Two far-right parties, the Austrian Freedom Party and the Movement for Austria’s Future, won 29 percent of the vote in the latest Austrian general election, double their total in the 2006 election.
Both parties share the same attitudes toward immigrants, especially Muslims and the EU: a mixture of fear and loathing. Since the two parties’ leaders, Heinz-Christian Strache and Jorg Haider, despise each other, there is little chance of a far-right coalition taking power.
Nonetheless, this is Adolf Hitler’s native land, where Jews were once forced to scrub Vienna’s streets with toothbrushes before being deported and killed, so the result is disturbing. But how disturbing?
That 29 percent is about 15 percent more than populist right-wing parties get in very good years (for them) in other European countries.
Strache, the leader of the Freedom Party, wants the government to create a new ministry to manage the deportation of immigrants. Muslims are openly disparaged.
Haider once praised the employment practices of Hitler’s Third Reich. Inevitably, the new rightists bring back memories of storm troopers and race laws.
Yet, to see the rise of the Austrian right as a revival of Nazism is a mistake. Neither party advocates violence, even if some of their rhetoric might inspire it.
Voters for the far right may be motivated less by ideology than by anxieties and resentments that are felt in many European countries, including ones with no Nazi tradition, such as the Netherlands and Denmark.
In Denmark, the hard-right Danish People’s Party, with 25 parliamentary seats, is the country’s third largest party. Dutch populists, such as Rita Verdonk or Geert Wilders, who is driven by a paranoid fear of “Islamization,” are putting the traditional political elites — a combination of liberals, social democrats and Christian democrats — under severe pressure.
This is precisely the point.
The biggest resentment among right-wing voters in European countries is reserved for political elites, who, in the opinion of many have been governing for too long in cozy coalitions that appear to exist chiefly to protect vested interests.
In Austria, even liberals admit that an endless succession of social democratic and Christian democratic governments has clogged the political system’s arteries, making it difficult for smaller parties to penetrate what is seen as a bastion of political privilege. The same is true in the Netherlands, which has been governed for decades by the same middle-of-the-road parties, led by benevolent but rather paternalistic figures, whose views about “multiculturalism,” “tolerance” and “Europe” were, until recently, rarely challenged.
Expressions of nationalism in postwar European democracies were always tolerated in soccer stadiums, not in public life. Skepticism about European unity was routinely denounced as bigotry, or even a form of racism.
Attachment to national feeling was further undermined by governments’ habit of blaming unpopular policies on EU bureaucrats, who are increasingly seen as yet another bunch of self-satisfied, privileged, and unaccountable elitists.
This is linked to resentment of immigrants. When the offspring of manual workers imported from countries such as Turkey and Morocco in the 1960s began to form large Muslim minorities in European cities, tensions rose in working-class neighborhoods. Complaints about crime and unfamiliar customs were often dismissed by liberal elites as “racism.” People simply had to learn to be tolerant.
None of this was necessarily wrong. Tolerance, European unity, distrust of nationalism and vigilance against racism are laudable goals. But promoting these aims without discussion, let alone criticism, resulted in a backlash.
When the Dutch, the French and the Irish voted against the European constitution, they were expressing distrust of their political elites. And populists who promise to restore national sovereignty by rejecting “Europe,” fighting “Islamization” and kicking out immigrants are exploiting this distrust.
The rhetoric of xenophobia and chauvinism is unpleasant, and, in a country with Austria’s past, even alarming.
But the new populism is not yet undemocratic, or even anti-democratic. The phrase most often heard in Austria among voters of the right-wing parties is “fresh air.” People say they voted for Haider and Strache to break the stranglehold of the ruling parties.
This is not an illegitimate motivation. If people are anxious about their national identities, the sovereignty of their governments, the demographic and social complexion of their societies, such fears are best voiced in the political arena.
As long as people express their concerns, however distasteful to liberal ears, by votes, not violence, democracy will not be seriously harmed.
Running against the political elite is, of course, the essence of populism everywhere. US presidential candidates pretend to run against “Washington” even when they are the sons of former presidents. Real damage is done when people lose confidence, not only in the elites, but in the system itself.
This has not yet happened in Europe, not even in Austria. There is no need for liberal, traditional parties, in a fit of panic, to battle the right by pandering to the same resentments. But those resentments should be taken seriously in political debates.
That way, the dangers of popular antipathies will be contained. Instead of damaging democracy, the rise of the right, by challenging the corruption of vested interests, might actually turn out to strengthen it.
Ian Buruma is a professor of human rights at Bard College.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICAT
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.