This episode explores Austrian history and politics, looking to lessons of the past to understand the future of democracy in the country. What might growing support for right wing nationalism mean for Austria? And how does the country's neutrality play a role in relationships with external power in the EU and beyond? Listen to hear about Austria's complex political realities and paradoxes.
Democracy in Question? is brought to you by:
• Central European University: CEU
• The Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: AHCD
• The Podcast Company: scopeaudio
Follow us on social media!
• Central European University: @CEU
• Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: @AHDCentre
Subscribe to the show. If you enjoyed what you listened to, you can support us by leaving a review and sharing our podcast in your networks!
Glossary
Bruno Kreisky
(01:53 or p.1 in the transcript)
Bruno Kreisky, (born January 22, 1911, Vienna, Austria—died July 29, 1990, Vienna), leader of the Social Democratic Party of Austria and chancellor of Austria (1970–83). Kreisky joined the Social Democratic Party in 1926; he was active in the party until it was outlawed in 1934. In 1935 he was arrested for political reasons and imprisoned for 18 months. He was imprisoned again in 1938, shortly after graduating as Doctor of Law from the University of Vienna. Persecuted by the Gestapo because of his political beliefs and Jewish birth, he fled to Sweden, where he engaged in journalism and business during World War II. From 1946 to 1950 he served at the Austrian legation in Stockholm and then returned to Vienna to serve at the foreign ministry. From 1956 he was a member of the Austrian Parliament, and in 1959 he was elected deputy chairman of the Social Democrats and became foreign minister. After the party’s decisive defeat in the 1966 general election, he took the lead in an intraparty reform movement. He was narrowly elected chairman of the Social Democrats in 1967, and he became chancellor of Austria when the Social Democrats emerged from the 1970 elections as the strongest party; in 1971 they acquired an absolute majority. Kreisky was credited with successfully pursuing a policy of “active neutrality,” smoothing relations with neighboring Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia and seeking cooperation with other nonaligned nations. Under his leadership, the Social Democrats preserved their parliamentary majority in elections in 1975 and 1979. He resigned in 1983. source
Occupation of Austria by the Allied Forces (1945-1955)
(07:54 or p.2 in the transcript)
At the Potsdam Conference in 1945, the Allies agreed that they would jointly occupy Austria in the postwar period, dividing the country and its capital Vienna into four zones as they planned to do with Germany and Berlin. The Soviets also demanded reparations from Austria, a request that was dropped due to the country's nonbelligerent status, but the United States did agree that the Soviet Union would be entitled to any German assets in the Soviet occupation zone. In contrast to Germany, the Austrian government continued to exist in the postwar period and govern, although the Four Powers could veto any new legislation if they unanimously agreed to do so. This arrangement was maintained until the withdrawal of the occupying powers upon the completion of the Austrian State Treaty. The breakdown of the wartime "Grand Alliance" and the emergence of the Cold War led to the Austrian occupation lasting far longer than anyone anticipated. Only on May 15, 1955, representatives of the governments of the Soviet Union, Great Britain, the United States, and France signed a treaty that granted Austria independence and arranged for the withdrawal of all occupation forces. These governments signed the agreement with the understanding that the newly independent state of Austria would declare its neutrality, creating a buffer zone between the East and the West. The Austrian State Treaty was the only treaty signed by both the Soviet Union and United States in the decade after the 1947 Paris Peace Treaties, and it marked the only Cold War era withdrawal by the Soviet Union from a territory it occupied. The Austrian situation was unique in postwar Europe. In 1938, it had been the only nation to be annexed in its entirety by Nazi Germany, a fact that raised consistent questions during the war about the extent to which the country was a victim of Nazi aggression or whether it had been a collaborator. source
Freedom Party of Austria
(10:37 or p.3 in the transcript)
The Freedom Party of Austria (German: Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs, FPÖ) is a right-wing populist and national-conservative political party in Austria. It was led by Norbert Hofer from September 2019 to 1 June 2021 and is currently led by Herbert Kickl. On a European level, the FPÖ is a founding member of the Identity and Democracy Party and its three Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) sit with the Identity and Democracy (ID) group. The FPÖ was founded in 1956 as the successor to the short-lived Federation of Independents (VdU), representing pan-Germanists and national liberals opposed to socialism, represented by the Social Democratic Party of Austria (SPÖ), and Catholic clericalism represented by the Austrian People's Party (ÖVP). Its first leader, Anton Reinthaller, was a former Nazi functionary and SS officer, though the party did not advocate extreme right policies and presented itself as residing in the political centre. During this time, the FPÖ was the third largest party in Austria and had modest support. Under the leadership of Norbert Steger in the early 