447088
12
IAS15210.1177/2233865912447088HergunerInternational Area Studies Review
Article
The IOC as a transnational
organization: Paradigm shift and its
rising role in global governance
International Area Studies Review
15(2) 176­–186
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2233865912447088
ias.sagepub.com
Burak Herguner
National College of Public Administration and Governance, University of the Philippines, the Philippines
Abstract
The changes in the aftermath of the Cold War deeply affected the functioning of international
organizations, and increased their leverage in international affairs. This article chiefly argues that
the paradigm shift in the policies of the International Olympic Committee mitigated the prospect
of damage to the Olympic movement and paved the way for the International Olympic Committee
to figure in international affairs more effectively. In the article, it is concluded that the Olympic
Games have become a significant soft power instrument for states’ foreign policy, rather than
being an arena of boycotts or chauvinism, owing to the changing nature of international relations;
however, it is more difficult for some states to benefit from this resource of soft power because
of domestic issues.
Keywords
IOC, soft power, boycotts, contextual intelligence, global governance
Introduction
Physical movement is the essence of sport. The most common definition of the term ‘sport’ is that,
above all, it is a leisure activity for fun (Durry et al., 1996). On the other hand, although the rationale of sport is fun and leisure, today it means much more. For example, professional athletes and
players participate for financial reasons, and some politicians, being aware of sport’s importance
for the masses, use it to show or increase their own popularity. Furthermore, sport teams are generally identified with their regions, and sport may even reflect sectarian differences within a
country.
Until recently, despite remarkable instances of sport and politics interacting, the growing impact
of sport on international affairs was largely underestimated by international relations scholars, and
sports boycotts were seen as the sole major liaison between sport and international politics. However,
Corresponding author:
Burak Herguner, National College of Public Administration and Governance, University of the Philippines, Quezon City
1111, the Philippines.
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from ias.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016
177
Herguner
for example, a friendly table tennis match could pave the way for strengthening the relations between
the USA and China. Thanks to this simple sport event, the foreign ministers of the two countries
came together, and hence diplomatic relations were established. In 2008, the Presidents of Turkey
and Armenia came together for the first time for a soccer match between the national teams of the
two countries in Armenia. This meeting was called ‘soccer diplomacy’, reminiscent of the ‘pingpong diplomacy’ between China and the USA, and paved the way for limited progress in the bilateral relations. On the other hand, the riot among the players during a national football match between
Honduras and El Salvador spread to the spectators and afterwards both countries declared war on
each other in 1969. As the ‘Football War’, ‘soccer diplomacy’ and ‘ping-pong diplomacy’ prove,
sport can be used as a tool to incite trouble at one end of the spectrum while bringing about positive
social and political changes at the other.
Today, the IOC (International Olympic Committee) is overwhelmingly admitted to be the most
efficient sports organization in the world. During the Cold War, the Eastern bloc in particular (e.g.
the Soviet Union and the German Democratic Republic) gave immense support to Olympic events
to gain political prestige, and achievements in sports were regarded as symbolic of communism’s
victory over the capitalist world. Athletic competition became yet another Cold War substitute for
war (Koulouri, 2010: 73). On the other hand, for many years, although there was a growing demand
for the IOC to take the initiative in solving political issues in a peaceful way, it insisted on keeping
sport away from politics and defended the Olympic Games against being used by states to pursue
their political objectives and interests. However, from time to time, Juan Antonio Samaranch efficiently used it as an instrument for the solution of some political problems during his presidency
(Macintosh and Hawes, 1992). For example, under his presidency, the re-instatement of South
Africa came after the pledge to end Apartheid policies (Macintosh et al., 1993).
This article aims to determine the effects of the Cold War and post-Cold War international system on the Olympics. Hence, it attempts to answer the following questions: how did states during
the Cold War behave towards the IOC and with respect to one another regarding the Olympics?
How do they behave in the post-Cold War era? What are the unparalleled qualities of the IOC as a
transnational organization in the new international system? And why is it difficult for some states
to benefit from the Olympics as a soft power instrument?
As the IOC is mainly a sports organization, its potential effect on the international system is
generally overlooked by scholars of international relations; therefore, related studies are limited.
