The European Broadcasting Company (EBU) for years has touted that the Eurovision Song Contest is apolitical. It’s about love, and music, not about politics. The stance is not new, and it has been in place since 2000 or so. This has also been a hypocritical stance since around 2000.

The stance itself is stated clearly in the Title and Values of the Eurovision Song Contest (ESC)¹. Stating something, and having it be true, however, are two different things. The hypocrisy of the implementation of this rule is widely known and well documented ^{2, 3}.

My goal, however, is to look at this from a different lens.

But first, and to begin, a few notes, specially on the Israel/Palestine controversy (stricto sensu). I’m addressing this conflict in light of the recent outcry over Israel participation in Eurovision, the calls for bans and penalties for breaching the apolitical stance (from all sides), and the televote result in the 2025 edition! Regarding the conflict, I honestly believe we’re able to find any party guilty, depending on how long or short our timeline of events is. That said, the often preached idea that ‘abuses exist from both sides’ ignores the reality on the ground. I personally don’t feel qualified to take a stance - I don’t, nor will I have a definitive opinion on the issue. It’s a complex matter that reasonable specialists disagree on, and I’m not a specialist. Here’s a few examples to illustrate the complexity of the issue:

Does the Hamas violate International Law? Yes, absolutely. Specifically sections regarding using civilian facilities for military goals. That is in fact a war crime, and Israel is justified in attacking any such infrastructure. But the reality on the terrain is that Israel is also bound by the Proportionality Principle, and ignoring it is also a war crime. What’s a proportional response is debatable, but destroying virtually every civilian infrastructure in an area of roughly 365 km square is certainly not proportional response to a terrorist attack that killed 1,139 people. But what is? The USA started a 20 year war on Afghanistan because of the September 11 attacks that killed 2,977 people, and at the beginning no one denied its legitimacy. Is there a threshold between 1,139 and 2,977 where a disproportional response gains legitimacy for a while?

The conflict between Israel and Hamas matter not because the EBU should resolve them, but because it reveals the contradiction in how the EBU applies its apolitical rule. One of the main accusations led against EBU is that it’s driven by money, not ideals. The contest is mainly sponsored by Moroccanoil, a company that, ironically, is Israeli, not Moroccan. The EBU had no problems removing Russia from the contest when it invaded Ukraine, but did nothing about Israel, regardless the outcry of the fans. This makes it seem that the apolitical nature of ESC is measured not by actions, but rather by money - sponsored money to be more precise. But the EBU is neither a public company nor a private one. It’s a non-profit, non-governmental organization that is ruled under Swiss law⁴. It’s an alliance of several networks to help broadcast their programs internationally. Eurovision started as a test drive and tech demo of the live broadcasting across borders.

Herein lies the issue at hand then. It’s the members of the EBU that decide. Russia was removed because the majority of the members of the alliance decided it should. Israel is not removed because between all the members of the EBU there is little to no consensus. The Israel/Palestine subject is complex, but it’s political. Anti-war is allowed, but is war also not political? Carl von Clausewitz famously stated that war is “the continuation of politics by other means”. Gay rights, trans rights, human rights, they’re all political, at times forbidden, often allowed.

I don’t see the apolitical stance as a carte blanche to forbid acts or actions the EBU doesn’t like. It’s more of a don’t-be-controversial stance, more than an apolitical one. Although I don’t have a great deal of problems with this, even if I don’t agree with it, it opens the ESC to this kind of controversy. I’d much rather discuss the ESC on the merits of the acts than on the merits of a poorly named stance. This also lines up with the 2025 problem the contestant from Malta faced. The lyrics, 99% in english, had one word in Maltese that was banned. Why? Because the singer would say multiple times “serving Kant”. If we look at the ruling for this song, as well as the forbidding Palestinian flags - and others - on stage through this lens there’s no hypocrisy. The EBU wants the ESC to be about music, not controversy (latu sensu). I don’t think it’s the right stance, but I do understand it better from this perspective.

