Eurovision as a platform for international politics

The moment you read "Eurovision Song Contest", or ESC, you probably immediately thought about lots of glitter and glamour, and maybe about a woman with a beard as well. But what probably didn’t come to mind is the hidden (and not so hidden) political statements within this contest. This article will focus on the political aspects within the ESC and what this has to do with the concept of 'identity'.

Back to top

What is the contest about?

The Eurovision Song Contest is an annual song competition in which most European and some non-European countries compete. There are two semi-finals and a final which are all broadcasted on live television and in which the artists representing the countries often perform with the most extraordinary outfits and songs.

After all performers sang their song, everyone living in one of the competing countries can cast their mobile phone to vote for the country they liked best, except for their own country of course. One country will win and will host the contest the year after. For the competing countries, the ESC can be a perfect moment to promote their country, since the show is watched by around 200 million people around the world (BBC, 2018).

Back to top

How it all started

The first ESC took place on the 24th of May 1956 with the aim to reunite Europe after the first and second world war (De Bruijn, n.d.). It was established by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU). At first, only 7 countries competed in the contest.

Now the contest has grown to as many as 43 countries, which are not even all members of the European Union (BBC, 2018). Especially after the end of the Cold War, the number of competing countries increased with many former Eastern Bloc countries wanting to join (Eurovision, n.d.b).

The ESC is not just some European contest, but a part of globalization, connecting millions of people around the world with songs, performances and artistic expressions

This might leave you wondering: why are non-European countries competing in a European contest? This is because the EBU, the broadcaster of the ESC, not only has members from the European networks but from outside Europe as well. Every country that is a member of the EBU is eligible to take part in the contest. This is why countries such as Israel and Azerbaijan participateas well (Jordan, 2014).

The only exception to this rule is the participation of Australia. Australia is not a part of the EBU but was invited by the EBU as a one-time guest contester for the 60th birthday of the ESC in 2015. At the end of 2015, it was confirmed that Australia was permitted to participate in the contest as an official competitor (Eurovision, n.d.a; Lam, 2018).

By now, I think you will agree with me that the ESC is not just some European contest, but a part of globalization, connecting millions of people around the world with songs, performances and artistic expressions. However, culture is not the only thing connecting people in the ESC, politics is doing this as well.

Back to top

Politics

Although the ESC is officially not seen as a political event, politics were already involved at the start of the ESC, since the contest was established with the aim to unite the Western European countries as a unified bloc during the Cold War (Fricker & Lentin, 2009). Another example of an early political influence in the ESC is the participation of Yugoslavia from 1961 on as the only non-Western European country. Their participation can be seen as a political statement for refusing to submit to Soviet dominance (Vuletic, 2007).

Not only the ESC as a contest itself has political influences. Political influences are visible within the contest as well. According to the rules of the ESC, political statements in either lyrics, speeches or gestures are forbidden and can result in a disqualification of the country. However, this doesn’t stop countries from doing so (Eurovision, n.d.c.).

In the past, various political statements were made by different countries in more or less obvious ways. Whether it was related to their own country, another country or to a taboo they wanted to address. In the end, it’s up to the organization of the ESC if they consider something a political expression or not.

Back to top

Breaking taboos

Some of the most memorable performances of the last few years were used to break widespread taboos. I think nearly everyone who watches the ESC can remember Conchita Wurst (the woman with the beard). Conchita Wurst performed with her song ‘Rise Like a Phoenix’ for her country Austria. Her aim was to spread the message that everyone can be who they want to be and look the way they want to look (Nicolasen, 2014).

Conchita outside the ESC is a guy named Tomas Neuwirth. For the ESC in 2014, he adopted the identity of ‘the woman with the beard’. This identity became the equivalent for a global LGBT acceptation. The act got ‘douze points’ (the maximum amount of points) from a lot of countries and won the ESC that year.

New Statesman (2014) also considered the win of Conchita to be a sneer at Russia, because they are known for their intolerance against the LGBT community: “a vote for Wurst is another vote against Russian homophobia and transphobia, and a win would send out a strong message of defiance eastwards”. With her new identity, Conchita added a big part to the global debate about the realness and rights of the people within the LGBT community.

Back to top

Country politics

In some cases, the political expressions were too obvious in a negative sense, which made the organization of the ESC decide to disqualify the country. An example of this is the entry of Georgia in 2009. Their entry ‘We Don’t Wanna Put In’ was interpreted by most people as the Georgians making fun of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (Marcus, 2009).

During the time, Georgia’s relationship with Russia was tense because of a conflict that started a few months earlier. The conflict concerned South Ossetia, a separatist region of Georgia. Russia accused Georgia of sending soldiers to the region while Georgia accused Russia of provoking a war by sending troops, tanks, and armored vehicles to the area (Trouw, 2008).