1980s, it sought to style itself on the German Free Democratic Party. It supported the first government of SPÖ Chancellor Bruno Kreisky after the 1970 election, as well as that of Fred Sinowatz from 1983 to 1986. Jörg Haider became leader of the party in 1986, after which it began an ideological turn towards right-wing populism. This resulted in a strong surge in electoral support, but also led the SPÖ to break ties, and a splinter in the form of the Liberal Forum in 1993. In the 1999 election, the FPÖ won 26.9% of the vote, becoming the second most popular party, ahead of the ÖVP by around 500 votes. The two parties eventually reached a coalition agreement in which ÖVP retained the office of Chancellor. The FPÖ soon lost most of its popularity, falling to 10% in the 2002 election, but the government was renewed. Internal tensions led Haider and much of the party leadership to leave in 2005, forming the Alliance for the Future of Austria (BZÖ), which replaced the FPÖ as governing partner. Heinz-Christian Strache then became leader, and the party gradually regained its popularity, peaking at 26.0% in the 2017 election. The FPÖ once again became junior partner in government with the ÖVP. In May 2019, the Ibiza affair led to the collapse of the government and the resignation of Strache from both the offices of Vice-Chancellor and party leader. The resulting snap election saw the FPÖ fall to 16.2% and return to opposition. source
Austrian People’s Party
(13:09 or p.3 in the transcript)
The Austrian People's Party (German: Österreichische Volkspartei, ÖVP) is a Christian-democratic and liberal-conservative political party in Austria. Since December 2021, the party has been led provisionally by Karl Nehammer. The ÖVP is a member of the International Democrat Union and the European People's Party. It sits with the EPP group in the European Parliament; of Austria's 19 MEPs, 7 are members of the ÖVP. An unofficial successor to the Christian Social Party of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the ÖVP was founded immediately following the re-establishment of the Republic of Austria in 1945. Since then, it has been one of the two traditional major parties in Austria, alongside the Social Democratic Party of Austria (SPÖ). It was the most popular party until 1970, and has traditionally governed in a grand coalition with the SPÖ. It was the senior partner in grand coalitions from 1945 to 1966 and the junior partner from 1986 to 2000 and 2007–2017. The ÖVP also briefly governed alone from 1966 to 1970. After the 1999 election, the party formed a coalition with the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) until 2003, when a coalition with the FPÖ splinter Alliance for the Future of Austria was formed, which lasted until 2007. The party underwent a change in its image after Sebastian Kurz became chairman, changing its colour from the traditional black to turquoise, and adopting the alternate name The New People's Party (German: Die neue Volkspartei). It became the largest party after the 2017 election, and formed a coalition government with the FPÖ. This collapsed eighteen months later, leading to the 2019 election, after which the ÖVP formed a new coalition with The Greens. source
Social Democratic Party of Austria
(30:27 or p.6 in the transcript)
The Social Democratic Party of Austria (German: Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, SPÖ), founded and known as the Social Democratic Workers' Party of Austria (German: Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei Österreichs, SDAPÖ) until 1945 and later the Socialist Party of Austria (German: Sozialistische Partei Österreichs) until 1991, is a social-democratic political party in Austria. Founded in 1889, it is the oldest extant political party in Austria. Along with the Austrian People's Party (ÖVP), it is one of the country's two traditional major parties. It is positioned on the centre-left on the political spectrum. The SPÖ is supportive of Austria's membership in the European Union, and it is a member of the Socialist International, Progressive Alliance, and Party of European Socialists. It sits with the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament; of Austria's 19 MEPs, five are members of the SPÖ. The party has close ties to the Austrian Trade Union Federation (ÖGB) and the Austrian Chamber of Labour (AK). The SDAPÖ was the second largest party in the Imperial Council of the Austro-Hungarian Empire from the 1890s through 1910s. After the First World War, it briefly governed the First Austrian Republic, but thereafter returned to opposition. The party was banned in 1934 following the Austrian Civil War, and was suppressed throughout Austrofascism and the Nazi period. The party was refounded as the Socialist Party of Austria in 1945 and governed as a junior partner of the ÖVP until 1966. In 1970, the SPÖ became the largest party for the first time in post-war history, and Bruno Kreisky became Chancellor, winning three consecutive majorities (1971, 1975, and 1979). From 1987 to 2000 the SPÖ led a grand coalition with the ÖVP before returning to opposition for the first time in 30 years. The party governed again from 2007 to 2017. Since 2017, the SPÖ have been the primary opposition to the ÖVP governments of Sebastian Kurz, Alexander Schallenberg, and Karl Nehammer. source
Shalini Randeria (SR): Welcome to Democracy in Question, the podcast series that explores the challenges democracies are facing around the world. I'm Shalini Randeria, Rector and President of Central European University in Vienna and Senior Fellow at the Albert Hirschman Center on Democracy at the Graduate Institute in Geneva.
