RTÉ, Ireland’s main national broadcaster, has decided that Ireland will not participate in the Eurovision Song Contest this year, and that it will similarly not broadcast the event, after the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) chose not to hold a vote on Israel’s participation at the Winter General Assembly in Geneva. In their words: “RTÉ feels that Ireland’s participation remains unconscionable given the appalling loss of lives in Gaza and the humanitarian crisis there, which continues to put the lives of so many civilians at risk.” Ireland is joined in this boycott of Eurovision 2026 by Spain, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Iceland. It is yet another drop in the bucket of the persistent politicization of Eurovision, as political controversies continue to dampen the organizers’ pleas for apoliticism. These rather visionary aims are exemplified by the slogan adopted in 2023: “United by Music”.
Since then, headlines proclaiming “United by Music, Divided by Politics” have become common ground, as the years have shown that a cultural project intended to unite European identity is consistently overshadowed by the contemporary political climate. Eurovision has thus acquired considerable geopolitical implications and sway. In my opinion, this lies not just in the conflicting political ideologies of influence, but in the nature of the contest itself: a competition between countries based on an art form that can be used as a communication tool for personal ideas or even propaganda. Art is a potent form of protest, and artists, including numerous Eurovision contestants, have blurred the line between art and activism for decades. This cultural power turns Eurovision into a podium to settle geopolitical disputes or pour personal and politically charged ideologies into performances. It certainly begs the question: can anything, especially a global event placing nearly 40 countries on one stage, be considered ‘apolitical’ these days?
In the spirit of their Swiss origins, where the first contest took place in 1956, the EBU has claimed Eurovision to be a neutral or “non-political” event since its conception. That mask of apoliticism still holds strong today, as evidenced by the EBU statement on January 31st, 2024: “[…] the Eurovision Song Contest is a non-political music event and a competition between public service broadcasters who are members of the EBU. It is not a contest between governments.” There are, however, numerous examples of political tensions creeping their way into what is intended to be a joyous celebration of “European unity”. Before the contemporary chaos of Eurovision, there were other instances of countries choosing to opt out of the yearly spectacle: Greece pulled out of the contest in 1975 after Turkey was allowed entry in response to the Turkish invasion of Cyprus a year prior, and Armenia left in 2012 due to the host country being Azerbaijan.
Another reason why the politicization of Eurovision is difficult to deny are the double standards that have become all too evident in EBU policy. The clearest case of this is of course their decision to ban Russia from the contest in 2022, but not provide the same treatment to Israel for, in the public’s eye, a similar situation. While Russia’s removal is widely believed to have followed their invasion of Ukraine in the same year, the EBU has since clarified that the main cause was Russia violating membership obligations of the broadcasting union. This line of reasoning, however, stands in contrast to the statement made on Russia’s exclusion on February 25th, 2022: “The decision reflects concern that, in light of the unprecedented crisis in Ukraine, the inclusion of a Russian entry in this year’s Contest would bring the competition into disrepute.” The EBU has thus drawn criticism for the inconsistent and malleable nature of their rulebook regarding invasion and violence, as Israel did not receive the same consequences for their actions in Gaza.
Other than these concrete examples of Eurovision’s political direction, I propose a more abstract argument proving that the EBU’s attempt at apoliticism might have been doomed from the start. First, the essence of Eurovision is a song contest – a competition of countries ending with one champion every year. While I don’t think the participating states have zero capacity for civility and celebration of European culture and community once a year, it is quite hopeful to believe that no nationalisms or ideology would eventually infiltrate the event. Secondly, the main principle of Eurovision is to honour a form of art: music. Isn’t the very basis of music, songwriting and performance to evoke a personal message or even ideology to the audience? Isn’t that what any artist aims for? Just take the following statement from Israel’s 2024 contestant Eden Golan: “We can bring everything we’re feeling, and everything the country is going through, in those three minutes. To speak through the song to the world.”
Continuing on this thread, it is no secret that art has become an effective mechanism of protest for decades, if not centuries. In the world of music, songs like ‘Imagine’ by John Lennon and ‘What’s Going On’ by Marvin Gaye come to mind, but art as activism is extremely widespread, a recognisable modern figure being Banksy. Art is equipped as a language against oppression, inequality and social injustice: it engages with public discourse, takes place in public space and challenges dominant public assumptions and ideology. Combine this with a yearly face-off between a league of nations and a large public platform to loudly profess ideas through music, and the assumption that this extravaganza would remain non-political can be seen as not only idealistic, but positively naïve.
While commendable, the EBU’s strive for apoliticism was unrealistic from the beginning and can today be viewed as see-through and proven fruitless. So: if Eurovision’s organizers won’t admit to the politics at play in their contest, is a boycott like the one initiated by Ireland alongside other countries enough to make them talk? While it has certainly set the largest Eurovision crisis to date in motion, it cannot be overlooked that the competition has survived similar altercations in the past, and that the EBU’s hand regarding Russia in 2022 was forced by a much larger number of participating countries than the boycott of Israel this year. In my opinion, only a unified Big Five boycott, Eurovision’s primary financial contributors -the UK, France, Germany, Spain and Italy – of which just one has opted out this year, will have substantial effect. Their stance, or rather their money, can make a difference, as moral quandary only seems to be a motivating factor for the EBU under certain circumstances. I, for one, hope the EBU will finally get the courage to remove their veil of apoliticism and admit to the cultural mouthpiece of political messaging and resulting international division they’ve cultivated – even if that was the exact opposite of their objective in 1956. The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions, after all.
