The Political Theatre of the Olympic Games
The complicated relationship between international sport and politics highlighted on the world stage.
‘No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in the Olympic areas.’
Word-for-word, this is a rule explicitly written within the Olympic Charter, a point of emphasis expressed by the IOC to reinforce their intentions of a politically neutral Olympic Games.
And yet since the inception of the modern Olympics, the international games have played host to the brilliant feats of champion athletes, together with the disruption of politics in the form of protests, boycotts, and propaganda.
Despite the IOC coming out on numerous occasions to stress the importance of “peace at the Olympics” and that “the Olympic Games are not about politics”, no global sporting event has reflected the world’s political climate as much as the Olympics has throughout modern history.
Every great movement in history can be characterized by its symbols and how they are expressed by the people that it represents. Think about the peace symbol, the pride flag, the Nazi Swastika, and even the Olympic Rings. Each holds significance for the movement it symbolizes and the message that it conveys.
In the 1960s, one symbol held prominence, taking center stage at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City.
During the medal ceremony for the men’s 200-meter sprint, Tommie Smith and John Carlos from the USA, stepped onto the podium to accept their medals for 1st and 3rd place. As the national anthem of the Unites States played in the background, both Carlos and Smith bowed their heads, raising their black-gloved fists into the air in honor of the Black Power movement and as a statement against the racial injustices and oppression suffered by Black people all over the world.
Their defiant gesture sparked an uproar in the international community, where the athletes were equally vilified, threatened and celebrated for their political statement to the world. Smith would later explain, “My raised right hand stood for the power within Black America. Carlos’s left hand stood for the unity of Black America. Together, they formed an arch of unity and power.”
In 1968, the spotlight on the Olympics had grown wider, and with a global audience watching against the backdrop of the political climate in the 1960s, the silent protest demonstrated by Smith and Carlos was understood by people everywhere.
Protests at the Olympics have never just been limited to the demonstrations of individual athletes, and throughout the history of the games entire countries have also participated in their own form of political protest, using boycotts as a means to convey a message to the rest of the world.
In 1936, Spain boycotted the Berlin Games over political differences with the host country and, in the same year, Ireland boycotted over the division of Northern Ireland from their official team. These two boycotts would set a precedent followed by many other countries throughout the 20th century.
In the 1980 Moscow, Cold War politics found itself mixed in with the Olympics as the United States refused to participate in the games due to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. They were joined by 62 other countries who also skipped that year’s Games including Japan and West Germany. Four years later, the Soviet Union boycotted the 1984 Los Angeles Games, citing “security reasons”, but many saw their actions as a response to the 1980 mass boycott in Moscow.
Perhaps the most notable of boycotts took place in the lead-up to the 1976 Games in Montreal. 26 African Nations removed their athletes from the Olympics due to the IOC’s refusal to ban New Zealand from participating in the games after their rugby team had toured the apartheid state of South Africa despite international pressure against the tour. At the time, South Africa had been banned from the Olympics for their apartheid policies, but the position held by the IOC regarding New Zealand’s participation incensed the African nations, forcing a large-scale walkout right before the opening ceremony of the 1976 Games and affecting the event financially and athletically.
The boycotts in 1976 renewed debates about the separation of sport from politics, and for the African nations, they viewed the Games as an opportunity to broadcast their fight against apartheid to the world, turning Olympic participation itself into a political tool.
At an even larger scale, host countries have used the Olympics as a political vehicle to portray their country in a much more positive light. With the entire world watching, the Games have become an important tool for propaganda, used to highlight the host country’s strengths and flex their place in the world, while moving the spotlight away from their political issues.
The most notable example of this would be in 1936, when the Olympics were hosted in Berlin with Hitler and the Nazis in power of Germany. Many countries had threatened to boycott the Berlin Olympics, citing strong diasgreement with Germany’s racist policies and human rights violations but for Hitler and the Nazis, the Olympics presented an opportune moment in time. The German goverment took full advantage of the international spotlight, using the opportunity to convey their country as a new, progressive nation while also highlighting its pro-Aryan propaganda.
Similarly, in 2008, China played host to the Olympics in Beijing amidst internationl scrutiny against their human rights records, the notorious smog and pollution in Beijing, and their stance on Tibet. Many countries voiced their concerns, but for China, the Olympics served as an occasion to both inspire national pride within their own country and to bolster its own legitimacy on the world stage, as leaders used the event to reassure the world that a rising China posed no danger to the international community.
Historian Zheng Wang wrote that, “hosting the 2008 Summer Olympics was a symbol of China’s rejuvenation … [and] through the extravagant opening ceremony, the Chinese government showcased China’s historical glory and new achievements … unassailable evidence that China had finally ‘made it’.”
Even today, following the most recent Tokyo Olympics, concerns had been raised in terms of continuing to run the Games despite the global COVID-19 pandemic, with infections increasing to record levels in the Japanese capital. Despite the IOC adamantly stating that the Olympics are not supposed to be political, how can politics be avoided when attempting to host an event of this scale and complexity in the midst of a global pandemic?
The Olympics have held significance for bringing nations together to celebrate feats of athleticism, competition, and fair play — that is a fact that cannot be denied. But to downplay its part in world politics would deny its overall impact on world history, as no sporting event in the world has done as much as the Olympics in terms of mixing politics and sport together.
Despite the IOC’s best intentions for a ‘politically neutral event’, when the world gathers at such a scale, there is always a chance for political drama to unfold, and against the international spotlight, both the brilliance of athletes and the political contexts in which they compete within are highlighted greater on the world stage.
