What's in a name?

Earlier this month the official slogan for the 2013 Eurovision Song Contest was unveiled. We Are One. Prior to the introduction of a generic logo for Eurovision in 2004, the logos for Eurovision were different each year which excited and exasperated fans in equal measure. Since 2002 a further slogan or theme was adopted every year (with the exception of 2009). These slogans and themes have become part of the branding of the event, a way for the host country to make their mark in addition to using the generic Eurovision logo. Whilst at first glance the slogans Modern Fairy Tale, Awakening and We Are One might seem somewhat innocuous, however, on closer inspection they can reveal much more about the country promoting the message and the wider political context.

Estonia's theme from 2002, Modern Fairy Tale, was used as a way of not only showcasing the country but also as an avenue for telling a story about the country itself. It is no accident that Sleeping Beauty was the choice fairy tale in the postcard leading up to the Estonian performance. The modern fairy tale can actually be seen as a metaphor for how Estonians see their own history:

If Estonia were a fairy tale, it could perhaps be likened to Sleeping Beauty. Having awoken from the ice cold slumbers of Soviet Rule, Estonia today is a bold, young country, vibrant with creative energy and eager to take its place in Europe (Rene Vilbre cited in The official programme of the 47th Eurovision Song Contest 2002)



Turkey's theme from 2004, Under the Same Sky, might at first sound like a fluffy slogan but given the wider political context it can be read as Turkey opting to promote itself as an equal, European country, under the same sky as the rest of Europe, namely the European Union, which Turkey first applied for membership in 1987. Turkey's victory in the 2003 contest and the opportunity to stage the event in 2004 were seen as important breakthroughs by the political elite in the country. 2004 also marked the first time that Turkey has voted for Cyprus in Eurovision. 

Kyiv in 2005 remains one of the more politically charged contests over the past decade (2012 aside) and their theme of Awakening was a very obvious point in hand. Given that the Eurovision Song Contest was taking place in a country which only months before had been the focal point of the world's attention as a result of political protests, it is perhaps unsurprising that the contest that year was tinged with political rhetoric. Whilst the theme was not overtly political per se, the developments going on behind the scenes in Ukraine in 2005 definitely were. The then President, Viktor Yushchenko planned to make a lengthy speech on the Eurovision stage. The EBU did not allow this to go ahead although Yushchenko did still appear to present Greece's Elena Paparizou with her winning trophy.

The EBU continuously reinforce the point that Eurovision is not a political event. This is strictly true but it has and does become politicised whether the organisers like it or not. These slogans can serve as a platform for articulating political message in a subtle manner. It's soft politics, however, it is still politics.

The theme for 2013, We Are One, is an interesting concept. It presents Europe and Eurovision nations as united entities. This is at a time when Portugal, Turkey, Bosnia Herzegovina and Slovakia have all withdrawn from the contest in the last year. It is also a time when Europe as a social, economic and political construct is fractured. Recent debates concerning the Euro, bailouts and the UK referendum on the EU highlight that Europe is anything but at one. This is where Eurovision is powerful. For one night only, Europe sits down and watches a television programme in unison. It is unique in the television year and an opportunity for escapism. Despite some pretty naff slogans along the way, Eurovision has continued as a format for nearly 60 years and given the wider developments going on in Europe today, it appears that is it an event which is stilled needed just as much as it ever was.



It's going to be a hot summer...

Well certainly not in terms of the weather that's for sure!

After the dust has settled on Eurovision 2012 it appears that the authorities in Azerbaijan are starting to take action against those pesky human rights campaigners who were part of the Sing for Democracy campaign back in May. After the contest, Ali Hasanov, released a statement condemning those who had been involved in several peaceful protests during the run-up to Eurovision in Baku. "Such people shouldn't feel they can dare to go out in the city; they should feel ashamed". Hasanov had previously stated that there would be no retaliation against protestors, something which seemed to appease the EBU at least. However this seems to be nothing more than lip-service, as expected. On 13 June Mehman Huseynov, media coordinator of the Sing for Democracy campaign, was arrested and detained for "acts of hooliganism" (didn't the authorities pay attention to the antics of many Euro fans during the week??) Whilst Huseynov has now been released, he faces a criminal case which could see him serving a lengthy prison sentence. Meanwhile journalists who criticise the government continue to be arrested. It's situations like this that remind me personally that we are very lucky in the UK (and other countries) to live in a society free from fear of persecution and intimidation. Sing for Democracy were, in my opinion, fine ambassadors for Azerbaijan. The people I spoke with were eloquent, informed and more importantly, used peaceful means to spread their message. As far as protesters go, they could teach our lot a thing or two about dignity!