The article first delineates related concepts. Then, it discusses the rationale of state intervention in
sports, and its changing nature. Finally, it examines the paradigm shift in the policies of the IOC in
relation to the rising importance of the Olympics as a soft power resource, and comes to a
conclusion.
Conceptual background
After the end of Cold War, new concepts emerged as a result of the interrelated global system and
increasing communication among people. That was the reason behind the popularity of the soft
power concept. Nye (1990, 2004, 2008, and 2011) defines soft power as getting the desired results
by attracting others rather than manipulating their material incentives. Briefly, it is the ability to
shape the preferences of others by persuading them; however, Nye also warns against misuse of the
concept by maintaining that it is a descriptive concept rather than a normative one. For him, in
behavioural terms, soft power is attractive power. In terms of resources, soft power resources are
both tangible and intangible assets that engender such attraction. Finally, soft power is based on
Downloaded from ias.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016
178
International Area Studies Review 15(2)
credibility. When governments are manipulative, or if they spread misinformation, they lose that
credibility. Once it is lost, it is difficult to re-establish it.
Another key concept is contextual intelligence. As soft power is more complex than hard power,
Nye (2008) employs this concept in relation to soft power. According to him, contextual intelligence is an indispensable quality in a good leader in our age in order to reap the benefits from soft
power resources. Contextual intelligence entails both an ability to distinguish trends despite complexity, and adaptability when trying to influence events. It allows leaders to change their approach
to the situation, and to their stakeholders’ – or followers’ – needs.
Finally, the structure of an international organization determines its function in the international
system. According to Huntington (1973), transnational organizations have three different characteristics: they have a hierarchical organizational structure; they engage in specialist activities; and
finally they run their activities regardless of national borders. In addition, transnational organizations differ from intergovernmental organizations. Whereas intergovernmental organizations look
for a consensus among their members, transnational organizations do not need it. Their priority is
to reach societies with their activities. Unlike an intergovernmental organization, transnational
organizations must have at least one non-state actor among their members. If all the members of a
transnational organization are non-governmental actors, the organization is called a genuine international non-governmental organization (Archer, 2001). Therefore, the IOC may be classified as
both a transnational organization and an international non-governmental organization.
The rationale of state intervention in sports
Since the beginning of the Ancient Olympic Games in 776 BC, Olympic Games and politics have
always been intertwined in different forms. This interaction was shaped by the social, cultural,
economic and political imperatives of the relevant age. In our day, the IOC as a transnational sports
organization dedicated to human development has a potential supportive role to play in the achievement of good governance at the global level, as the increasing international interdependence
marked by cross-border information flows, trade liberalization and global financial markets has
dramatically changed the character and running of international affairs. This trend has gradually
undermined the ability of nation-states to manage more complex international relations. Shifting
from ‘government to governance’, new, non-state actors such as multinational companies and nongovernmental organizations have obtained a primary role in resolving international collective
action problems (Eberlain and Newman, 2008: 27).
Dayrit (2003) maintains that the participation and involvement of national governments in
sports differ from one country to another. On the other hand, according to Baradat (1994), only
anarchism rejects the state; in all other ideologies the state is given a role and in some cases it is
given the dominant place. State intervention in sport has hitherto been largely admitted as a necessity since the state is regarded as the sole mechanism with the capacity to build facilities or venues
for big sports events. The other reasons for state intervention are as follows:
1. Protection of the public order – the state is the sole institution able to provide large-scale
security for big sports events. For example, during the Olympics, huge sums are spent on
security measures owing to concerns following the 9/11 attacks in NewYork.
2. Protection of citizens’ health and enhancing their physical capabilities.
3. Increase in the prestige of the nation – many states seek prestige through sport for economic
and political reasons. The Olympic Games provides the greatest opportunity for such an
effort.
Downloaded from ias.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016
179
Herguner
4. Creation of a sense of identity and unity – sport is one of the most effective instruments to
build or maintain a nation-state. If there are religious and ethnic differences, the state can
use sport to ease the tension.
5. Emphasis of national values and the ideology of the state – states may use sport to shape
the moral values of its citizens. States have common interests in enhancing discipline, loyalty, determination and cooperation to achieve success. Enhancing these values protects the
cohesiveness of the state; nevertheless, over-emphasis of state ideology is regarded as
chauvinism. The 1936 Berlin Olympic Games is an example of this, since the Games were
tainted by propaganda and political overtones, with Nazi emblems surrounding the Olympic
stadium and Nazi salutes by the crowds (Gerard, 2008: 460).
