The European Broadcasting Union has ruled out organising two separate Eurovision Song Contests for Eastern and Western Europe, despite loud murmurs that the "Eastern European mafia" had invaded the stage.

"Europe has had enough of division and iron curtains in its history. This contest is about uniting Europe, not dividing it," Svante Stockselius, EBU head of song contests, told The Times.

Several observers have been voicing this idea. However, when contacted at his office in Geneva, Mr Stockselius poured cold water over it.

In the aftermath of Saturday's contest, which saw Russia's heart throb Dima Bilan win for Russia, several countries began to collectively wring their hands over whether the West should continue taking part.

The mutterings and analysis that badgers this contest are as predictable as the Eurovision's glitter and feather boas, and not just in Malta.

In the UK, popular commentator Sir Terry Wogan described the contest as a "politically-motivated farce" and felt the UK should reconsider financially backing it and taking part, a viewpoint supported by Buck's Fizz's Cheryl Baker, who won in 1981, and music mogul Simon Cowell.

Meanwhile, the German media moaned about the "Eastern European mafia" and complained that Russia won thanks to considerable help from its neighbours.

Mr Stockselius was aware of the grumbling but pointed out that the complaints were not as loud as the previous year when an inquiry and an audit had to be carried out to establish that there was no evidence of irregularities.

"I'm 100 per cent certain that the BBC will not pull out of the festival. For a very reasonable price they get a very good TV show and good ratings," he said.

On the debate of the voting system, Mr Stockselius said this will be discussed during a debriefing meeting in the coming weeks.

"Usually we do change a few things, but it's way too early to say what at this stage. The new rules will not be out before September," he said, adding that the EBU was happy with the present format of two semi-finals.

Did he feel that while the semi-finals had proved to be extremely fair, this element was lost when all 43 competing countries got to vote in the final?

For example, Portugal placed second in the semi-final but it did not fare so well in the final, placing 13th overall. Was the final going back to square one and losing the ground gained in the semis?

"No, I think with the new format of two semi-finals we had some of the best songs in the final," Mr Stockselius said.

"We have 43 participating broadcasters and just because your song does not qualify it doesn't mean you're no longer a participant. One of the biggest things for viewers in the eliminated countries is that they can also take part in the voting.

"Should we also take this away? It would be a double punishment because people look forward to it, plus it's what keeps the audiences tuned in."

When asked if the EBU would consider introducing a combined system of televoting and jury, Mr Stockselius said the EBU had looked into this and when it was tried out, the result was not that different from the final result obtained solely through televoting.

On the commonly held belief that the Eurovision was considered to be kitsch and a joke, Mr Stockselius said people were free to air their opinion.

"It's up to each country to view it how they want. If they want to take it seriously fine, and if they think it's kitsch, then fine by me too. In my opinion, it's a well-produced show and a couple of hours of good entertainment."

Malta was one of those countries that failed to take the Eurovision with a pinch of salt, a reaction which made sense to social anthropologist Mark Anthony Falzon.

"It 'makes sense' to take it seriously. Not of course with respect to the music, performances or fashions - which in any case are, or should be, tongue-in-cheek - but rather in terms of the politics and, arguably, poetics of representation," he said.

Dr Falzon, a university lecturer, referred to the work of anthropology professor Michael Billig on "banal nationalism".

"Put simply, nationalism is thought to be fodder for eccentric right-wingers who cannot let go of the past... However, there are more mundane, everyday forms of nationalism which we perform and live unselfconsciously - things like flying flags from government buildings and such," he explained.

"In this sense the contest can be understood as a venue for thinking and talking about 'ourselves', the 'us' being the Maltese nation (people). The annual ritual of damning 'our' bad luck, 'our' choice of clothes, 'our' pakkett, conjures up an image of (Maltese) community.

"Not to mention the partisan-political rumblings which invariably creep in - again, a pretty accurate image of who we are. I dare say that there is more consequential nationalism in the Eurovision drama than in, say, solemn national commemorations like Sette Giugno," Dr Falzon said.

Another aspect of Malta's attitude to the Eurovision was that the contest was a stage on which European identities and their various histories, anxieties and power implications were acted out.

"Thus we are reminded that Malta and Britain are, or should at least behave like, 'old friends', or that Greece and Turkey are not necessarily the merriest of bed mates," he added.