References

1: European Broadcasting Union. (2025). The rules of the contest 2025. Eurovision.tv. https://eurovision.tv/about/rules

2: Wikipedia contributors. (n.d.). Controversies of the Eurovision Song Contest. Wikipedia. Retrieved May 19, 2025, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_of_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest

3: verilybitchie. (2023, May 5). The [Queer] Politics of Eurovision [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wnjtzn7ZkCs

4: United Nations. (n.d.). European Broadcasting Union (EBU) – Profile. United Nations Civil Society Database. Retrieved May 19, 2025, from https://esango.un.org/civilsociety/showProfileDetail.do?method=printProfile&profileCode=383&tab=1

Title: The Social Contract
Author: Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Year: 1762

What is it about?

The Social Contract is Rousseau’s seminal work on political philosophy, exploring how individuals can associate while preserving individual freedom. He argues that legitimate government must arise from the general will, a collective agreement that transcends individual desires to serve the common good. The work outlines the principles of sovereignty, law-making, and civic freedom, opposing monarchy and advocating for participatory governance.

Key Takeaways:

Freedom through participation: True liberty is not the ability to do whatever one wants, but obedience to laws one has prescribed for oneself through the general will.
General will vs. individual will: Citizens must subordinate personal interests to the collective good.
Inalienable sovereignty: Sovereignty cannot be transferred or divided; it resides permanently with the people.
Moral education and civic virtue: Stable republics require citizens educated in civic responsibility and virtue.
Warning against factionalism: Rousseau warns that special interests and factions can corrupt the general will.

Thoughts and Ideas

Rousseau’s The Social Contract fundamentally empowers democratic regimes by grounding authority in the collective will rather than divine right or elite interests. His assertion that individuals can be “forced to be free” is not an endorsement of authoritarianism but rather a profound reflection on the necessity of aligning individual freedom with collective good. Rousseau’s definition of freedom, contrasting sharply with the more individualistic and property-centric notions of Anglo-Saxon contractualists like Locke and Hobbes, exemplifies a distinctly continental philosophical tradition — one that prioritizes community and moral autonomy over personal license.

While Rousseau’s insistence on civic virtue may seem idealistic, it serves as a necessary horizon for political life: an aspirational standard against which to measure institutional health. His critique of inequality particularly resonates, laying conceptual groundwork that would later nourish the development of social democracy. Rousseau’s recognition that material disparity corrupts political liberty remains a powerful, prescient insight.

Nonetheless, a tension persists within his theory: the idea that the general will is “always right” risks suppressing dissent and overlooking the people’s capacity for collective error. Rousseau seems to underestimate that a free people may at times choose self-destructive paths, and that real freedom includes the possibility of failure.

Best Quotes:

“The people, being subject to the laws, ought to be the authors of them.”

“Sovereignty, being nothing less than the exercise of the general will, can never be alienated, and that the sovereign, who is a collective being, can be represented only by itself.”

“The social pact, far from destroying natural equality, substitutes, for such physical inequality as nature may have set up between men, a moral and lawful equality.”

“It is precisely because the force of things tends always to destroy equality that the force of legislation must always tend to maintain it.”

Would I recommend it?

Yes, especially for those interested in foundational political thought. It is critical for understanding modern concepts of democracy, citizenship, and state legitimacy. However, readers should approach it critically, recognizing several ambiguities and potential dangers in Rousseau’s argument, notably:
Ambiguity of the general will: Rousseau offers little guidance on how to discern the general will in practice, making it vulnerable to manipulation.
Risk of authoritarianism: The idea that citizens may be “forced to be free” can be interpreted as justifying coercive or totalitarian measures.
Idealism vs. practicality: Rousseau’s vision presupposes a high level of civic virtue and homogeneity that is difficult to realize in large, pluralistic societies.

Notes: I’ve read this book as an assignment for the ‘Political Theory’ course during the Ba in International Relations.

Article: Para uma Teoria Geopolítica do conflito na Europa dos nossos tempos
Author: António Marques Bessa
Year: 1997

Review

The author, António Marques Bessa (1949–2022), was a Portuguese academic with a distinguished career in the fields of Geopolitics and Social Sciences. Upon his passing, Jaime Nogueira Pinto wrote in the newspaper Observador that “with the death of António Marques Bessa […] one of the most interesting thinkers in the country has disappeared.” This remark is well-deserved, considering Bessa’s body of work and academic journey. He began his academic career at the Instituto Superior de Ciências Sociais e Política Ultramarina (ISCSPU), now the Instituto Superior de Ciências Sociais e Políticas (ISCSP) of the University of Lisbon, where he later became a full professor. Over more than 40 years, he taught at ISCSP and held various academic positions, such as Vice President of the Pedagogical Council and Director of the Center for Geopolitical Studies.

