http://www.ctheory.com/

17.2.2000

A Fascist in Waiting?
=====================
Haider's Austria
================

~Gustav Mayer~

17 Feb 2000
-----------

Haider's Freedom Party engagement in the Austrian government has
suddenly tweaked the interest of people everywhere. Austria being a
small mountain Republic is usually ignored as far as the world's
media is concerned. Austria is consistently overshadowed by its large
neighbor to the north, Germany. This fact has in some ways benefited
and hurt Austria. Benefited in the way that they could slither out of
any responsibility for WWII while no one seemed to notice and harmful
in that they never benefited from learning their lesson in the first
place. And those that don't learn their lesson, often have their
lesson repeated until they do.

Nevertheless, the picture that foreign countries have of Austria is
mistaken. This is in part because Austria is so infrequently in the
press except for the blunders with Fascism, past or present. Austria,
while a small country, is nevertheless complex. It has not only
failed to come to grips with its Nazi past, but it has failed to
shed itself of the memories of grandeur from the great Austro-
Hungarian Empire. Consequently, it often situates itself in a far
more self-important light than that which its current economic status
indicates.

But delusions of grandeur caused by its glorious past are not the
only feature that make Austria complex. Its people are well-educated
and talented but due to a reluctance to change, inbred conservatism
and a stifling old-world bureaucracy its talented people are often
not allowed to blossom. Hence, you will find the strange occurrence
that despite its wealth Austrians make their fame, success or money
in foreign lands. This is not only true with bodybuilders turned
actors but with professors, scientists, doctors, artists and
architects. Since the Socialists came to power, it has become nearly
impossible to starve. And, there is another interesting phenomenon:
it is nearly impossible for a poor person to become rich and a rich
person to become poor. If a rich Austrian became poor, he's a genius
or a bumbling idiot. Someone of normal intelligence just can't
achieve this feat.

You can imagine the difficulties this presents for the talented and
creative. They are in effect subordinated to those well-placed. Not a
healthy mixture for people who have talent. And that is why many of
the talented have left for "greener" pastures. Consequently, what has
developed in Austria over the years, and despite its well-educated
and talented core of citizens, is mediocritization of its economy.
Naturally, politicians will deny this but they are, up to now at
least, the beneficiaries of such mediocrity. Politics like any other
high level activity in Austria is a contact sport (the contact being
"you scratch my back I scratch yours" combined with elbow rubbing of
all sorts). All countries have the phrase, "it's not what you know
but who you know." However, nowhere is this more extreme than in
small picturesque Austria.

0.1 Too Much Stability is a Bad Thing
-------------------------------------

All of the above explanations do not lead directly to the door of Mr.
Haider. But what one must understand in Austria is that for the last
30 years the Socialists have ruled the country (except for a short
phase in the 80s whereupon the Conservatives successfully ran
themselves out of power in no time at all). And a good deal of that
time they did so with the help of a coalition with the conservative
and catholic People's Party. What's more, due to the insecurity of
their past and a lack of confidence in democracy they have often
sought a broad consensus and stable government in place of rational
and intelligent disagreements with an active opposition party. More
often than not this has resulted in a "Grand Coalition" where the two
parties could bully their programs over the opposition and to their
people. The idea of a "minority" being protected was just not
practiced. Naturally, in such a small country where there are no
outside power influences that could represent another form of
opposition, blatant abuse of power was bound to present itself.