This is the 10th and final episode of season seven of Democracy in Question. I'm very pleased to welcome today Professor Paul Lendvai, a veritable doyen of political journalism in Austria and beyond, who celebrated his 94th birthday this year. Born in 1929 in Budapest, he fled Hungary after the crushing of the 1956 revolution and became a naturalized Austrian citizen.
He started his journalistic career in 1957 and soon became the Financial Times correspondent for Eastern Europe, a position he held for more than two decades. He was a contributor to The Economist. He wrote columns for Austrian, German, and Swiss print media and radio. In 1982, he became editor in chief at the Eastern European Department of the Austrian National Public Broadcasting Company, ORF.
He was the editor in chief and co-publisher of Europäische Rundschau, a Viennese international quarterly for almost 50 years. He runs the monthly discussion panel, Europastudio, on the ORF's TV channel. The winner of numerous awards, most recently the Concordia Prize for Lifetime Achievement, awarded in the Austrian Parliament, Paul Lendvai has authored more than two dozen books.
Let me just mention a few. His widely acknowledged biography of Bruno Kreisky, “Portrait of a Statesman”. His concise “History of Hungarians” translated also into English as “A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat”, followed by “Hungary Between Democracy and Authoritarianism” in 2012, and more recently, his highly acclaimed critical biography of the Hungarian Prime Minister called “Orban: Europe's New Strongman” in 2017. His first book on Austria, “Inside Austria: New Challenges, Old Demons”, was published in 2010. His latest is the book he's just published in German and then translated into English himself is titled “Austria Behind the Mask: The Politics of a Nation Since 1945”. That's the basis of our conversation today.
An uncompromising but sympathetic critic of his adopted and adoptive homeland, Paul Lendvai meticulously peels back layer after layer of Austrian history. He uses the lessons of the past to serve as warnings about the future of democracy in Austria in the wake of growing support for right wing nativist nationalism and cult of strong men. A prosperous model of democracy with strong intermediate institutions, Austria, nevertheless, presents us with notable paradoxes and surprises, as we will hear. I will discuss the burden of the past, buried underneath collective myths, and the return of these repressed demons in new old guises today. I will also ask him to explain why Austria has repeatedly come under intense scrutiny from the international community, primarily under Western eyes, to borrow Joseph Conrad's famous phrase. Austria's relationship with some of its illiberal neighbors, such as Hungary or Serbia, but also its very close economic and political ties with Russia, is once again ringing alarm bells in some quarters. I ask him also about the decline of traditional mainstream parties, especially the crisis of social democracy and its relationship to the rise of the far right.
Good morning, Paul. It's a great pleasure to have you with me on the podcast today. Let me begin, Paul, with the title of your book. It's an intriguing title, "Austria Behind the Mask". The subtitle, "Politics of a Nation since 1945", sounds innocuous, but when we read it in the light of the title, it seems to suggest two related themes. One, the theatrical connotations of a mask that could range from artful deception and putting on a show to the whole gamut of performative strategies, which are a recurrent trope in political thought. But the idea of a mask could also invite the connotation of unmasking of mechanisms, of patterns. So let me first ask you to elaborate on the choice of the title. You see yourself in the role of a critical commentator, with a double perspective of an insider and an outsider, and your approach is, as you call it, “the product of a critical love for your adopted country”, Austria. What led you to call the book “Austria Behind the Mask”?
Paul Lendvai (PL): Well, you see, it was originally in German, I wrote it in German, and I translated it myself. And the German title is too convoluted in English. And it was a critical compendium, or critical view at the turn of events. And I felt that for a foreign audience, it's much better if it shows perhaps more strongly that it is not just a beautiful operatic country. And it's also a kind of deliberate hint that it shows what is behind the surface, because Austria, as a small country in the center of Europe, neutral, seems to be very simple, very nice.