In the Portuguese political landscape, Marques Bessa positioned himself critically against progressive ideologies and attempts at cultural and political homogenization. His approach can be seen as a defense of political realism, emphasizing that states continue to act primarily based on their strategic interests, with conflict being an inevitable component of international politics.

His analysis of elites and the organization of political power reveals a tendency toward determinism and behaviorism, aligning with thinkers such as Alan Taylor, Carl Schmitt, and Konrad Lorenz. Furthermore, his view of Europe reflects a certain skepticism regarding European integration and democratic idealism, highlighting the persistence of historical rivalries and national interests over a common European identity.

Marques Bessa made a significant impact on geopolitical thought in Portugal, introducing a strategic and interdisciplinary perspective on international conflicts to academic debate. His legacy remains a fundamental reference for the study of Human Geography and Geopolitics.

This work falls within the domains of geopolitics and human geography, providing an in-depth analysis of conflict in Europe and its historical, territorial, and ethnic roots. The author adopts a realist and historical perspective, challenging the notion of a pacified Europe and highlighting how conflicts are a constant in the organization of states and international relations.

From the outset, Bessa critiques the synchronic view of Europe as a stable space, arguing that this interpretation ignores the historical evolution of territorial and geopolitical disputes. He asserts that Europe has always been a “land of old conflicts” and that its political structure reflects centuries of battles, border redefinitions, and attempts at hegemony. The author traces a detailed historical trajectory, covering events from Roman expansionism to the impact of the world wars and the collapse of the Soviet Union, establishing a continuous thread of territorial disputes.

The issue of borders emerges as one of the central themes of his analysis. For Bessa, borders are not static but dynamic realities shaped by competition between states. In this regard, he draws on Carl Schmitt’s thought and the concept of the nomos of the earth, demonstrating that territorial distribution is never definitive and that geopolitical disputes remain key factors in contemporary international politics. According to the author, war has always been a normal instrument of foreign policy, and the stability of borders is nothing more than a fleeting moment in the history of peoples.

Another central aspect of the book is the role of ethnicity in international conflicts. The author argues that ethnic tensions are a structural factor in geopolitics, often ignored by states attempting to impose models of national homogenization. He examines the collapse of multiethnic states such as Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, as well as persistent tensions in regions like the Balkans, the Caucasus, and Central Europe. Bessa suggests that ethnic identity, far from being a relic of the past, continues to play a fundamental role in shaping international conflicts.

From a methodological standpoint, the work combines history, politics, and geography to construct a comprehensive analysis of conflict in Europe. The author adopts an interdisciplinary perspective, using concepts from geopolitics, elite theory, and political history to support his argument. While acknowledging the existence of cooperation mechanisms, he prioritizes the dynamics of competition and antagonism between states.

Despite António Marques Bessa’s contributions to the analysis of European conflicts, the geopolitical approach itself presents structural limitations that warrant scrutiny. Classical geopolitics, influenced by thinkers such as Friedrich Ratzel (1987) and Halford Mackinder (1904), has been criticized for its geographical determinism, which tends to reduce political and social dynamics to an immutable territorial logic. Yves Lacoste (1976) argues that geopolitics often oversimplifies the relationship between space and power, overlooking the influence of economic, ideological, and institutional factors in shaping international relations. Edward Said (1978) and Benedict Anderson (1983) also highlight that the construction of borders and national identities is a political and cultural process rather than a direct reflection of geographical conditions. Additionally, scholars like Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye (1977) demonstrate that global interdependence and the role of international organizations challenge the traditional geopolitical view that territorial conflict is inevitable. By emphasizing competition and the struggle for space, geopolitics may neglect the new dynamics of global power, such as the influence of financial markets, technology, and soft power, which are essential for understanding the contemporary international system.

