Joerg Haider in historical perspective
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 00:27:53 EST From: Steven Beller Spbeller@aol.com
A couple of remarks to the recent postings on the Haider question. The European Union has not intervened in the sovereign affairs of Austria. I do not see the undemocratic behaviour inherent in the democratically elected governments of the other 14 member states showing their displeasure at the entry of a xenophobic and illiberal party into the government of the 15th member by refusing to welcome it with open, diplomatic arms. On the question of the reasons for the rise of the FPOe, I accept that there is clearly a large protest factor involved, but, in a country with proportional representation, I still do not understand why the protest vote had to almost all go to the FPOe. Where is the Liberal Forum in all of this? Why did it fail to get any seats in the last election? Why is the most popular "alternative" to the status quo in Austria a nationalist- xenophobic and revisionist party? Lonnie Johnson is probably quite right about the fact that revisionism and even xenophobia are not the primary reasons why 27% of the electorate voted for the FPOe; why, though, were they not sufficient reasons NOT to vote for the FPOe? One can well argue that Lueger's Christian Socials were not voted in primarily for their antisemitism; one can also argue that the Nazis did not owe their popularity to their antisemitism. So what? It was the fact that they still succeeded electorally and politically despite their politics of hate which should be noted. The relative prosperity of contemporary Austria now seems to be accepted in this discussion. The new level of the debate seems to be about not the objective but the "subjective insecurity" amongst Austrian voters. All right, consumer confidence is important. But, if Austria and Austrian society is objectively doing rather well, and if levels of security are still remarkably high in terms of jobs and the welfare safety net when compared, let us say, to Britain, and if this situation causes a third or so of the Austrian electorate to vote for a party which blames insecurity on (to paraphrase) "the Others", might I ask at what point "subjective insecurity" becomes paranoia? Or, less polemically, one still has to explain why so many Austrians think there really is this threat, and why they respond to this perception by thinking that voting for the FPOe will help avert it. It is truly ironic though, if Lonnie Johnson is right, that the supposed heirs to the liberal tradition in Austrian politics are now employing a rhetoric of security against the threats of globalization. It is further ironic that they are feeding off a discontent with the very marketization policies put through by the former coalition government, and that their own economic philosophy and program must surely be advocating even more liberalization (i.e. deregulation and dislocation) than has so far been attempted. Then again, perhaps the one good result of the new coalition will be a realization of the immensely contradictory nature of the FPOe's agenda. Yours collegially, Steven Beller