It's basically a journalistic ploy to draw attention to the book and show particularly also the dangers lurking behind the scenes. If you look at the personalities, then you see that Hitler was born in Austria. And there you had in Austria, Bruno Kreisky, a Jewish emigrant coming back from Sweden. You had various personalities which showed how complex this country is. And It is basically also a political history of the parties which fashioned political developments.
SR: So, your love for your chosen homeland, as you say, is tempered by critical distance, precisely because one is struck by your account of post-1945 Austrian history as a cautionary tale, oriented to the present and to the future. You would like the lessons of the past to serve as a wake-up call for your compatriots. So could you say something about what you considered to be the burden of the past, the imperial past, the nationalist legacy, and of course the Anschluss, which are weighing down on the second Austrian republic in the decade between 1945, i.e. the end of the Second World War, and the State Treaty of 1955.
PL: Well, the main point about Austria is that if you are in Vienna, you feel it on every corner, on every major street that you are in a country which was once the nucleus of an empire with 52 million people. And it's now just as Clemenceau said at the peace talks in Paris in 1919, "Austria is the rest." And Austria had to find its identity. People didn't believe a political elite in those days. And as the British historian correctly put it, Gordon Shepherd, the democrats were not patriots, and the patriots were not democrats, as it came to a civil war in 1934. And in the end, the attraction of Nazi Germany, joining the Great Germany, was the strongest force, but the war years disappointed more and more Austrians. And after the war, though there was a 10-year-old foreign occupation of the four allied countries, the Austrians slowly began to find their own identity.
And it was very interesting for me as a Hungarian-born refugee that the Hungarian Revolution in '56 showed how lucky Austria was compared to the neighboring countries. And it was the beginning of a major jump in the feeling of nationhood. And now between 80 to 90 percent of Austrians say they feel as a nation or they're beginning to become a nation. There is no longer this pan-German wish to be united with the great Germany, but the Germans are the most numerous migrants to Austria. And it is an incredible change. This is one very, very positive sign. The negative sign is that there is in Austria a strong tradition of right-wing populism. And this became particularly strong in the end of the last century, and this century. And the far-right Freedom Party was four times in the last 40 years in the government with not very good results. And currently, the Freedomites in the public opinion polls are the strongest (party).
SR: How seriously are you still worried about the return of this repressed and silenced past? Because as we know, the Jewish question was swept under the rug even by the socialist elites after 1945, which tried to wipe clean historical memory and conscience. And that allowed for many years in Austria that the myth of a national victimhood could be presented to itself and to the outside world. Do you feel that Austrian democracy is still at risk due to the resurgence of new forms of exclusion and xenophobia?
PL: Well, there is a very real danger. One has to see the dangers lurking there, but also the forces of democracy, which are also very strong here. So, I would say there are, for instance, in the press, very often, warnings that Austria could go the way of neighboring Hungary, called after the strong man in Hungary, Viktor Orbán, Orbanization. But there is a basic difference. There is a very strong constitutional core. In Austria, there is a free press, free public radio and television and civil society. And I think the danger in Austria is..., that not only in Austria but also we saw it in Italy and in France, that the center crumbles. And the far-right or even the far-left becoming stronger, like for instance, in France or even in Germany, you see. So, it's not a special feature of Austria, but nowhere is at the moment, perhaps the far-right as strong as in the opinion polls in Austria.
And it's interesting when there was a Black-Blue coalition that is the People's Party and the Freedomites in the year of 2000. In 2002 the Chancellor called the snap election and they were eliminated, but nevertheless, they came back. They seem to be eliminated, and then they profit from the inability of the democratic political elite. And this is what I regard personally, the greatest danger that the leadership in all the former major parties is very weak. There are two small parties, and it seems that in periods of history, there are sometimes waves which bring forward great personalities, and then there are waves which just wipe out those, who could become great leaders. So this is what I regard as a danger.
And then Austria is neutral, and nevertheless, there was a very special relationship with the former occupation power, Russia. Because several Austrian former Chancellors took positions in Russian state firms. All this is not exactly an Austrian specialty. We saw it in France, at the moment in the UK, etc., that people are cozying up to China or to Russia. But it is a fact that the former Chancellor, the wonder boy of Austrian politics, Sebastian Kurz who became a Chancellor at the age of 31, formed the coalition with the Freedomites, with the far-right.