6. Increased legitimacy of the state – when the state organizes activities people enjoy, it
increases its popularity and legitimacy. Sport may have a positive impact on domestic
peace as well.
7. Economy – sport makes major direct and indirect contributions to countries’ economies.
The leading sports event that affects a country’s economy is the Olympic Games. As the
Olympic Games consist of many different sports branches, they attract massive levels of
interest. Some of the direct effects of the Games on the economy are foreign exchange
earnings and payments from media companies. In terms of economic return, the 1988
Seoul Games was one of the most successful. With the success, the country proved that it
was capable of organizing major events. Thus, South Korea achieved an increase in its
exports thanks to its rising prestige. In addition, Gratton and Preuss (2008) claim that the
honour of hosting such an event strengthens local identification, vision and motivation.
The Olympic Games in Seoul generated a national perspective; a feeling of vitality, participation and recognition; and an international perception of being modern and technologically up-to-date. The 1992 Barcelona Games had similar effects for the Spanish
economy. Nonetheless, high expenditures for the organization of the Games may cause a
public reaction. For example, prior to the 1968 Mexico City Games, students protested
against the excessive expenditure for the Olympics in the face of abject poverty in slum
areas of the city, leading to the massacre of over 300 students by government troops
(Donnelly, 2010).
Briefly, sports rely on support from national governments. In fact, sports depend on government
funding as weak business conditions make private sector support difficult to secure in developing
and under-developed countries. Moreover, the performance of athletes in international competitions is partly an outcome of financial support from governments. Therefore, national governments
are both the biggest sponsor and the biggest beneficiary of sports (Dayrit, 2003: 137).
From boycotts to soft power: The changing nature
of the role of the Olympics in international affairs
The idea that sport must bring the nations together has been overwhelmingly stressed since the
organization of the first modern Olympic Games in 1896. Nonetheless, throughout its history,
numerous states have used the Olympic Games to achieve their particular political interests instead
of collective purposes such as mutual understanding and peace. The Olympic boycott is a result of
this kind of approach.
Boycotts may be best explained by realist theory, which was the dominant approach in the aftermath of World War II in international relations. This describes the international system as an
Downloaded from ias.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016
180
International Area Studies Review 15(2)
anarchic system, where independent states are in a constant power struggle to increase and spread
their influence. As a result, the principal purpose of any state is to be stronger than others in the
system and to protect national interests by any means with the assumption that the human being is
inherently bad and that all individuals will try to strengthen their relative position against others
(Eralp and Dagi, 1996). Realism describes the international system as a community of similar
states, where the balance of power is the main occupation of diplomatic activity. Finally, there is a
hierarchy among global political issues. Security issues rank highest in priority, and economic,
social and technical issues follow it. Therefore, it is easy to explain the rationale of boycotts during
the Cold War era within the framework of realist discourse.
If we have a brief look at the boycotts, we see that most of them occurred at the height of the Cold
War era, but not merely owing to conflicts of interest between Western and Eastern blocs. For example, in the 1976 Montreal Games, the Taiwan problem was used by Canadian Prime Minister
Trudeau to break the American political influence over Canada and establish a more independent
Canadian foreign policy. Trudeau was planning to establish close ties with other countries, hence
diminishing the political and economic dependence on the USA. That is why Canada officially recognized the People’s Republic of China and allowed Taiwan to participate in the Games on the
condition that it relinquish the national anthem and flag-raising ceremonies. Taiwan did not participate in the Games in protest at this action. Another major boycott in the 1976 Montreal Games
concerned the Apartheid policies of South Africa. Sixteen African countries asked the IOC to
exclude New Zealand from the Games as it had sports relations with the South Africa Republic. This
sports relationship was a rugby match between the two countries. The IOC refused this demand as
rugby was not an Olympic sport. As a result, 29 African countries boycotted the Games. However,
major boycotts in 1980 and 1984 were simply an outcome of the Cold War. First the USA and its
allies boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympic Games to protest the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan.
Afterwards, the ‘Iron Curtain’ countries boycotted the 1984 Los Angeles Games in retaliation
(Macintosh and Hawes, 1992).