The relationship between both countries never really improved, which can be seen in the lyrics of Georgia’s song for the ESC in 2009. Especially one part of the lyrics of the song stood out: ‘We don’t wanna put in the negative move, it’s killing the groove’, which was clearly targeting Putin. Georgia reacted to this by saying that the song has to be seen as a harmless joke, setting up a temporary identity of being the funny one, while everyone knew about the conflict.

The organization of the ESC didn’t believe their argument of being ‘just funny’ and demanded Georgia to change their lyrics or enter another song. Georgia refused to do this and chose to withdraw from the competition (Marcus, 2009).

"We don't wanna put in the negative move, it's killing the groove"

Back to top

Less obvious politics

Some political expressions that were used in the past didn’t lead to disqualification. In these cases, the political expressions were present, however not that obvious that it could lead to a disqualification.

An example is the song ‘1944’ by Jamala, the representative of Ukraine in 2016. The official meaning of the song is about the grandmother of the singer, who lived in the Crimean area in Ukraine and was deported by Russia in 1944. This song brought up a sensitive topic for Russia since they recently annexed the area and saw a clear connection between the song and their actions. The singer of Ukraine stated that the song was just about a family drama and since the organization of the ESC saw no explicit textual references to the present annexation of the Crimean area, the song was not disqualified (Belgers, 2017).

The song even won the ESC that year. Although the organization of the ESC didn’t note explicit textual references, implicit references were definitely there. Already in the first sentences of the song, where Jamala sings ‘When strangers are coming, they come to your house. They kill you all, and say: we’re not guilty.’, the song can be interpreted as an implicit reference to the annexation of the Crimean area by the Russians and how they say they’re not guilty. 

Even Jamala herself admitted to The Guardian (Stephens, 2016) that her song was not just about a family drama: “Of course it’s about 2014 as well. These two years have added so much sadness to my life. … What am I supposed to do: just sing nice songs and forget about it? Of course I can’t do that.” So, to the ESC, Jamala acts like the innocent woman singing about a family drama, while in ‘real life’ she reveals that she hates Russia.

Back to top

Ukraine and Russia

The song of Jamala in 2016 was not the first timeUkraine and Russia used political statements against each other in the ESC. In the past, multiple ‘hidden’ actions were taken by these countries. In 2005, Ukraine tried to enter the unofficial anthem of the orange revolution, which the Russians saw as an attack on Putin. This song was not accepted by the ESC organization (De Bruijn, n.d.). Two years later,Ukraine entered another song which was not appreciated by Russia. Ukrainian transvestite ‘Verka Serduchka’ sang ‘Lasha tumbai’ in her song multiple times, which sounds like poorly-pronounced English for ‘Russia goodbye’.

In 2017, the year Ukraine hosted the ESC after winning with their song ‘1944’ the year before, another incident happened between Russia and Ukraine. The Russian singer Samojlova was not allowed to go to Ukraine since she performed in the Crimean area without a special visum, a year after Russia annexed the area.

Because of this performance, Samojlova was put on the Ukrainian blacklist and got a travel ban (Belgers, 2017; De Bruijn, n.d.). The EBU tried to solve the problem by offering Russia a satellite connection to broadcast their performance from their own country, but this offer was rejected by both Ukraine and Russia. Ukraine didn’t want to broadcast the performance of a lawbreaker and Russia thought performing via a satellite connection was not in the ESC spirit. In the end, Russia decided to withdraw from the competition (Belgers, 2017).

"When strangers are coming, they come to your house. They kill you all, and say: we're not guilty"

After the decision to withdraw from the competition, some people even thought that this was Russia’s plan all along. In an article in the Dutch newspaper Trouw in 2017 (Belgers, 2017), it was stated that Russia didn’t even want to compete that year and took their actions just to look good at the expense of Ukraine. They could have known that the singer they signed up would probably get a travel ban. Besides, according to the article, they hadn’t even booked a hotel, something that is normally done as soon as the candidate is announced. With Ukraine banning the Russian singer, who is physically handicapped by the way, it looks like Ukraine is just being awful without any good reason; how could a handicapped singer be dangerous? Of course, we will never know whether this is true or not.

Just like in the other political statements in the ESC, a temporary identity change can be witnessed in this discussion. Everyone knows Ukraine and Russia are not best friends, but for the ESC, they both try to be the innocent one. They go from openly hating each other in daily life to acting innocent in the ESC, even though everyone knows their real identity.

Back to top

Political statements in other contests

As has become clear in this article so far, the ESC is deeply connected to political influences and is used as a platform for people and countries to show their political statements. But the ESC is not the only global contest that is affected by political influence, others do as well. An example of this lies within the acceptance of Kosovo by the international football federation FIFA in 2016, which caused a lot of resistance from the side of Serbia. In 2008, Kosovo declared their independence to Serbia, but nowadays most Serbians still don’t accept Kosovo as an independent country (Nazar, 2018). Kosovo eventually did not qualify themselves for the 2018 world cup. However, their rivalry with the Serbian team was shown, when the Swiss team, which has two Kosovar-Albanian players in their team, ended up in the same poule as Serbia in the group phase of the 2018 world championship (Nazar, 2018). You can imagine the match between those two countries was interesting.

