If you are hanging out with a diverse group of Europeans, chances are that you end up listening to a Eurovision playlist at some point. While never without controversy, the Eurovision Song Contest has the power to unite Europeans (and not only) once a year to share culture and fun at different corners of the world. Think of it as the European championships for those who don’t like football.
From cultural to political
Even though Eurovision rules and regulations clearly claim the event to be non-political, the contest, at least since I started watching it in the mid-2000s, has never stopped having political undertones and even very obvious political statements. From the way the national jury and popular vote to the backstage affairs and song choices, a lot of what is happening at Eurovision every year buzzes with politics. But who doesn’t enjoy a bit of culture mixed with politics— unless it crosses major boundaries.
Voting controversies
One of the most evident ways Eurovision became political is through voting patterns. Countries tend to vote for their neighbours or culturally similar countries, which has been a subject of debate for years. For example, the Nordic countries often support each other, as do the Balkan countries. In the South Caucasus, where I am from, there has always been a massive tension during the voting process that can even end with a visit to the Security Service. Back in 2009, Azerbaijani Eurovision fan Rovshan Nasirli was summoned to the National Security Ministry to explain why he voted for the Armenian contestant. He faced an interrogation, was forced to write an explanation and was called out for not having a ‘sense of ethnic pride.’ This wasn’t Azerbaijan’s first controversy, as the country was accused of alleged vote buying and the country’s first family was discovered to have benefited massively from the construction projects ahead of hosting the song contest following Azerbaijan’s victory in 2011.
Political performances
Sometimes, the performances themselves have strong political undertones. In 2009, for instance, Georgia’s entry was disqualified due to its thinly veiled criticism of Russian leader Vladimir Putin following the 2008 Russo-Georgian War. Similarly, in 2016, Ukraine’s winning entry, “1944” by Jamala was about the deportation of Crimean Tatars by the Soviet Union, which many saw as a commentary on the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014. In 2015, Armenia had to change its song title from “Don’t Deny” to “Face the Shadow” to avoid an open reference to the denial of the Armenian Genocide following its centennial commemoration. More recently, Israel had to rewrite and change the title of its original entry, “October Rain” (referencing the horrendous attack by Hamas on October 7), to be able to qualify for the contest despite calls for a boycott.
There have also been instances of countries boycotting or protesting against the contest for political reasons. In 1978, Jordan refused to broadcast the Israeli Eurovision performance and didn’t acknowledge Israel’s victory that same year, claiming that Belgium had won. In 2014, Conchita Wurst’s victory with the song “Rise Like a Phoenix” was seen as a triumph for LGBTQI+ rights, although this victory, alongside the general representation of the LGBTQI+ community during the contest, was cited as one of the reasons why Türkiye wouldn’t return to Eurovision.
Hosting the contest: a badge of honour
Winning Eurovision can have political implications for the host country. It’s often seen as an opportunity for countries to showcase their culture, promote tourism, and even boost or repair their international image. As the largest live TV and online event in the world, Eurovision has a massive soft power impact if the opportunity is used well. For instance, Ukraine’s hosting of Eurovision in 2017 was seen as a chance to assert its identity and independence following the annexation of Crimea. Similarly, the UK taking over from Ukraine as a host country in 2023, albeit depending on the votes, was a fantastic opportunity for the country to once again demonstrate its foreign policy priorities and support for Ukraine.
Participating and winning at Eurovision has also been used by countries to strengthen their European brand and promote themselves as being part of the European family. In his book ‘Nation Branding, National Identity and the Eurovision Song Contest in Estonia’, author Paul Taylor writes that the “Estonian victory in the Eurovision in 2001 came at a decisive moment in EU accession negotiations and the government launched a nation branding strategy, Welcome to Estonia: Positively Transforming, in order to capitalise on the publicity gained through hosting the ESC in 2002.”
European political parties at Eurovision
Sten Laansoo, International Officer for the Kaja Kallas’s Estonian Reform party, says: “Eurovision is a great opportunity to bring people together, whether you like it or not. Some political parties have used it to showcase their support for their national entry.”
For example, last year, the Finnish Centre Party found a creative way to wish good luck to their contestant Käärijä, whose song Cha Cha Cha was a massive hit.
This year, Estonian ruling coalition partner, Estonia 200, has incorporated the Eurovision theme and a catchy ‘Euroopa Visioon’ slogan into their campaign video for the European Parliament elections.
“In countries where Eurovision is talked about a lot, such communication actions do cause a lot of traction for the parties,” says Laansoo.
Another interesting recent example of politicians using Eurovision in their messaging can be observed in the Twitter post by Frans Timmermans, whose party lost in last year’s Dutch elections to Geert Wilders’s eurosceptic Party For Freedom (PVV). Timmermans posted this year’s contender Joost’s pro-European ‘Europapa’ song, with the caption ‘Europapa by Joost Klein is an ode to the traditional Dutch gabber culture and at the same time to the successes of European integration.’
Besides their digital activities, youth wings of various political parties, such as Reform Estonia, also organise watching parties to bring like-minded people together to enjoy Eurovision.
Eurovision’s footprints were even spotted when a former TV presenter and Eurovision Song Contest host, Cynthia Ní Mhurchú, was approached by the Irish Fianna Fáil party to run in the 2024 European elections.
Last but not least, this year will mark the third time the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) has organised the Eurovision Debate for the leading political candidates, a.k.a. Spitzenkandidaten. Unlike the Maastricht Debate, this one will have a much larger audience and will be accompanied by interpretation in almost all official EU languages. This year’s debate will take place on 23 May, two weeks after Eurovision’s grand finale.
Jumping on the Eurovision hype wagon
How realistic is it to expect to have a massive European cultural event without any political undertones? My university professor, Damien Helly, said: “Culture returns hope to people and gives a chance to their injured souls to escape their nightmares, resentment, and vengeance.” The world we live in nowadays, without exaggeration, is filled with similar sentiments. While Europe has been sheltered from massive political and security turbulence for a few decades with a chance to create art for art’s sake, even young European citizens now struggle to disengage from politics and conflicts: this political mainstreaming in culture is an experience which was previously alien to them.
If you want to jump on the Eurovision hype wagon ahead of this year’s European elections or in future, here is one piece of advice from Sten Laansoo and me: “It’s important to remember that politics is not Eurovision, and as fun and engaging as we want to make our parties for the votes, there always have to be strong and clear political messages that go together with such campaigns, thus also remaining credible but relevant in the eyes of the voters.”