Austria, to its credit, is not corrupt. However, they do have another
method which is a more sophisticated but less dangerous form of
corruption and referred to as "Proporz". This is the idea that those
in power hand out the top jobs, grants, licenses and what-have-you to
those well connected. In a way it stems from the Kaiser's prerogative
to give jobs to whom and where he wanted. The problem of course is
that Austria is a democracy which not only implies equality but also
granting position on the basis of merit. Compounding this bad habit
is the fact that the Socialists and the Conservatives went on their
merry way without a tinge of guilt in doling out the lucrative
contracts. This culminated in its most ugly form when the Socialists
did a "one-upmanship" on the Conservatives by "privatising" the
Credit-Anstalt (a bank that was thought to be in the hands of the
People's Party) and "sold" it to Bank Austria (Socialist Party's bank
and owned by the city of Vienna). The Socialists bullied their way
through the fiasco. The People's Party was embarrassed and tired of
being on the losing end of the "Proporz" game [1] and this ultimately
led to bad blood. If it did not look good in the People's Party eyes
it looked a bit fishy as well to the normal "Hans" on the street.
"Ah, the old Proporz game." It looks like the People's Party sought
revenge and got it. Naturally, to the detriment of the nation. But
that is how it goes in power games.

While the Austrians have put up with this scenario for a ridiculously
long time, some things have changed to spur them into a rebellious
mood. First, the EU. Moving into the EU has helped Austria
enormously. It has forced Austria to be more open, more competitive
and more "western" looking. The change that has taken place over the
last few years in Austria is in light-speed compared to the glacial
speed of change that Austria usually exercises. But it has also
caused the voter to be more demanding and more aware of how other
countries govern. These events, while a good thing in themselves,
have led to enormous dissatisfaction with the government. Suddenly,
Austrians are no longer thinking "Ah, but everyone does it this way"
but "why do we always play these complicated games in a time of
global competition?".

Thus, the time was ripe for a change.

0.2 But Why Him?
----------------

But "Why," you ask, "did they vote for Haider's party?"

This is a complicated question. The answer is not the simple one that
roughly 30% of Austrians are fascist or right radical leaning
racists. The answer is for more complicated (as is everything in
Austria) but certainly not terribly flattering either.

First, we know that the Socialists and the Peoples' party must carry
much of the blame. As in many other European countries the Socialists
have had a hard time justifying their existence when so many say that
"capitalism has won". The Socialists have effectively abandoned their
platform without finding any strong or long-lasting principles to
replace them. While most Socialist parties in Europe have gone
through a difficult phase, Austria is predictably a bit late. In
fact, the Socialists remarked that they had no such problems due to
their outstanding leadership.

How dangerous self-praise is!

The fact is that the Socialists have gradually abandoned their
Socialist principles and attempted to become an "all things to all
people" party. Naturally, this is impossible. It started when a
former Bank Director - Mr. Vranitzky - become Chancellor (any true
blooded socialist would cringe at such a connection), and culminated
with the promotion of Viktor Klima (a socialist by name but a
populist by action). With a leadership lacking any principles, Mr.
Klima embarked on a populist program. And as a populist who should
you fear most? Well Mr. Haider of course. Mr. Klima's internal slogan
must have been "well if you can't beat him, join him."

"Whoosssh", that's the sound of Mr. Einem, who tried unsuccessfully
to reform the police, being ushered out.

"Ouch", that's the sound of every civil rights proponent in Austria
reacting to the action of the new Minister of the Interior, Mr.
Schloegl. Together, Mr. Klima and Mr. Schloegl, not in words but in
action, effectively endorsed many of Mr. Haider's suggestions.

Let's look at a few of these actions and you be the judge if they
stem from a "European Social Democratic Party" or a radical right
reactionary party.

* Asylum seeking was virtually stopped after being one of the
most liberal in Europe.

* The tacit acknowledgment that there are too many foreigners in
Austria by a total change in immigration policy through quotas
and drastic restrictions on asylum.

* The inhuman and at times sadly laughable (if it did not make
you cry first) acts of deportation and separation of family
members due to nit-picking interpretations of the law by the
bureaucracy.

* More police power especially as it concerns surveillance in
the private sphere controlled by a judicial system that sides 99
times out of 100 with the police.

* Defending police brutality until an outcry of public protest
forces public action [2].

* The death of an asylum seeker due to approved brutal methods
of constraint during deportation.

* Constant prejudice and discrimination of the police against
people of color.