In terms of academic contribution, For a Geopolitical Theory of Conflict in the Europe of Our Times offers an intriguing perspective on European conflicts, addressing territorial and ethnic dynamics with a critical and well-informed approach. The author presents a detailed analysis of the continent’s major historical conflicts, supported by an extensive bibliography and references to classical geopolitical thought. The book may be particularly useful for students and researchers interested in understanding the relationships between space, power, and conflict, although Bessa’s approach favors competition among states over dynamics of cooperation and integration. While some of his interpretations may be debated in light of recent geopolitical transformations, the book provides a well-grounded reflection on the unstable nature of borders and the recurrence of conflicts in Europe.

In conclusion, António Marques Bessa offers a provocative and well-substantiated analysis of the geopolitics of conflict, emphasizing the continuity of territorial disputes and the relevance of ethnic identities in international politics. Despite some limitations, such as underestimating the role of international institutions and the new dynamics of globalization, the work remains a fundamental reference for the study of political geography and international relations.

Bibliography

Anderson, B. (1983) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Verso

Keohane, R., & Nye, J. (1977) Power and interdependence: World politics in transition. Little, Brown.

Lacoste, Y. (1976) La géographie, ça sert, d’abord, à faire la guerre [A geografia serve, antes de mais nada, para fazer a guerra]. François Maspero

Mackinder, H. J. (1904) The geographical pivot of history. The Geographical Journal, 23(4), 421–437

Marques Bessa, A. (1997) “Para uma teoria geopolítica do conflito na Europa do nosso tempo”, Intervenção Universitária 9, Universidade Moderna

Nogueira Pinto, J. (2022) “Um homem livre: António Marques Bessa (1949-2022)”, Jornal Observador, https://www.observador.pt visitado a 9 de fevereiro de 2025

Ratzel, F. (1897) Politische Geographie oder die Geographie der Staaten, des Verkehrs und des Krieges [Geografia Politica ou a Geografia dos Estados, Transporte e Guerra]. Oldenbourg

Said, E. W. (1978) Orientalism. Pantheon Books

Notes: I’ve wrote the review to this booklet as an assignment for the ‘Human Geography’ course during the Ba in International Relations. It was published here a few days after it was due, translated from the original in Portuguese.

Title: The Prince
Author: Niccolò Machiavelli
Year: 1532

What is it about?

The Prince is a political treatise by Niccolò Machiavelli, written in the early 16th century, offering a pragmatic and often ruthless guide to power. It focuses on how rulers can maintain control, navigate political instability, and handle both allies and enemies. It departs from idealistic visions of governance and instead embraces a realistic, sometimes cynical, view of power, advocating for deception, manipulation, and even cruelty when necessary. It is often regarded as the foundation of Classical Political Realism.

Thoughts and Ideas

The book is a masterpiece of political theory, stripping away the moralistic approach to governance and exposing the raw mechanics of power. Machiavelli’s realism is what makes The Prince timeless—he acknowledges that rulers must often choose between what is morally right and what is politically effective. His emphasis on adaptability, the use of fear over love when necessary, and the role of fortune in politics are especially compelling. While many have labeled the book as cynical or even immoral, I see it as brutally honest; it does not advocate tyranny but rather explains how power actually functions.

Best Quotes

“It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.”

“A wise prince ought never to keep faith when by doing so it would be against his interests.”

“Men are so simple, and so much creatures of circumstance, that he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived.”

“He who wishes to be obeyed must know how to command.”

Would I recommend it?

Absolutely. The Prince is essential reading for anyone interested in political theory, international relations, or leadership. It remains relevant today, especially in understanding realpolitik, diplomacy, and power dynamics in any hierarchical system. While it may not provide an ethical guide to governance, it offers an invaluable lens through which to analyze politics as it actually works.

Notes: I’ve read this book for the first time when trying to understand if I wanted to study International Relations, and again as an assignment for the ‘Political Theory’ course during the Ba in International Relations.

Article: The Case for Colonialism
Author: Bruce Gilley
Year: 2018

Thoughts and Ideas

In this article, the author presents a direct and unapologetic critique of anticolonialism. He argues that colonialism had a positive civilizational impact and that anticolonial movements ultimately hindered the progress of former European colonies. To support his claims, he provides structured examples illustrating how aspects of colonial rule benefited self-governance in post-colonial states.

