SUPRA MAHUMAPELO | The UN has failed on its promise: the case for meaningful reform - TimesLIVE

Many in the Global South increasingly question whether the UN is fulfilling the purpose for which it was established.

Concerns about the organisation’s effectiveness have grown as conflicts persist, humanitarian crises deepen, and multilateral institutions struggle to respond decisively to complex global challenges. While the UN continues to play an important humanitarian and developmental role, its ability to maintain international peace and security is increasingly being called into question.

The UN was founded in the aftermath of World War 2, partly in response to the shortcomings of the League of Nations. Its founding vision was to promote collective security, international co-operation, accountability and peaceful resolution of disputes. Yet many observers argue that the international system today continues to face challenges remarkably similar to those that confronted the league decades ago.

The organisation increasingly finds itself constrained by geopolitical divisions among major powers. As a result, consensus on matters of war, peace and security often proves elusive, raising concerns about the effectiveness of multilateral decision-making at a time when global co-operation is most needed.

For many developing nations, meetings of the General Assembly frequently highlight important global concerns but often fall short of producing decisive action on pressing international crises. Ongoing conflicts, violations of international law, insecurity in vulnerable regions and the marginalisation of smaller states continue to test the credibility of the multilateral system.

A recurrent criticism of the UN concerns the structure of the Security Council, particularly the veto power held by its permanent members. Critics contend that this arrangement often prevents the organisation from acting decisively in situations where urgent intervention or collective action may be required. Calls for Security Council reform have therefore become increasingly prominent, especially from developing countries seeking a more representative and equitable international order.

Questions have also been raised regarding the consistent application of international law. Perceptions of selective accountability have contributed to growing scepticism about the fairness of global governance institutions and their ability to uphold universal principles without favour or prejudice.

South Africa’s decision to approach the International Court of Justice regarding the conflict in Gaza highlighted the extent to which some member states feel compelled to seek accountability through international legal mechanisms when political processes appear unable to resolve disputes. More broadly, prolonged instability in regions such as the Middle East and the Democratic Republic of the Congo continues to underscore the limitations of existing international responses to conflict.

The humanitarian consequences of war remain devastating. Civilians, particularly women and children, continue to bear the heaviest burden of armed conflict. In many instances, the international community appears unable to prevent suffering or secure timely and lasting solutions.

The central question is therefore not whether multilateralism remains necessary. Rather, it is whether the UN, in its current form, is adequately equipped to fulfil its mandate in a rapidly changing world

Similar concerns arise in relation to climate change. While the Conference of the Parties process remains an important platform for global engagement, progress is often shaped by competing national interests and differing development priorities. The gap between commitments and implementation continues to generate frustration among those seeking more urgent collective action.

The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine further illustrates the difficulties facing the contemporary multilateral system. Despite sustained international engagement, a durable resolution remains elusive, reflecting the broader challenges confronting global governance institutions.

Taken together, these developments raise important questions about the future relevance, legitimacy and effectiveness of the UN. Increasingly, states are turning to smaller multilateral formations, regional alliances and issue-based partnerships to advance their interests and address common challenges.

The central question is therefore not whether multilateralism remains necessary. Rather, it is whether the UN, in its current form, is adequately equipped to fulfil its mandate in a rapidly changing world. If confidence in the institution is to be restored, meaningful reform will be required. Such reform should include renewed consideration of Security Council representation, decision-making processes and mechanisms that strengthen accountability and responsiveness.

Meaningful reform should also include the establishment of a world parliamentary forum to exercise oversight of the UN General Assembly, strengthening transparency and the accountability of heads of state participating in its proceedings. Such a forum should provide a platform for parliamentary scrutiny of commitments made by national leaders and the steps taken to implement them. Its composition, powers and relationship with the General Assembly would need to be clearly defined and agreed upon by member states so that parliamentary oversight strengthens rather than merely duplicates existing multilateral processes.

The UN remains an important symbol of international co-operation. However, unless it adapts to contemporary geopolitical realities and responds more effectively to the concerns of developed and developing nations, its credibility may continue to diminish. The case for reform is therefore not a case against the UN itself, but rather an argument for ensuring that it remains fit for purpose in the 21st century.