#kaleen

+ bonus

The other one is obviously the genocide poster child, I'm not posting her but, yeah, unfortunately she made it.

(tl;dr – a review of the voting process is critical; Croatia should have won)

It’s a rare year that sees a consensual Eurovision winner. It is to be expected – the contest is not only a competition of musical taste, but also of musical identity. There is more than simply genre, melody or vocals at play, as these are often filtered through the lens of national sensibility. At face value, a stereotype of geopolitics; at a deeper level, the actual cultural wealth of each European region. 'Our neighbours', etc. To which of course, theatrics and gimmicks are added, in the hopes of standing out from the rest of the crowd.

This is what makes, or should make, watching Eurovision a positive experience. Which this year, failed spectacularly on all counts, leading to a problematic, underwhelming and polarising edition, derailed on Thursday night and crashing its way through apathy and anarchy all the way to the grand final.

Apathy, because it seemed to want to get away with being apolitical. Anarchy, because it failed to carry out apolitical acts.

And from each side, its worst attribute, resulting in what feels like a bland and uncomfortable watch.

This year, Eurovision attempted (and in my view, failed) to manage itself by allowing too many paradoxes to take place. Glaring inconsistencies, arbitrary exclusions, aloof silences, inability (or lack of desire) to address core issues and legacy accusations – a broken code. A program in error, glitching and ineffectual, all under the symbolic and literal guise of “neutrality” – which doesn’t stick. And worse, seems to negate the actual positive aspects of the show, this year neutralised themselves.

This isn’t to say Switzerland did or did not deserve the win – the voting conditions of both jury and public are clearly stated, and in theory were applied. The jury voted, the people voted, and the winner was chosen.

But unlike other years where a similar pattern of voting distribution could be considered ‘curious’, and where ‘the safer song’ wins over the public favourite – see Käärijä 2023 – this year’s jury results feel unjust not only to the runner-up, but to the vast majority of contestants. And by extension, the viewers.

Stage presentation was ignored (see UK for the extreme example, and Ireland for a less radical, visually incompatible result).

Vocal performance was ignored (see Norway’s Gunnhild/Gåte for the extreme example, along with Portugal’s Iolanda; Germany’s Isaak, possibly the strongest vocalist in the competition this year; Israel’s Eden Golan for the complete disregard of vocal ability over nationality).

Radio-friendly potential was ignored (see Luxembourg’s ‘Fighter’, Cyprus’ ‘Liar’, Italy’s ‘La Noia’, Austria’s ‘We Will Rave’ even).

Resulting once again, in a surprisingly cohesive jury vote that deems Switzerland’s ‘The Code’ as the winner, over the fifth place that the public attributed it.

Being neutral is not the same as being objective. And while objectivity is difficult to gauge in a contest where musical taste and national identity (not to mention global politics) are part of the formula, there is a case to be made for the fact that Eurovision and the EBU’s passivity and top-up decision making reflects poorly on the Eurovision experience.

Recurring discrepancies between jury and public voting should be addressed. Because a jury’s role (in Eurovision and elsewhere) should not be of neutrality, but of objective action.

In objective action, a contestant cannot be excluded without a proper justification, to date only explained through vague declarations and heavy speculation (see Netherlands).

In objective action, and in a self-identified democratic continent, the people’s paid vote should inform the winning result over a closed group of juries (see Croatia’s disproportionate second place).

In objective action, rules must be enforced equally to all contestants (see Ireland, who had to remove part of their presentation, vs. Portugal, who was allowed to show a message through nails).

And in objective action, microphones should not be silenced; contestants must be allowed the freedom to be judged by the people listening, and not on what the EBU determines should be judged.