Today, as the ideological differences in the global economy have drastically diminished, and
multinational firms have greater roles within the framework of sponsorship, national governments
have less ‘radius of action’ in sport. As a result, whilst the possibility of using boycotts as a diplomacy tool decreases, the rising popularity of the Olympics among the masses gives the opportunity
for the host states to use the Games as a soft power instrument for promoting their foreign policy.
The complexity of soft power
Soft power is largely admitted to be a crucial element of a state’s power along with military and
economic power. Culture, political values and foreign policies having moral authority are the main
components of soft power. On the other hand, soft power is difficult to handle. For Zahran and
Ramos (2010), questions of behaviour, resources and strategy come into play for the legitimacy of
a subject as a soft power resource. That is why states should adopt policies that take advantage of
the soft power resources they already have, or they should strive to strengthen, not to harm, their
soft power resources by their actions. Today, states generally seek to benefit from the Olympics by
abstaining from any conflict with the Olympic ideals – Olympism. Therefore, it is necessary for
states to have a well-planned strategy.
As Olympic diplomacy is the product of different actors participating in the organization of the
Games, any state’s Olympic soft power project must be read as a necessarily limited endeavour that
emerges out of negotiations between important members of the Olympic movement. Moreover,
despite the movement’s efforts, the Games may still deepen nationalist sentiments. It is the host
Downloaded from ias.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016
181
Herguner
state’s policies that may turn the Games into an arena of chauvinism or peace. For example, Finlay
and Xin (2010) argue that the Beijing Games should be studied carefully as a warning for future nonWestern hosts such as Brazil, which will organize the 2016 Olympics. The 2008 Beijing Olympics
was a huge public diplomacy opportunity for China as it was a great media event. However, the
Games did not bring any major public diplomacy success, in spite of the organizational achievement
and the success of Chinese athletes. The Olympic Games were regarded as a vehicle for China’s
attempt to prove itself as an alternative model to American and Western notions of progress. Therefore,
China pursued excessively transparent and simple image control tactics and could not benefit from
the soft power potential of the Games. In addition, The Beijing Olympics also highlighted the Tibetan
question as the Tibetans organized a parallel relay during the Delhi leg of the Olympic flame relay.
The Tibetan protests around the Olympic torch in India clearly showed the potential of the Olympics
to be used as a vehicle for political mobilization (Majumdar and Mehta, 2010).
On the other hand, owing to globalized interdependence, in which global objectives and values
cause difficulties for the traditional notion of power, China experienced a dilemma in its Tibetan
policy. Chinese national objectives and pride were connected with the Olympics, and China did not
want to sacrifice them by using coercive methods for the solution of the problem ahead of the
Beijing Games (Brzezinski et al., 2008).
The IOC and the signs of paradigm shift
The end of the Cold War, the increasing scale of international trade, the growing importance of nongovernmental organizations, the easing of border crossings, the decline of US economic hegemony,
and the relative decrease of national security issues in the priority hierarchy have caused the realist
paradigm to fall short in analysing international affairs. Today, it is essential to understand the relations and functioning of non-state actors. The IOC as the biggest international sports organization is
this kind of non-state actor, able to affect the policy of states and other organizations.
The first signs of policy changes in the IOC emerged under the presidency of Juan Antonio
Samaranch between 1980 and 2001. As the power balance between the IOC and states gradually
changed in favour of the IOC, Samaranch, who was a former diplomat, found the opportunity to
apply his experience to the solution of some political issues. Thus, the changing context paved the
way for him to use his abilities to increase the efficiency of the IOC.
The primary agenda of Samaranch was to prevent boycotts. When Seoul was announced as the
host city for the 1988 Games in 1981, there was deep concern regarding its organization. Lack of
official relations between South Korea and North Korea and skirmishes at the border discouraged the
IOC. However, as a result of Samaranch’s successful endeavours, more than 160 countries joined the
Games and only six refused the invitation of the IOC (Macintosh and Hawes, 1992). On the other
hand, the IOC was cautious about giving membership status to new countries emerging after the collapse of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. The organization preferred to wait till the recognition of
these new countries by the USA and other Western states. In this transition period, an early membership given to these countries would have drawn a reaction from the others. However, the IOC gave a
rapid positive reaction to the efforts of South Africa to return to the international community after the
end of the Apartheid era, because this return was politically less risky for the IOC.
