The Politicization of Eurovision – Is Europe Really “United by Music”?

The Eurovision Song Contest is a cherished and time-honored tradition for many Europeans. It offers an annual opportunity for friends and family to come together in celebration of Europe’s cultural, linguistic, and musical diversity. However, like many other forms of entertainment, even a family-friendly European song competition has proven unable to shield itself from the turbulence of global geopolitics. This year’s edition of Eurovision concluded in Basel, Switzerland, with Austria taking home the trophy. The victorious Austrian contestant JJ performed his debut single, “Wasted Love”—a dramatic techno-opera performance set against the backdrop of a fierce, simulated storm. That theatrical staging proved to be an apt metaphor for one of the most turbulent and controversial editions of the contest in recent memory. 

First organized in 1956 by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Eurovision was initially conceived as a broadcasting experiment intended to unite European countries through shared entertainment, technical cooperation, and live music. Over time, it evolved into a cultural project aimed at fostering unity across the continent. Today, every EBU member state is eligible to participate and may select its representative through a method of their choosing, with many opting for national competitions. The winner is determined by a combination of the public televote and the scores awarded by international juries from the participating countries, with each accounting for 50 percent of the final result. 

From Playful Rivalries to Hard Politics 

The contest’s new permanent slogan—“United by Music”—stands in stark contrast to a contest increasingly marked by division. In recent years, Eurovision has experienced withdrawals over ideological disagreements, public threats of boycotts, and, in some cases, the outright exclusion of countries. Although the EBU continues to portray the contest as strictly non-political, both the actions of participating states and the EBU’s own decisions have cast serious doubt on that claim. As political tensions in Europe and beyond continue to rise, and as cultural platforms increasingly intersect with global conflicts, it becomes ever more difficult to maintain the notion that Eurovision can exist outside the realm of politics. 

A few years ago, such politicization may have been seen as part of the contest’s entertainment value: an integral aspect of the spectacle rather than a detriment to it. Long-standing “voting blocs”—such as the reliable mutual support between Cyprus and Greece, or among the Nordic countries—are often met with amused acceptance. Similarly, the striking absence of points awarded to the United Kingdom by many European countries had become something of a recurring punchline. Yet what was once perceived as playful or symbolic now seems relatively harmless compared to the more serious political tensions and controversies that have come to shape the contest’s broader narrative over the past years. 

According to the EBU’s official rules, any instrumentalization or politicization of the contest is prohibited; this includes, for instance, lyrics, speeches, or gestures of a political or similar nature. But in practice, it is not uncommon for entries to subtly incorporate political themes or references into their performance. One example is Ukraine’s winning entry in 2016, “1944”, which addressed the deportation of Crimean Tatars by Soviet forces during the Second World War. The lyrics referenced “strangers arriving,” “violence against families,” and “denials of guilt”—language widely interpreted as a veiled commentary on Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. Despite these interpretations, the EBU accepted the entry as a personal and historical reflection rather than a political statement. 

A more recent case is Croatia’s 2023 entry, “Mama ŠČ!”, performed by Let 3. Dressed as apparent dictators and accompanied by prop missiles, the performers delivered a satirical critique of authoritarianism—ostensibly a reference to authoritarian leaders such as Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko. The EBU allowed the performance, once again underscoring the blurred line between artistic expression and political messaging. 

By contrast, Israel’s 2024 entry, initially titled “October Rain”, faced demands for revision due to its perceived political messaging related to the conflict in Gaza. This raises the question of whether the EBU applies its neutrality rule with greater caution—or stricter interpretation—when dealing with conflicts that are particularly divisive within the European public sphere. For instance, the EBU appeared more accommodating toward Ukraine’s 2016 entry “1944”, which carried clear political undertones, and again with Croatia’s “Mama ŠČ” in 2023, than with the Israeli entry in 2024. 

On the other hand, it could be argued that the line between artistic expression and political statement was more clearly crossed in the case of Israel, given that the original title directly referenced an ongoing conflict. Nevertheless, the EBU’s decisions in these cases point toward a degree of inconsistency, highlighting how the enforcement of the contest’s non-political rule often depends on context, tone, and public perception rather than on clear-cut criteria. 

Eurovision’s “Flag Problem” 

In addition to political messages in song lyrics, Eurovision has in recent years faced what might be called a growing “flag problem,” as recurring debates over which symbols are permitted on stage have repeatedly sparked controversy. 

Previously, non-national symbols—such as the LGBTQ+ pride flag and the flags of recognized international organizations—had been permitted. In 2024, however, the EBU introduced a stricter flag policy, allowing only official national flags. This included the EU flag, whose continued exclusion drew criticism from EU officials, which expressed concern that the policy stood at odds with Eurovision’s stated mission to promote unity across the continent. 

With the new restrictions, the pride flag—once a popular and visible feature in the Eurovision context—was banned, prompting criticism from LGBTQ+ advocacy groups who viewed the change as a step backward for representation in a contest long celebrated for its inclusivity. Notably, despite the policy shift, last year’s winner, Nemo from Switzerland, waved a rainbow flag during the opening ceremony—a quiet act of protest in support of the LGBTQ+ community. 

