The Meaning of Hosting Olympics: Why Istanbul Would Have been a Better Choice for 2020 than Tokyo
As a long-term resident in the city of Tokyo, the author has been often impressed by the city. Its community spirit (despite being a faceless, almost uniformly dressed metropolis of 35 million) is well much present. Despite massive government debts, no one has serious doubts about the country being able to construct the physical infrastructure and provide for the necessary human efforts to make the 2020 Olympics a big success. As a previous host of Olympics and many more regular international events, Tokyo has the experience to make the Olympics a great one.
As for Istanbul, the recent spate of anti-government protests forcefully dispersed too away quite a bit of shine from a city famed as a tourism spot of East-meets-the-West. For his own part, the author had to deal with much usage of racial stereotyping and unpleasantly aggressive attitude from a loud soliciting styles of local shop owners. The experience was not a completely benign one and certainly, many other foreign tourists may have similar findings. If so, why should people aside from Turkish nationalists advocate Istanbul over Tokyo as the next host for Olympics?
For that, we must re-examine what the symbolism behind hosting Olympics as they are currently interpreted by not just the International Olympics Committee (IOC) but by global opinion in the form of mass media and public perception of what constitutes a "good" host city. Much of the latter, undoubtedly, is beyond "the standard grading rubric" of the IOC for candidate cities. The IOC, justifiably, should only care about which city has the best capacity to provide a superior environment for athletes to do their best, and provide competent administration to prevent unwanted disturbances.
But if that "standard grading rubric" is to be strictly followed, it feels like quite a few of IOC's recent choices should have not been made. From economic downturn in Athens, to street violence in Rio, to political dubiousness in Beijing and Sochi. In any of those cases, surely there would have been other candidates with just as much economic prowess to host, without the similar kind of public doubts (and even protests and threats of boycotts). So what else would have been on the mind of the IOC when these dubious selections are made?
In essence, or at least the author so believes, the selection of Olympic host city for the IOC has really never been an economic matter of who has most resources to make it the most comfortable. The candidate cities themselves, before making the bid for hosting, should have already made those economic considerations and judgments before submitting the candidacy to tell the IOC that the answer is an astounding "yes." Instead, the IOC, like many other international organization like UN and Red Cross, needs to promote a political agenda while balancing the interests of member nations.
In the case of IOC, that political agenda has historically been a promotion of universal values of economic development and political freedom, either by prodding it forward in places where it is growing but still has a long way to go, or by rewarding the host status to places where significant progress has been made in these fields. In either case, the host should symbolize at some concrete form of "progress" and "improvement" that is public known or should be publicly announced. The recent frequency at which BRICS countries are hosting major international events attests to this.
Now, going back to Istanbul vs Tokyo, it is pretty clear the political agenda of "national progress" IOC is trying to promote fits the bill much more in which city, if one choose to think objectively. While Japan languished in the timid implementation of Abenomics, bogged down by massive protectionist vested interests and doing little to prod its flat growth, Turkey has shown itself to be an oasis of political stability (compared to neighbors to the south and east) and economic development (compared to neighbors to the north and west).
This story of "national emergence" in Turkey should have been rewarded by the IOC and its voting member states despite the excess lobbying of the Japanese delegation. Supporting the underdog has always been in its spirit of establishment, and Japan itself has been the very beneficiary of that spirit back when Tokyo first hosted Olympics in 1964. President economic situation is not a good guideline for determining the future relative success, and Tokyo, back in 1964, illustrated this principle beautifully. IOC could have helped lengthen a Turkish economic miracle but chose to play safe.
As for Istanbul, the recent spate of anti-government protests forcefully dispersed too away quite a bit of shine from a city famed as a tourism spot of East-meets-the-West. For his own part, the author had to deal with much usage of racial stereotyping and unpleasantly aggressive attitude from a loud soliciting styles of local shop owners. The experience was not a completely benign one and certainly, many other foreign tourists may have similar findings. If so, why should people aside from Turkish nationalists advocate Istanbul over Tokyo as the next host for Olympics?
For that, we must re-examine what the symbolism behind hosting Olympics as they are currently interpreted by not just the International Olympics Committee (IOC) but by global opinion in the form of mass media and public perception of what constitutes a "good" host city. Much of the latter, undoubtedly, is beyond "the standard grading rubric" of the IOC for candidate cities. The IOC, justifiably, should only care about which city has the best capacity to provide a superior environment for athletes to do their best, and provide competent administration to prevent unwanted disturbances.
But if that "standard grading rubric" is to be strictly followed, it feels like quite a few of IOC's recent choices should have not been made. From economic downturn in Athens, to street violence in Rio, to political dubiousness in Beijing and Sochi. In any of those cases, surely there would have been other candidates with just as much economic prowess to host, without the similar kind of public doubts (and even protests and threats of boycotts). So what else would have been on the mind of the IOC when these dubious selections are made?
In essence, or at least the author so believes, the selection of Olympic host city for the IOC has really never been an economic matter of who has most resources to make it the most comfortable. The candidate cities themselves, before making the bid for hosting, should have already made those economic considerations and judgments before submitting the candidacy to tell the IOC that the answer is an astounding "yes." Instead, the IOC, like many other international organization like UN and Red Cross, needs to promote a political agenda while balancing the interests of member nations.
In the case of IOC, that political agenda has historically been a promotion of universal values of economic development and political freedom, either by prodding it forward in places where it is growing but still has a long way to go, or by rewarding the host status to places where significant progress has been made in these fields. In either case, the host should symbolize at some concrete form of "progress" and "improvement" that is public known or should be publicly announced. The recent frequency at which BRICS countries are hosting major international events attests to this.
Now, going back to Istanbul vs Tokyo, it is pretty clear the political agenda of "national progress" IOC is trying to promote fits the bill much more in which city, if one choose to think objectively. While Japan languished in the timid implementation of Abenomics, bogged down by massive protectionist vested interests and doing little to prod its flat growth, Turkey has shown itself to be an oasis of political stability (compared to neighbors to the south and east) and economic development (compared to neighbors to the north and west).
This story of "national emergence" in Turkey should have been rewarded by the IOC and its voting member states despite the excess lobbying of the Japanese delegation. Supporting the underdog has always been in its spirit of establishment, and Japan itself has been the very beneficiary of that spirit back when Tokyo first hosted Olympics in 1964. President economic situation is not a good guideline for determining the future relative success, and Tokyo, back in 1964, illustrated this principle beautifully. IOC could have helped lengthen a Turkish economic miracle but chose to play safe.
Comments
Post a Comment