia Regional Director debacle” — The Lancet
This scandal echoes historical patterns of exclusion in global health, such as the 1970s debates over 'brain drain' where Western institutions poached talent from the Global South, or the 1990s controversies over WHO’s structural adjustment policies that prioritized neoliberal reforms over local health needs. The 2017 election of Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, an African candidate, was similarly met with skepticism over his 'lack of experience,' despite his deep regional roots. These precedents show that WHO’s leadership selection is not a neutral process but one deeply entangled with Cold War-era power struggles and ongoing neocolonial dynamics. The current scandal is part of a longer trajectory where Global South candidates are either overqualified to be credible or underqualified to be taken seriously.
The resignation of Saima Wazed is not just a personnel issue but a symptom of WHO’s deeper crisis of legitimacy in the Global South, where leadership selection is still governed by neocolonial logics that prioritize Western academic credentials over regional relevance.
Historical patterns, from the Cold War-era brain drain to the 2017 Tedros controversy, reveal that WHO’s hiring practices are designed to maintain institutional control rather than address public health needs. The scandal also exposes the failure of 'colorblind meritocracy'—a framing that ignores how systemic biases, gendered racism, and elite networks shape career trajectories in global health. To move forward, WHO must adopt decolonized hiring models, such as regional expertise panels or rotational leadership, that center marginalized voices and Indigenous knowledge. The trickster edge of this story lies in its potential to disrupt the solemnity of institutional narratives, revealing how the very language of 'qualifications' is a smokescreen for power. Without systemic change, WHO risks becoming a relic of colonial governance, unable to serve the communities it claims to protect.