Does all this mean that Eurovision should never have been in Azerbaijan? Not quite. For the first time ever a huge spotlight shone on Azerbaijan's human rights record. This was specifically because of Eurovision. The contest allowed the pro-reform protesters a voice and a platform. For civil society in a young democracy this is surely a good thing. It's saddening to hear that those who worked so hard to raise awareness of the situation in Azerbaijan are now facing repercussions. However I genuinely hope that the seeds of change have been planted and that maybe Eurovision did have a positive impact in terms of raising awareness and opening a dialogue in the country. There were calls for the boycott of Eurovision this year. This sort of misses the point. The EBU is not a political organisation and amongst the list of members are countries which have a dubious record on human rights at best. The time for questioning Azerbaijan's eligibility to be a part of Eurovision was back in 2008 when the country joined the contest. It'll certainly be a tricky time for the EBU should Belarus win in future! 

Sing for Democracy made major strides in those few weeks in the run-up to the contest. Baku may have lost out on the 2020 Olympic bid but I dare say that there will be other opportunities for that spotlight to shine in the future. The everyday people I met in Baku were absolutely delightful, for that reason alone, 2012 could quite possibly be my favourite Eurovision ever and I hope for their sake that basic human rights are upheld in Azerbaijan in future. 

In other news (or not news as the case may be) in June the Daily Mail reported that the BBC were embroiled in a "Eurovision race row" and that several "senior figures" connected to a number of previous UK entrants had gone on the record to state that they thought racism was a factor in Britain's recent flops at Eurovision and that the UK should withdraw from the competition altogether. The (poorly written) article alluded to racism behind the scenes of the contest itself. If racism is alive and well at Eurovision then how did Estonia win in 2001 with a black singer? How did the UK finish second in 1998 with Imaani (the first black UK representative)? How did the Netherlands end up in fourth place that year? How did Sweden's Loreen, who has Moroccan heritage and performed with a black dancer, storm to victory in 2012? 

Only this week Andrew Lloyd-Webber waded into the row by stating that the UK was the victim of racism in 2009. His argument holds no water. Jade Ewen came 5th out of a field of 42 in 2009, our strongest showing in the best part of a decade. Her placing can hardly be seen as a failure and she received votes from both East and West. Lloyd-Webber's comments personify and embody all that is wrong with the British attitude towards Eurovision. Why do we arrograntly assume that we are the best? Andy Abraham had a very weak song in 2008 and was rewarded with just 14 points for it. The UK public didn't buy the single either. Like Josh Dubovie in 2010, Jade Ewen in 2009 and Engelbert this year, if the British public can't get behind the song then how can we expect our cousins on the continent to vote for it? We shouldn't be so arrogant to assume that it must be someone else's fault, that we deserve to do well just for showing up. Maybe, just maybe, the likes of Javine and Andy Abraham just weren't good enough. Quite frankly Lloyd-Webber was lucky to finish 5th with such a bland, clichéd and repetitive song! Jade Ewen, a fantastic singer and wonderful ambassador for the UK, deserved better. 

Such reporting and blanket statements from unnamed sources do not add anything to a serious debate on a pertinent issue. On the one hand it could be argued that overt racism does appear to be a major problem, perhaps more so in the East, if recent concerns over Euro 2012 are anything to go by. Certainly Gaitana, the Ukrainian singer in 2012 faced racism from her own politicians when one minister stated that she shouldn't performing in Eurovision because she failed to represent "organic Ukrainian culture". However TV bosses stood firm and Gaitana represented her country with the anthemic, "Be My Guest". Her selection as the face of Ukraine at Eurovision was certainly an interesting one in the year that racism in Ukraine was in the spotlight as a result of the country hosting Euro 2012. In a field of 42, Gaitana finished 15th. Is this racism? I doubt it. Something like this can never really be proven which is the difficulty in having a sensible debate about it.

The article from the Daily Mail and Andrew Lloyd-Webber's comments have merely turned something which wasn't news (it only appeared because it was a slow news day) into something which is even less than a storm in a teacup. If anything, rather than racism, it screams of good old-fashioned sour grapes to me.