Despite its declared non-political character, the Eurovision Song Contest has always carried an undertone of geopolitical drama. The pan-European event (which now includes Australia) routinely waves the “no politica” flag, but reality has often contradicted such declarations.
Since its inception, Eurovision has served as a soft-power platform: once through light-hearted tunes, and more recently via ethnic, pop, ballad, or unclassifiable entries—all wrapped in kitsch and camp aesthetics. Through their public broadcasters, countries have used Eurovision as a channel for cultural diplomacy.
But political messaging in Eurovision isn’t limited to participation alone—it can also manifest through withdrawal, controversies, or even internal or foreign policy contexts affecting participating states.
Mariza Koch’s Lament
Examples abound. Greece withdrew from the 1975 contest in protest over Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus and Ankara’s debut in Eurovision that same year. The following year, Greece returned with a somber folk lament performed by Mariza Koch—a musical message in tribute to the tragedy in Cyprus.
Eurovision has often been instrumental in image-building efforts by authoritarian regimes. During Franco’s dictatorship, Spain made a concerted effort to win the contest. Azerbaijan reportedly spent a record-breaking sum to host the event in Baku in 2012. More recently, Russia made strenuous efforts to secure a win in the years leading up to its exclusion.
One of the more surreal political incidents occurred in August 2009, when 43 Azerbaijani citizens were summoned by the Ministry of Defense for having voted for Armenia’s entry—an incident rooted in the ongoing Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh. That year, Armenia’s intro “postcard” video featured a monument from Stepanakert, the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh. The European Broadcasting Union (EBU) edited the footage to remove the contentious monument, but Armenia retaliated by showing the monument in photos behind its spokesperson during the live voting segment.
Other politically charged moments include the 1998 victory of Dana International, a transgender woman representing Israel, and the 2014 win of Austrian drag performer Conchita Wurst.
Double Standards?
In recent years, there have been calls to boycott Israeli entries and to exclude Israel altogether due to the war in Gaza. Critics have accused the EBU of double standards, pointing to Russia’s and Belarus’s exclusions. But the matter is more complex.
First, Eurovision participants are not countries per se, but public broadcasters who are EBU members representing their countries. Bosnia, for instance, made its Eurovision debut during wartime, with its delegation flown out of Sarajevo by a UN helicopter.
Russia launched a war in Georgia in 2008 without facing any sanctions from the contest. The same happened with Armenia and Azerbaijan despite their ongoing conflict. Even after annexing Crimea in 2014 and escalating tensions in Ukraine, Russia remained in the competition.
The EBU only excluded Russia one day after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022—offering little clarity at the time. It is well-known that Russia’s state broadcaster maintains close ties to the Kremlin. Israel’s public broadcaster, KAN, on the other hand, has faced open criticism from the Netanyahu government—even regarding its coverage of the war in Gaza. Reports have recently circulated suggesting that the Israeli government is considering privatizing KAN.