* The assumption by most of the police force that all African
looking people are drug dealers (which has lead to some
embarrassing arrests and brutality by police against academic
guests but, unfortunately, the world's media was not
interested.)

* The instruction to junior police officers by at least one
superior ranking trainer that the way to handle Afro-European
suspects is to beat them first and question them later.
Eventually, the superior was investigated and reproached but his
behavior was not viewed as symptomatic of its police force but
only "stupid". As if that excuses it.

* The open approval of Mr. Schloegl by Mr. Haider, calling Mr.
Schloegl, "my best man in the cabinet."

Too often we have undervalued the worth of leadership based on
well-defined party principles and over-valued the effectiveness of
"populism." Although charismatic, Mr. Klima is no match for Mr.
Haider. His party should have stuck with someone who could represent
the principles of Social Democracy. Mr. Einem or Mr. Fischer are the
only two public faces in the Socialist Party that I see carrying such
a torch. However, in the political atmosphere of "all things to all
people", these two officials were relegated to the background for
fear of upsetting the populace and having even more voters move to
Mr. Haider. To me this decision was catastrophic for both Austria and
the Socialists. In short, Klima and co. acknowledged to voters
through his government's actions that a minority of Austrians were
correct in their xenophobic fears and latent racism, that, in effect,
Mr. Haider had been telling the truth all along.

But for the voter who, for some time now, was sick and tired of the
Grand Coalition, this was a nicely wrapped invitation to just say
the hell with it and vote Freedom Party.

0.3 A Long List of Blame
------------------------

However, this does not account for all the votes that Mr. Haider
received. A good 20-30% of his votes were definitely protest votes.
Before the election, both ruling parties indicated that they would
form another coalition, excluding Haider. This presented the golden
opportunity for many voters to vent their anger without worrying
about letting the wolf into the chicken coop (more, later, on the
wolf and chicken coop).

It doesn't say much for Austria that its protest votes resulted in a
vote for Mr. Haider. Austrians have two other good and responsible
alternatives, the eloquent and intelligent Mr. Van der Bellen of the
Green Party, and the confrontational but no less intelligent Ms.
Heide Schmidt of the Liberal Forum Party. However, Austria never
participated in or shared the tradition of "liberalism," being
protected from such radical perils by the dominating influence of
Metternich. Consequently, the liberalism expounded by Ms. Schmidt is,
in a strange sense, too radical a change for Austria. True, socialism
in Austria could be said to be far more radical in scope than what
liberalism espouses. However socialism, by its very nature, is
patriarchal and Austrians have clung to such fatherly security since
losing their Monarchy. As for the Greens, through Mr. Van der
Bellen's leadership they have enjoyed a well-deserved surge in
popularity, but they are new to the scene and viewed as too
"morally-tolerant" (for lack of a better word) for many of the
conservative Austrians.

The President, Mr. Thomas Klestil, must also share responsibility for
this fiasco. While it needs to be said that Mr. Klestil is dead-set
against such a coalition he feels he is left with no choice. He has
failed to call for new elections to settle the matter once and for
all. It seems that Mr. Klestil does not have confidence in his fellow
citizens to reject the Haider program. He looks to the polls and sees
that during the long drawn out and pre-ordained failed coalition
negotiations between the Socialists and the Conservatives the Freedom
Party gained even further in popularity. But this is a typical
knee-jerk reaction from the Austrians, venting their anger and
frustration with politics as usual without thinking about the
consequences. One can be fairly confident that after an election
campaign most of these protest voters would change their mind to a
more intelligent choice. A case in point was the EU referendum. The
polls said it was neck and neck. However, when the clock struck
midnight and Austrians had to decide whether they wanted to be part
of Europe or be turned into a pumpkin they voted a resounding "yes"
for Europe. With such large issues on the table, I find it sad that
Mr. Klestil does not trust his fellow citizens. Hollow rings the
Austrian government's claim of a stable democracy.

