First published on 25.07.2012.
The political dimensions of the London Olympics will be far more unpredictable than in previous years. Traditionally the divisions were rigid ones, based on Cold War rivalries or some other major fault lines of importance to the global order. At the core of the political tensions were the aspirations of the Soviet Union and its allies to be seen as outdoing the West. Although containing some impressive individual performances (including some by Cuban athletes) this “soft power” offensive was tarnished by systemic drug use especially by East Germany/DDR. The other two major points of controversy were the question about representation of China as well as the role of the Apartheid South African regime at the Olympics.
All of these issues were highly politically charged and led to some episodes of boycotts far more substantive than witnessed in the case of the recent activities pertaining to the Euro football competition with respect to Ukraine. Triggered by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan there were matching boycotts at the Moscow 1980 and Los Angeles 1984 Olympics (with one result being a flood of medals for Western countries in the latter competition). A boycott was also applied by many ‘Third World’ countries against the participation of Apartheid South Africa, notably at the 1968 Mexico City Games. And the People’s Republic of China refused to participate at the 1956 Olympics due to the inclusion of Taiwan/Republic of China.
By way of contrast internal political tensions only came to the fore on rare occasions, notably with regard to the “Black Power” salute given by two medal winning African- American track stars at the Mexico City games. In overall terms the Olympics has a reputation of control in which dissent is subordinated to order.
At the London Olympics we can expect the political dimension to come out in unanticipated ways. Some individual athletes will try to circumvent controls on the use of social media especially in terms of endorsements. And the politics of representation will play out in a number of cases, as highlighted by the refusal of South Sudan-born marathon runner Guor Marial to participate as part of Sudan’s team – winning the right to participate under the Olympics flag as South Sudan is not yet a member of the International Olympics Committee.
Moving from politics to celebrity culture the absence of David Beckham from Great Britain’s football team is a huge loss (although there are reports he will have pivotal role in Friday’s Opening ceremonies), and one that is disappointing given Beckham’s impressive efforts to win London the Olympics in the first place. This is not to say that there will not be other formidable celebrity star power on display in London, from Michael Phelps, to Usain Bolt, Serena Williams, Marta, Yekaterina Gamov, and Liu Xiang never mind famous members of the US new “dream team” in basketball. But thereremains a gap in the sense that none of these athletes seem to have the will or capacity to move from a commercial orientation in their “off the field” roles to policy activism.
An interesting if complex theme to watch for is any spillover from the Arab Spring into the London Olympics. As showcased in a number of media stories, some athletes from Egypt, Yemen and Tunisia among other countries took part in regime change activities. Many more will be competing for the first time under transformed political conditions. There is also a fascinating gender dimension, with Saudi Arabia naming two women athletes to their Olympic team (albeit both live and train outside the Kingdom) and Qatar planning to have a female athlete carrying its flag at the opening ceremonies. While there will continue to be a lot of debate about the motivations and implications of these moves, the shift in position of these countries – along with Brunei – means that every participating country will have some form of female representation at the London Olympics.
