Eurovision – Pike & Hurricane

Eurovision: Can you stay away from politics?

Nina Kolarzik — Wed, 04 Dec 2019 16:36:23 +0000

In this edition we can see numerous examples of how music and (international) politics interlink. To date, music can be used as a way to mobilise people for the support of government organisations or revolutions. It is a means of supporting and expressing an identity, through national anthems or resistance songs.

We’ve heard all of that before. But what does it actually mean to be “political”? And, to turn the whole issue on its head: when is music not political anymore?

The Eurovision tunes

Let’s pay attention to an event that carries a significant political message to the cultural sphere: the Eurovision Song Contest. The name says it – “Eurovision” – it transports the vision of a European community, as Eurovision explains its own history:

“The Eurovision Song Contest was established 10 years after the Second World War to bring Europe closer together through music.”

But despite being concerned with such a big topic as European integration, the music contest ought to take place on the cultural level.

In the rules of Eurovision it says under point 2.6: “The ESC is a non-political event. All Participating Broadcasters, including the Host Broadcaster, shall ensure that all necessary steps are undertaken within in their respective Delegations and teams in order to make sure that the ESC shall in no case be politicized and/or instrumentalized.” This is a clear stance, although it has been questioned several times.

But thinking about the event itself, the message it sends, the rationales behind the national votings that are accused of being political etc. is another topic to talk about. I will turn today to a sentence later in that paragraph of the rules: “No lyrics, speeches, gestures of a political, commercial or similar nature shall be permitted during the ESC. No swearing or other unacceptable language shall be allowed in the lyrics or in the performances of the songs.” So far so good.

But then think about some of the performances from the past years. In 2014, Iceland participated with the song “No prejudice” by the band Pollapönk (one of the band members being an MP) that takes a stance against prejudices and for more tolerance. In 2018, the Israeli singer won with the feminist-themed song “Toy”. In 2019, the Norwegian contribution “Spirit in the Sky“ by KEiiNO incorporated traditional Sami Singing, to bring the indigenous people into the spotlight. In the same year, France was represented by the Singer Hassani and his song “Roi“ about valuing yourself and fighting discrimination.

This raises the more theoretical question of what it means to be political. When is a topic a purely social or cultural and when a political issue? Can you separate this clearly?

Define the political: capture a ghost?

When searching the term “politics” in online dictionaries and databases, most meanings refer to a narrow understanding that concerns the state system. It is associated with the activities of organisations and institutions, different parties and the governing of countries. The narrow, formal definition of politics concerns the state as the permanent institutions that enforces laws, provides public services etc. It is about the activities of politicians who serve the state temporarily (while the state remains).

Another understanding is seeing politics as a conflict: a process where differences coexist. When reading politics as a process, it is also viewed as a method to resolve conflicts (instead of resorting to violence or coercion). Political actions have to do with competition and gaining power. Understanding politics as exercising power though depends significantly on one’s definition of power.

In a broad definition, politics is understood as a social and public activity, as interaction and engagement with others and with a public orientation. Politics takes place between people of a society, which means that citizens can have a political opinion. Broader, informal understandings could incorporate the statements made by Eurovision songs, while the narrow definitions would not.

Though, the broader definitions get, there is an increased danger of a term losing its meaning- is every social interaction now political? All these definitions inhere some problems but also explain different aspects. Together, they might paint the full picture.

Noisy-famous protest sounds from Iceland

An interesting case at the last ESC is the Icelandic contribution by the group Hatari, with their song “Hatrið mun sigra” (“Hate will prevail”). The group is described as a political project and behind its eccentricity and artistic music is a motivation of criticising capitalism and modern consumer society.

Already before they became the representatives of Iceland, they announced to use in case of a national victory the ESC performance for a protest against Israeli politics. They challenged president Netanyahu to a Glíma competition (a Nordic version of Wrestling) with the Icelandic island community of Vestmannaeyjar as a price, to provoke. Political statements such as those might have brought them the sympathy of many Icelandic people: 2018 around 5% of the population signed a petition about not participating at the 2019 ESC because of the political situation of Israel.

During the ceremony of announcing the scores, Hatari was holding Palestine banners into the cameras, which they got a fine for because of violating the ESC rules.

After reading through the definitions of politics, can this band that is criticising with its performance and its actions one specific state as well as the neoliberal system that arguably runs the world, be defined as being political? Why do they get a fine for the banners, but were allowed to compete in the first place?

