Ireland’s recent Eurovision boycott and the debate over the Occupied Territories Bill have drawn attention to the role of sanctions and boycotts in the modern political arena. With a global politics ruled by dysfunction and disaffection in the face of rolling catastrophes, it’s easy to wonder about boycotts which, like that of the Eurovision Song Contest, strike people as surprising ethical front lines.

It’s not immediately obvious how boycotting a campy, polyglot song contest could be politically impactful. However, disproportionate national investment and investigations of voting campaigns suggest that Eurovision is regarded as a key soft power vehicle with which Israel seeks to renormalise its place in the global consciousness.

As is well known here, the term “boycott” came from the public response to the activities of land agent Charles Boycott. In 1880, Boycott managed Lord Erne’s Mayo tenancies and, following a disappointing agricultural year, refused his tenants’ request for a 25 per cent rent reduction. Eviction notices were served.

Following earlier recommendations from Charles Stewart Parnell, who urged complete ostracism of those acting against tenants’ interests, the locals did just that. Boycott’s plight was covered extensively in British media and watched keenly by the Land League and others looking to harness collective power.

The Monk does a bunk as true-blue Daniel Ennis elevated to the Dáil in Dublin Central

JD........

© The Irish Times