According to Macintosh and Hawes (1992), organizations like the IOC have to try to act independently of national governments. In doing so, they prevent the corrosion of their importance and
authority. In addition, they have to follow and comply with social changes. Today, the impact of
states on sport has undeniably decreased. First of all, ‘the radius of action’ for states has decreased
in favour of the IOC. For example, in the past, it was easier for national governments to decide on
a boycott, but taking such a decision is relatively more difficult today as it is hard to find public
Downloaded from ias.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016
182
International Area Studies Review 15(2)
support for such an action. Furthermore, the prospect of a boycott decision may draw a negative
reaction from firms and media companies within the country. New IOC regulations are also a sign
of change. According to the new IOC rules in the aftermath of major boycotts, if a country decides
not to participate in the Games after acceptance of the IOC’s invitation, it is banned from the next
Olympic Games.
As for the administrative dimension of changes, the IOC may be regarded as an important actor
in global governance today. Global governance can be described as the norms, institutions and
processes by means of which social goods – including wealth, power, knowledge, health and
authority – are constantly being generated and allocated by public, private and non-governmental
actors through their cooperative and competitive actions (Farer and Sisk, 2010).
For a long period of time, the leaders of the Olympic movement claimed that Olympism and the
Olympic Games had to be insulated from any political interest. They insisted that sport and politics
had to be separated and they strove to keep sport away from political issues. However, from the
administrative perspective, governance and human development are indivisible. Human development cannot be sustained without good governance and governance cannot be sound unless it
sustains human development. This better governance is not just national – it is local, regional and
global (UNDP, 1997). Today, decisions taken by the IOC are becoming more and more binding for
national governments as the IOC is economically more independent owing to the increasing importance of Olympic Games for the business world and national governments.
Reaching the international community is the main factor in the success of IOC. The Olympic
Games, which are the product of the IOC, have become a product in demand all over the world. In
spite of the financial risks of organizing Games, there is competition among the major cities of the
world to host them. However, the return on investment is long-term and is not only financial. Over
the past few decades, spin-offs have included sport tourism, urban regeneration, increased awareness of destination, return on investment and both material and immaterial legacies, to name a few,
and have resulted in heightened interest by cities, regions and countries in bidding for such events
(Leopkey et al., 2010).
Nevertheless, while the IOC evades the impact of the national governments, it inevitably
encounters the influence of the business world. Today, the IOC strives to answer the demands and
requests of the business world on several issues, such as determining the date of sport events,
changing the rules to attract more spectators and cancelling unpopular events. That is why the IOC
has a tendency – and obligation – to work in closer cooperation with media and the business world
for the future of the Olympic Games. The IOC as an organization tries to spread the Olympism
ideal and make a positive contribution to increased quality of life, mainly through cultural and
educational programmes, but the commercialization of the Olympic movement may make it irrelevant to changes in societies and overly financially oriented.
Another challenge for the IOC is international sports federations’ demands for a greater share of
the revenues. The IOC has encountered some problems regarding the demands of international
sport federations such as the Federation of International Basketball Associations and the Federation
of International Football Federations. Hence, the distribution of revenues from the Olympic Games
is likely to become a bigger problem in the future. Also, although sports organizations in general,
including National Olympic Committees, pay attention to the training of young athletes, they do
not give enough attention to the education of these young people.
The new age of the Olympics–politics axis
During the Cold War, since it was difficult to change other states’ policy through persuasion, as
shown in Table 1, the main official, Olympic-related instruments used by states were boycotts and
Downloaded from ias.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016
183
Herguner
chauvinism. Furthermore, since communication among people was limited, in comparison with the
present day, it was easier for any state to boycott the Games, or to use the Olympics as a manipulative instrument, such as in the case of chauvinism, without any public pressure (as the sense of
unity was easier to maintain for states). In addition, the leverage of the IOC on state policies was
quite limited. As it was difficult to change states’ course of action, the IOC administration was
merely interested in technical issues regarding the Olympics, and its utmost purpose was to increase
the popularity of the Games by seeking state support. This was simply another justification for
realist discourse, which described the role of international organizations as minor, and limited by
state power during the Cold War.
