The inherent retentiveness of conservatism
benefits a society because it need not “reinvent the wheel” in “starting from scratch,”
as resort can be made to customs that have been efficacious. Unfortunately,
conservatism can easily be in denial as to the need for adaptation to changes
whether in geopolitical institutions or in culture. The advent of the European
Union as a federal system of dual-sovereignty has been easy fodder for
conservatism’s proclivity of denial with regard to very new things. Eurovision,
too, was an invention beyond even the European Union, and thus also of the
post-World-War-II history of integration meant in part as a check on the full-blown
nationalism that had twice decimated Europe in the twentieth century. So it is
problematic that the EBU, the organization behind the Eurovision Song Contest, has
made so many category mistakes involving Europe in favor of nationalism.
The epitome of EBU’s bias and
inconsistencies is the decision taken first to ban altogether and then relegate
the E.U.’s flag while giving the state flags pride of place on stage, as if
Eurovision were a political rather than an entertainment event. It was as if
the EBU and the Swiss government were conveniently oblivious to the notion and
instantiation of an empire-scale federal system of states. The notion that a
person could be a citizen both of a union and one’s own state, and thus be
under two flags at once, had been invented by political compromise in
1787. So, it was odd that in 2025, the performers who were E.U. citizens were
to be denied the opportunity to show the E.U. flag, whereas bringing along the
state flags was permissible. It was, in
effect, to say, you can vote for your representative in the European Parliament,
but you cannot hold or wear the E.U. flag under which that parliament is instantiated
as a legislative body. This inconsistency is at the very least consistent with
the anti-federalist, Euroskeptic political ideology, and thus partisan in
nature. Even worse, the decision fuels the sort of nationalism out of which two
World Wars had destroyed Europe in the last century.
Even though Switzerland is not
an E.U. state, the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation announced in May of 2025 that
performers would not be allowed to bring the E.U. flag on the main stage, the
turquoise carpet, and even in the green room. In obfuscating the E.U. flag with
those of “personal, cultural or regional identity,”[1]
the Swiss government was making a category mistake, for to liken the E.U. flag
with a gay-rights flag, for example, is to ignore the major difference between
a cultural movement and a union that has executive, legislative, and judicial branches
at the federal level. Neither was the E.U. “a network,” as David Cameron
infamously said of the E.U. when Britain was a state thereof. In fact, Britain
seceded in large part in rejection of the fact that governmental sovereignty
had already been split between the state and federal levels.
Lest Euroskeptics raise alarm
bells, a federal union can exist in theory and practice without the federal
level being recognized as a state internationally, for governmental
institutions can indeed exist without constituting a state in the sense of
having exclusive competency in foreign affairs. That governmental sovereignty
can be divided does not necessarily mean that foreign policy and defense are
completely federalized (i.e., E.U. exclusive competencies, or enumerated
powers). Yet in terms of government, laws can be passed at both the state and
federal level with binding legal force, hence the sovereignty enjoyed at the
federal union level by executive, legislative, and judicial branches is
distinct from the sovereignty retained by the states.
Therefore, that the “same rule
applies to the Rainbow flag” as the E.U. flag “and the Palestinian flag” points
to a logical inconsistency founded on a category mistake, but actually founded
on a political ideology that is against the European Union.[2]
Regarding the Palestinian flag, that Eurovision considered Israel to be European
also represents a logical problem, for Israel is a sovereign state occupying
Palestine in the Middle East, which is distinct from Europe geographically and
culturally.
Furthermore, in refusing to exclude
Israel from the competition, Eurovision was in denial, in effect, regarding the
fact that the Israeli government had been blocking food and medicine from Gaza
for more than a month as the 1.2 million captives in Gaza starved, as if each
one had been culpable on October 7, 2023. In fact, on the day after the announcement
on the E.U. flag being relegated to the background at Eurovision, essentially
putting the state flags in front as if the states were still completely
sovereign, Israel’s prime minister announced to the world that “full force”
would be mustered against the inhabitants of Gaza.[3]
Also on the day after the
Swiss announcement, lest the world of entertainment be assumed to be completely
passive in the midst of the exterminating atrocity in Gaza, a “group of more
than 350 international actors, directors and producers . . . signed a letter
published on the first day of the Cannes Film Festival condemning the killing
of Fatma Hassouna, the 25-year-old Palestinian photojournalist and protagonist
of the documentary Put Your Soul on Your Hand and Walk. Hassouna was
killed along with 10 relatives in an Israeli air strike on her family home in
northern Gaza {in April, 2025}, the day after the documentary was announced as
part of the ACID Cannes selection.”[4]
The letter pointed to the “shame” in the film industry’s “passivity.”[5]
Passivity, as well as shame, can also applied to the EBU of the Eurosong Contest
because it ignored a letter yet again in 2025 “calling for Israel to be banned
from Eurovision” so the EBU would not be “normalizing and whitewashing” Israel’s
war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.[6]
That the EBU had banned Russia even though at least part of Russia is in Europe
sheds light on the rule by double-standards at Eurovision.
In such a condition, perhaps
no flags at all should have been allowed in the vicinity of the song contest.
Why open the door to explicit politics anyway, given that EBU’s handling of the
political domain was itself so controversial, and, I contend, impaired even
just from the standpoint of logic and consistency? I submit that the ideology
of nationalism, which had given the world two major wars in the twentieth
century and was allowing Israel to so abuse its national sovereignty, had
become too engrained in the song contest. If the history of European
integration after World War II, which includes Euroatom and the European Coal
and Steel Cooperative, can be interpreted as a series of efforts to check
nationalism, then the E.U. flag should be highlighted rather than relegated to
the periphery if political flags are to be allowed at an entertainment venue
at all, which itself is problematic and seems to incur a category mistake. Should
Eurovision be assigned as a political or an entertainment event? Passivity on even this basic question can be
regarded as blameworthy.
1. Jorge Liboreiro, “Eurovision
Will Allow European Flag for Fans in the Audience but Not for Artists on Stage,”
Euronews.com, May 13, 2025.
2. Ibid.
3. Gavin
Blackburn, “Israeli
Military to Continue Gaza Operation ‘With Full Force’ in Next Days, Netanyahu
Says,” Euronews.com, May 14, 2025.
4. David Mouriquand, “More
than 350 Stars Condemn Gaza ‘Genocide’ in Open Letter in Time for Cannes
Opening,” Euronews.com, May 14, 2025.
5. Ibid.
6. David Mouriquand, “Eurovision’s
Israel Contestant Yuval Raphael’s ‘Expecting’ Booing During This Year’s
Competition,” Eurovision.com, May 13, 2025.