Infinite definition loop

As it is the case for many terms and concepts in social science, “politics” is a “contested concept”. In the same manner, this article will not propose one single definition – what is political is nothing singular or straightforward. Or, to put it into the words of the Oxford University Press: “Political is a ubiquitous and seemingly indispensable term in the discussion of human affairs. […] it it is difficult to say what, if anything, ‘political’ signifies in its various applications and how it signifies what it does.” When we listen to the tunes of ESC again next year we can therefore ask once more: where is the line of being political here?

by Nina Kolarzik

Photo Credits

Eurovision 2016 – Stockholm, johnpeart, CC BY-SA 2.0

Eurovision song contest 2010, kjelljoran, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Shaking Hands, 8385

Hatari, P1r, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

The post Eurovision: Can you stay away from politics? appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

The Australian Case For EU Membership

Taminka Hanscamp — Mon, 03 Oct 2016 14:49:54 +0000

I’m Australian, not Austrian but please let me in on the EU. There are marked differences between the two countries, not least of which is that Australia is an island continent 14,000 kilometres away from Europe. However, this geographic logic did not stop Australia joining the Eurovision song contest in 2015. Indeed, Australia fully embraced Eurovision but the country seems much more reticent to participate in matters of international politics. I concede that Australia will never become an EU Member, nor would this actually be appropriate given the geography. However, by considering the Australian consequences of not being a part of such a body, this article illustrates how an EU model would be of significant value in addressing the issues facing the international community.

Photo: Naomi Wolfers. Australian’s overcoming the time difference to dress up, get together and celebrate Eurovision 2015.

The benefits of EU Membership are pertinent to consider at a time when another contest about the ‘Euro[pean] vision’ is playing out on a much broader stage in European and international politics. Underpinning the EU is the idea that international cooperation is both necessary and beneficial for economic, political and security purposes. In reality it might not achieve these ends, be efficient or even be understandable. However what makes it different from other international bodies that share similar goals is that the EU remains unique in its authority over its members. This perceived relinquishment of individual state autonomy has contributed to the momentum of Euro-skepticism. However, it is necessary to consider how this also provides an important strength. This can be seen by comparing the Australian and EU responses to the pressing issues of climate change and the human rights treatment of refugees and asylum seekers.

Climate change poses a very real threat to the globe and its effects have no respect for national boundaries. It is recognised that strong, international action is required to address it. However, without effective and binding frameworks that encourage shared responsibility, this is difficult to achieve.

Australia has been accused of withdrawing from international cooperation on the issue, favouring unilateral action instead. This came after Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott removed climate change from the topics of discussion at the 2014 G20 conference hosted in Brisbane and repealed a tax on carbon emissions. Even if unilateral action was enough it still requires action. Australia had designed an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in 2007, and many other countries now also have variations of an ETS including the EU. However in Australia, it never passed. Domestic political tensions meant that it was dropped off the agenda along with the prime minister who suggested it. The reasons for back-pedalling on environmental protection measures were primarily economic: to introduce an ETS would have put Australia at a comparative market disadvantage with its regional trading partners. Taking action on climate change has therefore been equated with being detrimental to national industry.

The EU model with its single market and ability to pass binding resolutions is in a better position to guarantee action and share responsibility, at the very least it can hold conversations about the issue with its members. Under the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP) the EU has implemented an ETS and is on track to meet a 20% reduction in emissions by 2020. In addition to the EU wide policies member states have established domestic programs that complement or extend their international and european commitments. Sweden for example has committed to having no net GHG emissions by 2050. Where EU energy law is not respected the EU Commission can begin enforcement procedures calling for compliance through the European Court of justice.

International commitments such as the Paris Agreement are also an important form of international cooperation but perhaps are still not enough. International law is often said to be ‘non-binding’. International convention relies on the fact that the embarrassment and reaction of respective parties will be enough to encourage the compliance of the other. The problem in Australia is that this is apparently not motivating enough.

Enter Australia’s refugee and asylum seeker system. For human rights to be meaningful they need to be respected regardless of domestic political agendas. However, the framework of international law makes it difficult to ensure this happens as incorporation into domestic law is at the behest of individual nations. The importance of recognition at law of rights is crucial. Members of the EU must, at least on paper, domestically incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights, which is accountable to the European Court of Human Rights. This can be contrasted to the position in Australia where there is little legal protection of rights.

The mechanisms used to process and treat asylum seekers is increasingly becoming a challenge especially in Europe. This is because the numbers of people coming are overwhelming existing and imagined systems. It appears that the bigger the problem the more tempting to implement harsher, sweeping and dehumanising policies. It is vital that whatever approaches are adopted across Europe, that they uphold human rights. At the moment there is some guarantee of this occurring. The scale of the issue in Australia is markedly less, yet extremely harsh measures have been implemented to achieve a deterrence based system. Adopting this ‘stop the boats’ policy, that is not subject to domestic or binding international human rights protections, has resulted in multiple findings of human rights breaches by the UN and other organisations and the harm continues. The Australian system detains Illegal Maritime Arrivals (IMAs) on offshore processing centres and settlement in Australia will never be an option for those who arrived ‘illegally’ by boat. Upon the release of a report finding human rights abuses against torture, then Prime Minister Tony Abbott simply said Australians were ‘sick of being lectured to by the UN’.

International cooperation is always going to be difficult where domestic interests have to be balanced against each other. However, its pursuit is still necessary and worthy precisely because if left to domestic political interests the action and responsibility sharing required to deal with the issues of the 21st century is undermined and the results are ugly. Australia provides a case example of the dangers of not being involved, so whilst the EU might not be perfect it should not be abandoned.

Taminka Hanscamp

Image 1: Bernard Spragg, Public Domain

Image 2: Naomi Wolfers, Instagram

The post The Australian Case For EU Membership appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.