In contrast, with rising interdependence in the post-Cold war era, international organizations
became vital actors in setting agendas and arenas for political action by weak states and other nongovernmental actors. Therefore, maintaining international organizations to set agendas and to establish preferences became one of the priorities in the international system. In this period of rapid change,
the IOC also became a more important international actor in setting the international agenda.
Promoting local communities, such as in the case of Aboriginal athletes in the Sydney Games, or
attributing more importance to the Paralympics and environmental issues in IOC policies, may be
assessed as signs of this progress (e.g. see Landry, 1995 for more information about the Paralympics
and the IOC, and see Girginov and Hills, 2009 for a discussion of the environment and the Olympics).
Compared with other international organizations, the IOC has unparalleled advantages in agendasetting. For example, the International Committee of the Red Cross tries to set down standards of
behaviour for states in war, and the World Bank promotes poverty alleviation strategies as a central
norm for economic policy of states (Jackson and Sorensen, 2007: 170). However, their capacity to
effect change is limited to their field of activity. Regional organizations may set multiple agendas,
but their activities are restricted to a single region. In contrast, the IOC may support policies against
racism, as in the case of South Africa, on one hand, and on the other, it may promote the Paralympics
to send a message to states regarding the necessity of arrangements for disadvantaged people, thanks
to the global popularity of its activity – the Olympics – and its humanitarian tenet – Olympism.
However, the pre-condition for the IOC administration making better use of these unmatched advantages is to have contextual intelligence and a more critical stance. Otherwise, mere technical perfection, which was quite satisfactory in the past, may be regarded as inefficiency since expectations are
higher. This is the reason behind the paradigm shift – from inward-looking towards outward-looking
policies – in the IOC.
Although policy changes under Samaranch’s presidency regarding political issues have been
classified in this article as the first sign of a paradigm shift within the IOC, Nye (2008: 113), for
example, categorized his leadership as ineffective without giving any further details. However, the
interest of international relations scholars indicates rising expectations of the IOC administration
outside of sports events.
Concluding remarks
In the post-Cold war era, for states, it is getting more and more difficult – and meaningless – to
show the superiority of a nation or a political system in the Olympic Games, as human rights and
democracy gradually become common values throughout the world. However, cultural differences
are still an asset and a source of cultural richness. Therefore, there should be a transition towards
such a common understanding and better representation of communities, disadvantaged people and
different cultures in the Olympics. Demonstrating cultural difference is acceptable as long as it is not
offensive. Moreover, states having difficulties in domestic issues related to core Olympic values –
universal fundamental ethical principles and human dignity – are likely to be in a disadvantaged
Downloaded from ias.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016
184
International Area Studies Review 15(2)
Table 1. The changing nature of Olympics and the role of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in
international relations.
Ages in the Dominant
context of polity type
Olympics–
politics
relations
Economic
activities and
their impact
on Olympism
Dominant idea
in politics–
Olympics axis
Major impact Response of the
IOC
on politics–
Olympics axis
Cold War
era
Nation-state Statesponsored
sports
activities
Sense of identity Boycotts,
and unity (owing chauvinism
to strong state
control and
limited access to
communication)
Post-Cold
War era
RegionalIncreasing
transnational scale of
international
trade and
influence
of business
world. The
IOC is
economically
more
independent
Think global, act
local (contested
with think
holistic, act
personal), thanks
to greater
communication
level among
people
Reaching
local people,
disabled
people – the
Paralympics
Professionalization
in technical issues,
separation of
sports and political
issues (inward
looking policies),
analytical-scientific
mind
Paradigm shift
(from inward
looking to the
outward looking),
more critical
approach based
on contextual
intelligence
Meaning
attributed to
the Olympics
and Olympism
Olympism as
an institutional
culture
(narrow sense)
Olympism
as a way of
life (broader
sense)
position with respect to soft power. To sum up, using the Olympics as a soft power tool for states
and politics as an instrument for spreading Olympic values in their broad sense seems to be the best
form of the Olympics–politics axis in the new era; that is why the ideal policy for the IOC as a
transnational organization is to maintain a balance between national governments, the business
environment and civil society, because harmony between these three sectors is largely admitted to
be key for good governance.