Certainly, calling such an election would have had its risks.
Theoretically, it could have strengthened Mr. Haider's party. But at
the very least it would have clearly defined the issues. Mr. Haider
would have either suffered an embarrassing defeat or a shocking
victory [3]. The Socialists during the election would have had to
distance themselves from Haider's policies and, thereby, perhaps with
a bit of luck, discover themselves again. The Conservative Party
would have received its comeuppance for its willingness to sleep with
the devil. And it would have given the Austrians a chance to see the
Greens and Liberals in a different role.

0.4 Apples, Oranges, and Kiwis
------------------------------

However, all of this should be put in perspective. The Greens,
receiving 14% of the vote, would be labeled in conservative parts of
America as "immoral, radical and ex-Berkeley academics" with their
platform. And the original socialist platform is even too "liberal"
for most Americans to handle [4]. We should also not forget that the
Socialists were still the "winning" party in the election with over
30% of the vote.

So all is not lost in Austria. Many people here are not only
dedicated to democratic principles but are truly good citizens of
Europe. While it is true that you see blatant discrimination in
Austria, you also find the opposite: true color-blindness of many of
its people [5]. This is something that is virtually impossible in
America.

Furthermore, a good insight into its people is the value of
friendship which means something in this land. A friendship may take
a while to form but its bond lasts a lifetime. What is perhaps most
heartening is that this type of friendship is genuine. If a friend
does something for you, he does so out of kindness and not with the
thought of getting anything in return. That can only come from
someone whose heart is good.

0.5 A Fascist in Waiting?
-------------------------

To be fair the jury is still out on Mr. Haider. You cannot judge a
person to be a fascist or a criminal unless they either confess
beforehand, openly stating their principles (Mr. Haider is no such
beast),or prove it by their actions. Mr. Haider hasn't been given
the litmus test of action. I would call him a "fascist in waiting."
[6].

Mr. Haider is as cunning as a fox and as aggressive as a wolf. A
lethal combination. He is just too smart to be a neo-Nazi. Our media
has made the dangerous assumption that if fascism returned to Europe
it would assume the same political form as in the past. Tacit in this
assumption are some dangerous premises. First, that Nazis are stupid.
Second, that they didn't learn anything from the past. Third, that
they are not capable of adjusting their program to modern times. And
yes, the Neo-Nazis are stupid.

But Mr. Haider isn't stupid, nor are any of his contemporaries. Why
shouldn't fascists learn from their mistakes and develop into
something more "refined" and "cultivated"? The threat to democracy
will not come from the outside, but from within. Mr. Haider is such a
threat. He constantly 'praises' democracy, without committing himself
to engage in a democratic manner. He realises that democracy is his
ticket to power. However, the key to a democratic society is also a
guarantee of freedom for the minority. Somehow in many "western"
countries we have forgotten about this basic tenet. Without it, we
have the dictatorship of the majority. Mr. Haider has never given any
indication that he respects the rights of all. In fact, he seems to
be enthralled with the idea of a dictatorship through his manipulated
followers. Watch him in a crowd and see how he relishes the challenge
of bringing his people to the emotional level that he wants. If you
observe him without any prejudice, you will at first be amazed and
then frightened. This is a man that can manipulate people and loves
doing so.

I find Mr. Grunwald's depiction of Mr. Haider most insightful:

Haider told me that he was not really a German nationalist but
used that rhetoric to satisfy the "old folks." [7]

We have become accustomed to politicians who resort to the most banal
to attract a crowd. However, one must call into question the moral
fibre of such a person. Let's for instance give Mr. Haider the
benefit of the doubt that he does not believe in his own provocative
and disgusting statements. What type of beast do we have here that
would nevertheless excite people with such overt intolerance and
racism?

