Background Like other fields in medicine, medical education relies on collaboration and cooperation between countries and regions of the world, although no single institution or position unifies the global medical education community in the way that the WHO does in public health, for example. Recent research in medical education has drawn attention to many injustices that exist in the field, where power and influence is held in relatively few Global North countries, although most practice happens in Global South countries.

Methods In this article, we examine three positions that hold global prominence in medical education, including the presidents of the World Federation for Medical Education and the Association for Medical Education in Europe, and winners of the Karolinska Institutet Prize for Research in Medical Education.

Findings We highlight that these positions have problematic histories and have perpetuated the current power disparities in the field. We argue that an alternative model for global leadership is required that should be determined democratically by those involved in medical education all around the world. Such a model should prioritise diversity and inclusivity, empowering leaders from countries who have previously been peripheral to the decision-making platforms in the field.

Conclusion Given the shortcomings of existing leadership positions and organisations, we suggest that a new institution is required to realise this new vision, and that the principles that govern it should be determined through debate and democracy, with a focus on inviting those voices that have not previously been heard in global medical education circles.