Gilley identifies three fundamental flaws in anti-colonial arguments:

That colonialism was objectively harmful. That it was subjectively illegitimate. That it offends modern sensibilities. To counter the first argument, Gilley highlights former colonies that preserved colonial institutions to strengthen their governance, reinforcing his thesis that colonialism had a civilizing effect. He further argues that colonized populations often supported and cooperated with the colonizing powers. This ties into his second point on legitimacy—he asserts that both local leaders and the general population conferred legitimacy on colonial rule.

Finally, he challenges the claim that colonialism is offensive to modern sensibilities by citing contemporary examples that parallel colonial structures, such as the Port of Jakarta, the Solomon Islands, and Sierra Leone.

While Gilley’s arguments are well-structured, there seems to be a critical gap in his reasoning. The issue, arguably, was not just poor colonial governance (though it undeniably existed) but also the failures of decolonization. His argument appears selective, relying on cherry-picked examples to support his thesis, making it ultimately unconvincing.

Notes: I’ve read this paper as a sugestion by the professor of the ‘History of Modern Colonisation and Decolonisation’ course during the Ba in International Relations.

Article: The Republic
Author: Plato
Year: ~400 BC

Thoughts and Ideas

Plato has a pessimistic view of the progression of political regimes. His thesis can be summarized in three key points:

1. Political regimes are in a constant state of degeneration.
2. The primary moderators of a regime’s degeneration are the quality of education and the erosion of values and social structure.
3. A just society, in order to remain just, must create a separation of classes based on the abilities of its citizens.

When these key moderators fail, individuals without the proper vocation begin to rise to positions of power, which is the main cause of a regime’s decline. The first stage of this decline leads to a Timocracy, where leadership is no longer in the hands of the best, but rather those who are lovers of honor and war. If the underlying issues remain unaddressed, the regime further degenerates into an Oligarchy, where the wealthy rule to maintain and expand their wealth. The process of decline continues into Democracy, where governance serves only the self-interest of the people, and excessive freedom and equality prevail. This unchecked degeneration ultimately leads to a loss of confidence in the system and the rise of Demagogues, who promise the masses what they want to hear.

Eventually, among these demagogues, one emerges with the courage to tell the people what they already suspect—that the regime has rotted from within. These bold demagogues are elevated to the status of Leader. However, due to the very way they rise to power, such a demagogue possesses the nature of a Tyrant. This nature often leads to their initial exile, but this is only temporary, as their removal does not fix the structural decay of the regime.

In time, the demagogue returns to the Polis and once again seeks to become the Leader. At this point, they either meet death at the hands of their opponents or achieve absolute power. By this stage, their transformation into a Tyrant is complete. They eliminate opposition and begin raising taxes to burden the population with concerns over their own survival, thereby weakening any resistance.

Next, they create the necessity for war, ensuring that the people remain in need of a strong leader. The tyrant, now firmly in power, lives in constant fear, surrounding themselves with despicable individuals and maintaining a permanent guard, as they are consumed by irrational desires—symptoms of the regime’s complete degeneration. The people, in turn, are reduced to mere subjects, treated as slaves.

Plato does not foresee a return to Kallipolis (the ideal state).

Notes: I’ve read this book as an assignment for the ‘Political Theory’ course during the Ba in International Relations.

Article: An approach to the analysis of Political Systems
Author: David Easton
Year: 1957

Thoughts and Ideas

In this foundational work, the author analyzes political systems through the lens of systems theory. For David Easton, a Political System is any system that produces political decisions of various kinds. This system operates within an environment that influences it through supports or demands (inputs), which, once processed by the system, generate decisions or policies (outputs). These outputs, in turn, act as stimuli for other systems in the surrounding environment, triggering new inputs for the political system under analysis.

A political system is entropic when it progressively loses the ability to process inputs and generate effective outputs that respond to the demands of its environment. This failure creates a negative feedback loop in which increasing demands and decreasing support further weaken the system’s functionality. When the system can no longer adapt or produce outputs that sustain its own stability, it reaches a state of maximum entropy, becoming dysfunctional and facing either collapse or radical transformation.

