![\"Eurovision,](\"https:\/\/www.ekathimerini.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Akylas_eurovision_2026-320x200.jpg\")
\n <\/source><\/picture>\n
[Ismini Vlassopoulou\/Intime News]<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
How did a camp music spectacle survive geopolitical earthquakes, economic meltdowns, technological revolutions and regional conflicts? As it turns 70 this year, Eurovision is a cultural paradox in its own right but also a living reminder of the continent\u2019s soft power.<\/p>\n
In a shattered landscape where only sports, chiefly soccer, can still sustain collective spectacles with universal appeal, the resilient Eurovision Song Contest not only survived the end of the \u201cold\u201d 20th-century world that gave birth to it, but actually drew strength and influence from the tectonic shifts that marked the transition from the Cold War to the era of globalization and the internet.<\/p>\n
And rather than watching a retro relic from the supposedly \u201cgood old days,\u201d we find ourselves analyzing the enduring power of Europe\u2019s most significant annual television event and asking why Spain and four other countries chose this platform to make one of their loudest geopolitical statements by boycotting this year\u2019s contest over Israel\u2019s participation. And so, paradoxically, the music and the songs seem to matter least of all. Yet herein lies Eurovision\u2019s true strength. For every year it\u2019s held, it comes to encompass so much more than the initial reasons why a handful of countries decided to create the institution seven decades ago, inspired by Italy\u2019s Sanremo Music Festival.<\/p>\n
\u2018\u039d\u03bf politics\u2019\u2028<\/h3>\n
The paradox \u2013 aside from many other paradoxes \u2013 is that the organizer, the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), has done everything in its power to ensure that Eurovision stays out of politics and national rivalries. Comparing it to soccer institutions like UEFA or FIFA \u2013 which go to significant lengths to uphold a \u2018no politics\u2019 policy \u2013 would not be wrong.\u2028The \u201chot potato\u201d landed in Austria\u2019s hands this year, amid international backlash over Israel\u2019s actions in Gaza. No matter how \u201ccontained\u201d the impact of the boycott may appear for now, the incident itself speaks volumes about the scale of the contest\u2019s influence.<\/p>\n
One of the key elements of Eurovision\u2019s rebranding in the late 1990s, after viewership fell to historic lows, was about opening up to the \u201creal world\u201d: the idea of a pan-European celebration, inclusive and fair, and attuned to the new, still largely underground social currents reshaping youth culture at the time.\u2028In this respect, the participation \u2013 and especially the victory \u2013 of the trans woman Dana International in 1998 in Birmingham marked a turning point in Eurovision\u2019s identity. Nothing would ever be quite the same again. The contest had fully embraced the vocabulary of a new cultural idiom and politics could no longer be left out. Dana herself became Eurovision\u2019s strongest political statement since its inception.<\/p>\n
\u2018Ferto\u2019\u2028<\/h3>\n
As far as Greece is concerned, the 2026 competition has already made history regardless of how the country\u2019s contestant, Akylas, places with his quirky \u201cFerto.\u201d Beyond the appeal of the song itself \u2013 which appears to position us well for a strong result on the night of the final (if it fails to qualify from the group of countries competing in next Tuesday\u2019s first semifinal, it will rank among the biggest surprises in Eurovision history) \u2013 this is above all the year in which state broadcaster ERT truly raised the bar, organizing an exemplary national selection process with two semifinals and, in effect, informally establishing a new song festival.\u2028It is impossible to predict how Akylas will do for a variety of reasons. It\u2019s taken as a given that he will perform well in the audience vote, but pundits are not so confident about whether the song will also appeal to the national judging panels. The main reason is because \u201cFerto\u201d is all about making a striking impression, resonating emotionally and having a strong stage presence \u2013 qualities that the audience tends to reward more generously.<\/p>\n
National committees, in contrast, look more at vocal skill, composition and overall artistic quality, often snubbing the entries that go viral with the public. This explains why the second part of the voting process \u2013 when the televoting points are added \u2013 often produces dramatic reversals in the final rankings. One notable example in Eurovision\u2019s recent history was Norway in 2016, when its entry performed modestly with the national juries but surged in the televote. The same happened with Italy in 2021 and, the following year, with Ukraine.\u2028<\/p>\n
It is worth recalling that national juries were reintroduced in 2009 because significant imbalances had emerged when the winner was determined exclusively by the popular vote, due to bloc voting shaped by geographic and political alliances.\u2028The favorite for this year\u2019s final \u2013 to be held on Saturday in Vienna \u2013 is widely believed to be Finland, which has submitted a rather mediocre composition that nonetheless possesses the kind of characteristics capable of attracting votes from both camps: the public and the juries.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n