Today, the main challenge for the IOC is no longer hostilities among states, but maintaining
harmony between these sectors. In this triangle of governance, civil society seems the weak column, needing to be strengthened. That is why there is a growing need to review the cultural programmes of previous Games and develop new directions for the cultural programme at a local level
that can begin to break down barriers between sport, education and culture (Shipway and Brown,
2007). For the IOC, technical perfection is no longer the only perspective for measuring success.
This situation necessitates and justifies a change in IOC policies.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit
sectors
References
Archer C (2001) International Organizations. New York: Routledge.
Baradat LP (1994) Political Ideologies: Their Origins and Impact (5th edn). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Downloaded from ias.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016
185
Herguner
Brzezinski Z, Scowcroft B and Ignatius D (2008) America and the world: conversations on the future of
American foreign policy. New York: Basic Books.
Dayrit CL (2003) The Olympic Movement in the Philippines. Quezon City: Hiyas Press.
Donnelly P (2010) 1968 and all that: Social change and the social sciences of sport. Sport in Society 13(1):
1–5.
Durry J, Samaranch JA and Murphy J (1996) Pierre de Coubertin the Visionary: His Life, his Work, his Key
Texts. Paris: Comité Francais Pierre de Coubertin.
Eberlein B and Newman AL (2008) Escaping the international governance Dilemma? Incorporated transgovernmental networks in the European Union. Governance 21(1): 25–52.
Eralp A and Dagi ID (1996) Devlet, Sistem ve Kimlik [State, System and Identity] (1st edn, in Turkish).
Istanbul: Iletisim.
Farer T and Sisk TT (2010) Enhancing international cooperation: Between history and necessity. Global
Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 16(1): 1–12.
Finlay CJ and Xin X (2010) Public diplomacy games: A comparative study of American and Japanese
responses to the interplay of nationalism, ideology and Chinese soft power strategies around the 2008
Beijing Olympics. Sport in Society 13(5): 876–900.
Gerard DF (2008) Playing foreign policy games: States, drugs and other Olympian vices. Sport in Society
11(4): 459–466.
Girginov V and Hills L (2009) The political process of constructing a sustainable London Olympics sports
development legacy. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 1(2): 161–181.
Gratton C and Preuss H (2008) Maximizing Olympic impacts by building up legacies. The International
Journal of the History of Sport 25(14): 1922–1938.
Huntington SP (1973) Transnational organizations in world politics. World Politics 25(3): 333–368.
Jackson RH and Sorensen G (2007) Introduction to International Relations: Theories and approaches (3rd
edn.) New York: Oxford University Press.
Koulouri C (2010) The first modern Olympic Games at Athens, 1896 in the European context. Center for
German and European Studies. Available at: www.desk.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/download/es_5_Koulouri_2.pdf
(accessed 2 December 2011).
Landry F (1995) Paralympic Games and social integration. In: de Moragas M and Botella M (eds) The Keys
to Success: The Social, Sporting, Economic and Communications Impact of Barcelona’92. Barcelona:
Servei de Publicacions, pp. 124–138.
Leopkey B, Mutter O and Parent MM (2010) Barriers and facilitators when hosting sports events: Exploring
the Canadian and Swiss sport event hosting policies. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics
2(2): 113–134.
Macintosh D and Hawes M (1992) The IOC and the world of interdependence. Olympika: The International
Journal of Olympic Studies 1: 29–45.
Macintosh D, Cantelon H and Mcdermott L (1993) The IOC and South Africa: A lesson in transnational relations. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 28(4): 373–393.
Majumdar B and Mehta N (2010) It’s not just sport: Delhi and the Olympic torch relay. Sport in Society 13(1):
92–106.
Nye JS (1990) Bound To Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. New York: Basic Books.
Nye JS (2004) Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs.
Nye JS (2008) The Powers to Lead. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nye JS (2011) The Future of Powers. New York: Public Affairs.
Shipway R and Brown L (2007) Challenges for a regional cultural programme of the London 2012 Games.
Games, Culture and the Olympics 9(5): 21–35.
UNDP (1997) Governance for Sustainable Human Development. New York: UNDP.
Zahran G and Ramos L (2010) From hegemony to soft power. In: Parmar I and Cox M (eds)
Soft Power and US Foreign Policy: Theoretical, Historical and Contemporary Perspectives.
New York: Routledge, pp. 12–31.
Downloaded from ias.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016