Notes: I’ve read this article as a sugestion by the ‘Theories of International Relations’ course and ‘International Politics’ course professors during the Ba in International Relations.

Article: The Geographical Pivot of History
Author: Halford J. Mackinder
Year: 1904

Thoughts and Ideas

The author predicts that in the new, post-Columbian era, all explosions of social forces will echo across the globe, rather than dissipating due to lack of contact. This thesis, although seemingly plausible at first glance, ignores the fact that this is not something new. The event that gave rise to the so-called Columbian era - discoveries - was kicked of due to the fall of Constantinople which cut Europe off from trade with the East, the Schism of the Western Catholic Church and the Reformation which put the Church of Rome at risk, and the technological advances made by Islam that made their way to the Iberian Peninsula.

The author argues that modern Europe was born due to the pressures caused by invasions from Asia. The way the author writes seems to imply that Europe is an inevitable consequence of these invasions, an almost deterministic argument. This thesis ignores that Europe could have been very different if the Umayyads had not been defeated at the Battle of Tours in 732 or the Ottomans at the Siege of Vienna in 1638.

Jared Diamond’s thesis, in “Guns, Germs and Steel” is much more complete, mainly in the deterministic sense of the European domination of the Globe and how Geography, but also Biology and the political characteristics of the continent drove the European exploration of the globe.

Notes: I’ve read this paper as a ‘Human Geography’ course assignment during the Ba in International Relations.

Title: Meditations
Author: Marcus Aurelius
Year: 1558

What is it about?

These are the First Citizen’s thoughts on how to live life using the principles of Stoicism. Marcus Aurelius writes about how to live in a tranquil way and how to treat others.

Key takeaways

The Universe is indifferent, and we will encounter difficulties throughout life. The best way to face these difficulties is to be mentally prepared for when they happen. Live life with compassion, and don’t expect from others something they can’t give you, because often they are as lost, or more, than you. You will die one day, be aware of this so as not to put off until later what you can do now. Accept the Universe as it is, not as you would like it to be.

Best Quotes

“You have power over your mind - not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength.”

“The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts.”

“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.”

“Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one.”

“If someone is able to show me that what I think or do is not right, I will happily change, for I seek the truth, by which no one was ever truly harmed. It is the person who continues in his self-deception and ignorance who is harmed.”

“If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it.”

“What we do today, echoes in eternity.”

Would I recommend it?

Yes. The book was not written as a book, this is historically known, and obvious when you read it. It is clearly just the Emperor’s thoughts, like in a personal journal, hence why the book repeats a lot of ideas and thoughts. Nevertheless, the message it conveys is quite valid, in my opinion.

Notes: I’ve read this book because I was on a personal journey to understand Stoicism, both in relation to ‘cognitive behaviour therapy’, as well as politics.

Article: Idealist internationalism and the security dilemma
Author: John Herz
Year: 1950

Thoughts and Ideas

This paper explores the historical struggle of human societies with the security dilemma—the persistent tension between power politics and utopian Political Idealism. It examines how, in an anarchic international system, states and groups seeking to enhance their security inadvertently generate insecurity for others, fueling cycles of tension and competition even in the absence of aggressive intentions.

The introduction outlines the paper’s focus on the security dilemma as a fundamental social dynamic, where interconnected groups coexist without a unifying higher authority, leading to perpetual concerns over security and power competition. It also contrasts Political Realism and Political Idealism, analyzing their influence on social and political movements over time.

Key themes of the paper include:

• The enduring relevance of the security dilemma, highlighting how structural conditions, rather than malicious intent, often drive conflict.
• The necessity of balancing ethical ideals with natural forces, advocating for restraint and peace as counterweights to the cosmic struggle for existence.
• The potential of Realist Liberalism, a synthesis of Political Realism’s pragmatic insights and Political Idealism’s aspirations, as a more sustainable path toward human freedom.

By bridging Realism and Idealism, the paper argues for a nuanced approach that acknowledges both the constraints of power politics and the transformative potential of ethical governance.

Notes: I’ve read this paper as a sugestion by the ‘Theories of International Relations’ course professor during the Ba in International Relations.