Already a month before the match, the first conflict happened. One of the Kosovar-Albanian players of the Swiss team posted a picture of his shoes on Instagram, showing one football shoe featuring a Swiss flag and the other a Kosovar one. He later told that he had no political intentions with it and just wanted to show his loyalty to both countries. However, many Serbians saw the post as a provocation (Ames, 2018). By posting this picture, the player showed that his identity not only belongs to Switzerland, but to Kosovo as well. Maybe his intentions were not to provoke Serbia, but by showing that he literally carries Kosovo with him on the football field, the implicit meaning to the Serbians is clear. This shows that showing your identity can have unintended political consequences.

During the match itself, a second incident happened. The Kosovar-Albanian players celebrated their goals by portraying a double-headed eagle with their hands, which points to the Albanian flag. Just like Kosovo, Albania is still at odds with Serbia. Just like in the Instagram post, this sign refers to the identity of both players. They are not just Swiss (and Kosovar), but Albanian as well. Where the political statement in the Instagram post could have been unintended (maybe he just wanted to show the world that he’s looking forward to the world cup), this statement is more explicit. Both players showed a sign, portraying their Albanian identity, right in front of the Serbian players and crowd. Serbia was offended by the sign and FIFA agreed that the sign was unsportsmanlike. The decision was made to give both players a fine of ten thousand Swiss Franc (NOS, 2018). 

Of course, this is one of many examples in which political statements are made within global or continental contests. Some of them are positive, while other statements have a negative load to them. Other examples are the kneeling NFL players, the Egyptian judo player who didn’t want to shake hands with his Israeli opponent in the 2016 Olympics, and the Croatian president who wore the shirt of the national football team during their matches in the World Cup. On country level you could, for example, think about North and South Korea having one ice hockey team in the 2018 winter Olympics or, in a negative sense, fans of national football teams fighting with each other for their nationality.

Back to top

Identity as a part of political statements

This article shows, that in the case of the ESC, it is clear that people change their identity to be able to make political statements. Since they are not allowed to make political statements, they have to hide behind another identity. This way, their real identity (e.g. hating another country) becomes ‘hidden’ and their political statements become implicit. Still, everyone knows about their real identity, which makes the implicit meaning of their political statements clear to the rest of the world.

In other kinds of contests, political statements are connected to identity as well. However, the difference is that in these other contests, people don’t usually hide their real identity. In fact, most of them are proud to show their real identity, for example in putting flags on football shoes or wearing a shirt from the national team to show support. These contests usually forbid political statements as well, but people are not trying to hide it as much as in the ESC. I am already wondering what the next ESC is going to bring.

Back to top

References

Ames, N. (2018, June 21). Shadow of Kosovo hangs over Switzerland’s crunch tie with Serbia.

BBC. (2018). What is the Eurovision Song Contest? 

Belgers, J. (2017, May 8). Wilde Rusland wel naar het songfestival in Kiev? 

De Bruijn, T. (n.d.). Het Eurovisie Songfestival: glamour, controversie en schandaal. 

Eurovision. (n.d.a). Australia. 

Eurovision. (n.d.b). In a nutshell. 

Eurovision. (n.d.c). Rules. 

Fricker, K., & Lentin, R. (2007). Performing global networks. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Jordan, P. (2014). The modern fairy tale: Nation branding, national identity and the Eurovision song contest in Estonia. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.

Lam, C. (2018). Representing (real) Australia: Australia’s Eurovision entrants, diversity and Australian identity. Celebrity Studies 9(1), 117-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2018.1432354

Marcus, S. (2009, March 11). Georgia pulls out of Eurovision after controversial song is banned. 

Nazar, M. (2018, june 22). Emotionele avond in aantocht voor Kosovo: juichen voor de Zwitsers. 

Nicolasen, L. (2014, may 12). Hoe de winst van Conchita Wurst een doorbraak voor de transgender werd. 

NOS. (2018, june 26). Albanezen willen FIFA-boete Zwitsers duo betalen. 

Stephens, H. (2016, may 15). Eurovision 2016: Ukraine’s Jamala wins with politically charged 1944. 

Trouw. (2008, august 9). Oorlog tussen Georgië en Rusland. 

Vuletic, D. (2007). The socialist star. Yugoslavia, Cold War politics and the Eurovision Song Contest. In Raykoff, I, & Tobin, R., (Eds.), A song for Europe: popular music and politics in the Eurovision song contest (pp. 83-98). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Back to top