The flag policy has also become increasingly contested due to incidents involving the display of Palestinian symbols and insignia. For instance, during the 2019 live broadcast, Iceland’s Hatari held up Palestinian scarves, and in 2021, Sweden’s Eric Saade appeared with a keffiyeh wrapped around his wrist. These acts, interpreted as political gestures, were deemed to contradict the EBU’s neutrality rules and prompted further investigations. 

Though intended to preserve Eurovision’s non-political image, the revised flag policy may have had the opposite effect. By banning symbols such as the rainbow and EU flags—both closely associated with diversity, solidarity, and shared identity—the EBU inadvertently drew attention to the very politicization it sought to avoid. In this light, efforts to appear neutral can ultimately become political in themselves, especially when they are perceived as suppressing certain forms of expression more than others. 

The Political Turns of Eurovision 2025 

This year’s edition of Eurovision was no exception when it came to political controversies. In the months leading up to the contest, Israel’s participation became a focal point of controversy across Europe. Activists and civil society groups questioned whether the Israeli national broadcaster, KAN, should be permitted to take part, citing the ongoing humanitarian emergency in Gaza. This culminated in an open letter to the EBU, signed by 72 former Eurovision artists, demanding Israel’s exclusion. As the contest approached, tensions escalated further. In the leadup to the final, large-scale pro-Palestinian demonstrations in Basel underscored the extent to which geopolitical tensions once again overshadowed what is supposed to be an event that unites Europe. 

Excluding countries from Eurovision is not without precedent, despite the contest’s claim to be non-political. Belarus was excluded in 2021 after submitting songs that were deemed politically charged and in violation of the EBU’s rules on political neutrality. In 2022, the EBU excluded Russia from participating following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Although the EBU initially showed reluctance, its eventual move to exclude Russia was fueled by growing pressure from several national broadcasters, widespread public criticism, and threats of boycotts. The EBU communicated that the decision was justified on the basis that Russia’s inclusion would “bring the competition into disrepute” and undermine the contest’s core values.  

In the context of Israel, the EBU stated that “comparisons between wars and conflicts are complex and difficult and, as a non-political media organization, not ours to make.” While critics have called for Israel’s exclusion—citing double standards in the EBU’s decision to exclude Russia but not Israel—supporters of Israel’s participation argue that the two situations are not comparable. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was a clear act of unprovoked aggression, constituting a breach of international law and prompting widespread sanctions, including removal from Eurovision. Israel, by contrast, is seen as responding to an attack by Hamas rather than initiating one.  

However, the EBU’s line of reasoning reveals certain inconsistencies. In 2022, the EBU stated that Russia’s exclusion was due to the risk of “bringing the competition into disrepute.” Yet when addressing the case of Israel in 2024, it emphasized that Eurovision is a contest between public service broadcasters rather than states, and that the Russian broadcaster had been excluded for repeatedly breaching membership obligations and violating public service values. In contrast, Israel’s public broadcaster KAN was deemed to have complied with the rules and could therefore not be excluded. The rationale for Russia’s exclusion thus appears to have shifted when compared to the situation in Israel—from being explicitly linked to the political implications of the invasion of Ukraine to being framed in terms of institutional compliance. 

This shift has prompted criticism over the consistency of the EBU’s approach, raising questions about whether its decisions are shaped less by uniform principles and more by the potential backlash when dealing with conflicts that are especially divisive within the European public. In 2022, several broadcasters threatened to withdraw if Russia remained in the contest, likely influencing the EBU’s decision. 

Ultimately, Israel was not excluded from this year’s contest, which took an unexpected turn when the country received the highest number of public votes—nearly twice as many as this year’s winner, Austria, who secured victory largely thanks to a significantly stronger performance in the jury vote. This outcome has raised questions about whether the final allocation of points genuinely reflected the artistic merit of the performances, or whether political considerations may have influenced the results. Following the announcement of the results, several broadcasters called for greater transparency and an independent investigation into the voting process, expressing concern over the credibility of the outcome and the potential influence of political tensions on the public vote. 

Conclusion 

In principle, few would disagree that striving to remain non-political is a commendable ambition for a cultural event like Eurovision. The idea of offering a neutral platform where countries come together through music, free from political agendas, is noble and appealing. Yet in today’s geopolitical climate, this ambition increasingly appears idealistic. The EBU, though not a political institution, has been pushed into the role of an involuntary arbitrator—tasked with deciding on the rules and managing a contest that unites participants who differ not only in musical style but also in deeply entrenched political and ideological values. 

Because of the actions and expectations of both states and individuals, the EBU faces difficult decisions that often carry political weight—whether it concerns participation, censorship, or crisis management. Some of these choices may be justified and measured; others have been controversial or inconsistently applied. Regardless, it has become clear to most observers that Eurovision is, and perhaps always has been, political. 

Unfortunately, the history of the contest shows that music alone isn’t enough to overcome political divisions—not even for a single weekend each year. The slogan “United by Music” therefore feels less like a reflection of reality and more like a hopeful ideal— one that becomes increasingly difficult to sustain in the face of mounting political and ideological divides.