The Eurovision Song Contest started on Tuesday evening under the sign of boycott. Co-author of the recent book “Geopolitics of Eurovision,” researcher Florent Parmentier explains how this apparently harmless event has become much more than just a big kitschy spectacle, reflecting the turmoil of its time.
Published yesterday at 6:00
Five countries are boycotting Eurovision this year: Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands, Iceland, and Slovenia. For what reason?
The Palestinian issue, specifically Gaza. They are against Israel’s participation in the contest. Call it a form of cultural diplomacy. These five countries are important, especially Spain and Ireland. Spain is one of the “big five,” one of the main contributors to Eurovision. Ireland is the joint biggest winner in the history of the contest, alongside Sweden, with seven victories in 70 years.
Is this the first time countries have boycotted the event?
No. The first politically motivated boycott was Austria in 1969. Austria did not want to go to Spain [the host country] because it was still under Franco’s dictatorship. In the 1970s, Greece and Cyprus boycotted when Turkey participated, and vice versa. In 2012, Armenia boycotted because the contest was held in Azerbaijan and the two countries were in dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh.
The Eurovision Song Contest claims to be apolitical and pacifist at the beginning. But its uniqueness lies in pitting public service broadcasters, and thus nations, against each other. It’s a bit like the Olympics. When you attract considerable popular attention, you run the risk of being caught up in the controversies of your time.
Is the Eurovision contest just a song contest? How has it become the “geopolitical laboratory” you describe in your book?
The Eurovision Song Contest claims to be apolitical and pacifist at the beginning. But its uniqueness lies in pitting public service broadcasters, and thus nations, against each other. It’s a bit like the Olympics. When you attract considerable popular attention, you run the risk of being caught up in the controversies of your time.
Are the artists on stage mere mouthpieces for their governments?
It’s more subtle. Songs should not have too obvious a political content. They should be subversive, but not too much! Look at the Georgian song from 2009, “We Don’t Wanna Put In,” which alluded to Putin. It was rejected by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), which organizes the contest.
Is the judges’ vote also political?
Yes, because you can see which country is voting for which. For example, this year, it can already be announced that Greece will give 12 points to Cyprus and vice versa.
You mention in your book that Eurovision is a distorting mirror of European identity. What do you mean by that?
It magnifies certain traits and eliminates others. It does not show Europe as it is but rather how it would like to portray itself. For example, the LGBT cause takes on a much greater importance through Eurovision than in real life.
Would you say that the LGBT cause is also part of Eurovision’s geopolitical laboratory?
It is part of it when some states decide not to participate because of it. Turkey’s last participation was in 2012, a time when the LGBT cause seemed to crop up too often for Erdoğan. Hungary’s Orbán has not participated for years, officially due to participation costs, but it is clear that the issue runs deeper.
Apart from the boycott, what other issues should we watch for this year?
The choice of languages. Is it a coincidence that Denmark, used to singing in English, is singing in Danish this year, the same year Donald Trump threatens Greenland? They clearly do not want to rely on soft power through the English language this time. There is a questioning of the text, which is inherently political. I think Denmark and Finland are the favorites this year, making it a Nordic year.
Book Review: “Geopolitics of Eurovision” By Cyrille Bret and Florent Parmentier Publisher: Bréal 160 pages
Photo: Conchita Wurst performing at Eurovision in 2014. (Credit: Heinz-Peter Bader, Reuters)