And the difference in contrast to the past was that major positions were taken now by the far-right: foreign ministry, interior ministry, ministry of defense, national bank, etc. And the results were catastrophic. Now, there is a very odd coalition, the Right of the center People's Party, without Kurz, who is now charged with false testimony and in corruption affair, (though) not yet sentenced. And there is now a very odd coalition of the People's Party and the Greens. And the Greens are for the first time in the government, and they are relatively small party, 14 percent. So, it's a marriage of the opposites.
SR: One of the things you show in your book is that a recurrent pattern in Austrian politics has been that of questionable compromises between strange bedfellows coming together in various permutations and combinations in coalitions, unconventional alliances of all kinds that you have just described. Now, one result of that, Paul, has been that Austrian democracy has, time and again, come under intense scrutiny internationally and within the European Union, verging occasionally on demonization from abroad for having gone into a coalition with the far-right. Could you reflect on whether this intense scrutiny, and even punishment, has it had a positive effect on democratic developments domestically? Or has it generated a latent resentment and the international condemnation has backfired in a sense?
PL: It's a very good question, Shalini. A very good question because, obviously when Austria was condemned in the year 2000 for forming this Black-Blue Coalition, also it was a very clever thing by Chancellor Schüssel. And then it was a fantastic wave of condemnation of the EU at that time. And there was even a decision of the countries that they don't accept Austrian diplomats; sanctions, but the sanctions were mainly prestige sanctions. They didn't really touch political reality or interstate cooperation. It was a kind of symbolic slap in the face. And a few months later, there was an international commission, etc., and they just dropped it and accepted it.
But what I wanted to say was it whipped up resentment, of course. I found it as a kind of enormous dimension of hypocrisy that countries where the former fascists were in the government, like in Italy or in France, they were condemning Austria simply because it was small. And also nothing happened during these two years of the far-right in the government. They didn't have the important positions, like under Sebastian Kurz. And they even published a statement commitment to democracy. Anyhow, it created a wave of resentment, and in one sense, strengthening the forces, which on the face of it, the EU wanted to weaken, which is always the danger of condemnation regarded as unjust. I personally, in those days thought it was unjust. Now, unfortunately, the present government creates a wrong impression within the EU. Like, for instance, blocking the opening of the Schengen open frontier agreement to Romania and Bulgaria, blocking it with no real valid reason, or fighting illegal immigration, going too far in cozying up to Victor Orbán in Hungary, or Alexander Vucic, the president of Serbia, both authoritarian governors or prime ministers.
Anyhow, there is a shadow over the past, and that's why Austria is more thoroughly looked at and if you wish to say investigated (than) let's say Denmark, where there is now a rather xenophobic social democracy in power.
SR: There are a couple of things which strike me about Austria and the relationship to various other countries. One, could you say something about the changing relationship to the United States, because Bruno Kreisky had what one could describe as a rather strained relationship to the U.S. when he was Chancellor. I think the question of Israel played a role in that as well as you point out in your book. And how do you see the present relationship to the United States evolving?
PL: Well, the relationship, the United States is also connected always with the internal politics, the far-right in Austria, but in every country has always been against the United States as a carrier of liberalism, etc. And it was at the time of Bruno Kreisky, a very complex relationship. There's a famous photo of Kreisky with Kennedy because Truman heard Kreisky talking and met him on his visit as a foreign minister. And Kennedy received him as foreign minister. And Kreisky was a... I think personally, I wrote his first biography, I think personally (he) was the ablest, the most outstanding politician, statesman Austria produced in the last century. And with all his failings. And he was a man who saw further than others, you know.
Kreisky was a far-sighted politician, and he was one of the first, who was always in favor of getting an agreement between Israel and the Arab states after 1967. He went probably several times too far; he was attacked as he was Jewish. That the Jewish Chancellor of Austria was having a personal relationship with Arafat and had an important role to play. Much later, I made a film, 10 years after his death, and I interviewed Shimon Peres, the former Israeli President and foreign minister. And he said that in many respects, Kreisky was right, that you had to find in time a kind of modus vivendi, a compromise based on the recognition of Israel as a state and giving up the occupied territories. And this, of course, caused tensions not only with Israel but also with the main protector of the state with the United States.
You know, once an Austrian ambassador told me when I asked, "All right. The French-Austrian relationship, that's so good that you can hardly notice them." And so, the relationship with the U.S. reflects also always the degree of provincialization, looking inside in a society. So, this is the reason why it is not a central factor in Austrian politics. I think the major factor is how to get rid of open and covert Russian influence.
SR: That's exactly going to be my second question to you on relationships to external powers. Could you say something about the relationship to Russia? You've hinted at the fact earlier that many Austrian Chancellors, after they stepped down from office, took up positions in Russian-state companies, including very big Russian energy firms, etc. So, the relationship to Russia as a former occupying power continues to be a rather close one, Austrian banks lending a lot to Russia as well. How has the Russian war of aggression in Ukraine changed that relationship?
PL: Well, there is a change because the people who were taking these positions have given them up. But you see, there was one case which caused European-wide attention and didn't make Austria very attractive in the eyes of international opinion, was that the former foreign minister married, and Putin came to the wedding, and he even danced with the foreign minister, Kneissl, who then after the dancing, curtsied to him. As it turned out that Putin also gave her very nice jewelry, which is worth 50,000 euros as a present.
SR: She belonged to the far-right.
PL: Yeah. She wasn't officially member of the (FPÖ) party, but of course. When the Russian president comes to the wedding this is a very unusual thing. And in that year, the Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz met Putin four times, three times in Moscow. In the meantime, one year after the famous wedding, the marriage broke up, too, and she lives in Russia. She became member of the supervisory board of Rosneft, one of the biggest oil corporations in Russia. Then the EU put her and the Freedomites on the list of people who could become subjected to sanctions. She now will set up a think tank in the University of St. Petersburg. And she also is a commentator for the Russian propaganda radio and television RT (Russia Today).
But I must say that the Austrian media reports on this and the Ukrainian War, certainly the aggression of Russia contributed to the fact that people see now more clearly what a dangerous figure Vladimir Putin is, and what a serious danger, not only to the Ukraine but to the whole of Democratic Europe, Russia, under his rule constitutes.
SR: Paul, the Russian aggression against Ukraine has brought up in Austria the question of its neutrality again in a big way. I think it's the first time since the Second Republic that some people started to question in public whether, under these circumstances, Austria should continue to be neutral. Could you say something about Austrian neutrality because, of course, it means that Austria also has to start now investing in its own military strength in view of the threat from Russia.
PL: Well, between 70 to 80 percent of the Austrians at every single poll came out in favor of neutrality. What is neutrality? It's basically that you don't have foreign bases on your territory, but you send your soldiers on missions to Syria, to the Israeli-Syrian borders, or in Cyprus, there were also Austrian soldiers. And Austria goes much further on the road of active neutrality than, for instance, Switzerland. Once the former Chancellor Schüssel said that neutral is like Sacher cake or the Mozart bon-bons, that one should give it up. But then he saw the results in the opinion polls, he became silent until now.
Now, the government and the People's Party, as major party in the coalition government said, Austria should remain neutral, but much better equipped militarily. I think Austria's best protection of neutrality is a good minister of interior with a good intelligence service, which cooperates with foreign intelligence services. And the best protection is if the loopholes which allowed Russian undermining directly or indirectly Austria's position are taken care of. For instance, Austria, until 2040, has an agreement with Russia for the import of gas. And you can't break this until it expires, because you have to pay. This is the heritage of the previous People's Party- far-right coalition, and of the chancellorship of Sebastian Kurz. So, as so often in Austria, there is a lot of smoke without a fire. All the neighbors of Austria, except Switzerland, are members of NATO, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Italy. So, the danger is not from the outside, the danger to the neutrality is primarily from the inside.
SR: Let me turn to the one party we haven't talked about so much, and that is the Austrian Social Democrats. Since 1980s, the Social Democrats in Austria have had a downward trajectory. This is a trajectory, however, which is not unique to Austria. There are structural features all over Europe that have led to a negative trend of social democratic popularity. Is there any specificity to the problems of the social democratic party here, or they are in the sense reflecting the fate of social democracy in France or in Italy. What I found very interesting in this connection in the book is your reference to Tony Judt's famous quip that, "In an age of chronic insecurity, social democratic parties may well morph into a social democracy of fear." Is that what is happening now?
PL: Yeah, it is both. It is, as your very, very good question asks, it is both. It is an international trend of course, but there is something special in Austria. You mustn't forget that Kreisky was, like Roosevelt in America, the most successful politician in Europe. He won five elections, three with absolute majority, it's incredible. And so the heritage of social democracy is very, very strong. And now, there is a new chairman who is coming from below, was the mayor of a small city with 18,000 inhabitants. And he reminds me of my youth as left-wing Social Democrat. He is a very strong speaker. The question is, could he form a coalition government either with the two small parties, the Greens and the NEOS, or even with the People's Party to block the accession of the far-right to power?
This is the last chance of Austrian Social Democracy because they themselves, undermined the rest of what remained of the social democracy. It's also not an unusual thing, this happened in Italy, this happened in France. It might happen again in the UK, but for the moment they will probably win the elections. So, it is very much an open question. The fate of Austrian democracy depends on whether the two major parties, which form the coalition after the war and after the freedom of Austria, the social Democrats and the People's Party can find a compromise and to keep the right wing from power. All the statements by the chairman of the Freedomites, Herbert Kickl, indicate they haven't learned much from the past, that they are grabbing for absolute power. And also they are pro-Russian and they are against any kind of assistance to Ukraine. So, this would be the end of Austrian democracy if this party would be the majority party in power.
There is one very important factor, which I might perhaps mention before we close, and that's the role of the President. The President is a former Green leader, who is a professor of economics, whose family was Russian, Estonian, and Dutch, who was born just before the end of the war, 1945 from immigrant refugees from Estonia. Had he been born in Hungary, he couldn't have become President. But luckily, he was born in Vienna and he now has his second term. He's a very strong defender of democracy. And though the federal President has restrictions on his ability to do whatever he would like to do, he has the power and the possibility to block certain things or to help to form or to fashion democratic alternatives. So when I said the major pillars of democracy, constitutional core, system of justice, that former chancellors are put on trial, public opinion, the media, and civil society, I must mention also the Federal President. And I very much hope that all these factors will nevertheless, ensure that after the elections, in the autumn of 2024, Austria will still remain a democracy.
SR: Thank you so very much, Paul, for this very insightful discussion on the past of Austrian democracy, its present, and also where you think its future might be heading. Thanks very much for being with me on the podcast today.
PL: Thank you very much for inviting me. It's a great distinction to be able to be with you and to say that how I admire the work the Central European University, under the former rector Michael Ignatieff, and under your efficient and very, very circumspect leadership is doing, and I hope that you'll remain as successful as you have been until now.
SR: As its intriguing title suggests, Paul Lendvai's latest book, “Austria Behind the Mask”, provides us a judicially measured, critical, but fair assessment of the complex political realities that often elude outside observers.
Today, he's warned us once again against ignoring the lingering presence of right-wing nationalist legacies. Most Austrians may have faced up to the long-repressed burdens of a short post imperialist history as a republic cut short temporarily by Nazi annexation and the war, but many seem to once again gravitate towards political forces that are xenophobic and nativist.
The European establishment in the past harshly condemned such developments and targeted former Austrian political leaders. But thereby, it actually only fed domestic resentment. Paul Lendvai invites us to analyze more carefully the complex trajectories leading up to and enabling these worrisome political changes.
The complex relationship with Russia, given Austria's negotiated neutrality after the Second World War, is clearly an important factor to bear in mind. And the internal dangers to the country's neutrality and ultimately its democratic resilience should not be underestimated. However, independent courts, a constitution that grants important powers to the federal president, a strong civil society, and an independent media are pillars of strength for democratic politics here as elsewhere.
But the slow erosion of mainstream parties in Austria, the decline of both the conservative right and the social democratic left must be viewed within the larger comparative context of similar crises elsewhere in Europe as well. Next year's parliamentary elections in Austria will be the test of how resilient democracy is against right wing authoritarian forces.
This was the 10th and final episode of Season 7 of Democracy in Question. Thank you very much for listening. Join us again in the new year in January when I start the new season after a break. My first guest in the new year will be the American feminist philosopher Nancy Fraser. Her new book, “Cannibal Capitalism”, argues that capitalism destroys not only nature and the work of care in families and communities, but it also predates on public power and democracy that together constitute its very foundations.
Please go back and listen to any episode you might have missed. And of course, let your friends know about the podcast if you're enjoying it. You can stay in touch with the work of the CEU at www.ceu.edu and the Albert Hirshman Center on Democracy at www.graduateinstitute.ch\democracy.