Mr. Van der Bellen raised an interesting point the other day. He
called Mr. Haider on the carpet for his remark that the EU is
over-reacting. Mr. Haider said that the EU was yelling that the wolf
is in the chicken coop when the wolf isn't there. Mr. Van der Bellen
found it insulting that Mr. Haider referred to Europe as those in the
chicken coop. However, I would go one step further and suggest that
Mr. Haider meant much more than that. First, Haider has the clever
way of phrasing such statements that if anyone takes issue with what
he says then it is the accuser that has read things into his words
that just weren't there. But he consistently talks in double speak.
His words are a double-edged sword. For those who like Mr. Haider
because he is such a "nice good young man", his defence that he
didn't mean anything by such a reference is good enough. For his
radical followers the hidden inference is the necessary fuel that
adds fire to their cause. I find it interesting that Mr. Haider would
use such a reference in the first place. Is Mr. Haider the wolf that
hasn't entered the chicken coop just yet? That's an interesting
insight isn't it? He is staying in Carinthia, after all. Does he see
himself as the wolf? The chicken part of his analogy is also vintage
Haider. Without calling the rest of the EU a bunch of chickens he has
made the link. If you constantly feel that you are the victims of a
united Europe and foreigner friendly laws, which Haider encourages
his party to feel, then the wolf analogy takes on a completely
different hue for his radical followers. He seems to enjoy this game.
Is this double-speak a signal to his followers that everything is
running as planned? The wolf is waiting for his moment to pounce.
Far-fetched you say. Normally, I would agree. Conspiracy theories are
usually just plain silly. My judgment as to whether a conspiracy
theory holds water is first test it with incompetence. 99 times out
of 100 incompetence offers the better and simpler explanation.
However, Mr. Haider is not incompetent and he is a seasoned
politician. Politicians know better than anyone on how to prevent
unwanted inferences. Mr. Haider seems to have taken this art one step
further. He makes 'wanted' inferences without being held responsible
for them.

Lastly, one of the greatest dangers to Austria and Europe is not
what will happen in the next few months or even years. The real
danger is the "normalization" of Haider and his party to the point
where we think he has been controlled or "tamed". It will be the
insidious encroachment of rules that go unnoticed but eventually add
up to a sizeable loss of freedom. Mr. Haider is a far-sighted
politician. He has proven this by taking his party from near hopeless
obscurity to one of second if not top dog in Austria. He will surely
bode his time in Carinthia, taking credit when things work right,
blaming Klestil (the President restricted Haider's choice on
Ministers) or the People's Party for blundering it when things prove
unpopular, until the time is right for Austria to "need" his
leadership. And his ministers in the cabinet are certainly
dispensable for the great cause.

Austria through its years of dominance of the Socialists and
Conservatives has not thought to put checks on its own power. This is
evident in their influence with the press [8], the virtual control of
radio and TV and to a lesser degree the judicial system. Their
argument was to create stability. The Socialists never dreamed that
they would be the odd one out.

In this scenario one last ominous question presents itself:

What happens when a "wolf" like Mr. Haider gets in the chicken
coop with a disarmed powerless farmer left to watch the
destruction of 40 years hard work?

Notes
-----

[1] A curious claim of the People's Party is to end the era of
"Proporz" while neglecting to admit their responsibility. Are they
making a stand on principle? Why, then, the sudden about face? It
seems more likely that since they can't win the game anymore, they
don't want to play. At least not with the Socialists.

[2] One such incident sheds light on the views of the Freedom Party,
more reminiscent of Stalinist times than a democracy. The case had to
do with police mercilessly beating up a black person in front of
numerous witnesses. Courageously, these witnesses made a complaint.
Their actions were greeted by the police union's attempt to sue the
witnesses for going against the police! The police union was at the
time controlled by the Freedom Party.

[3] Even if Haider's party were to have won the predicted 32-34% that
would not have necessarily meant a Freedom Party led coalition. The
Conservatives were suffering badly in the polls. It could have been
that the Freedom Party and the People's Party would have been short
the necessary 50% to control Parliament.

[4] Guaranteed health insurance for all, a liberal unemployment
benefit, 2 year job-guaranteed leave for mothers with new-borns,
family aid for all, 5-6 weeks vacation, free university education are
just a few of the items that would frighten the U.S. Democratic Party
into labelling this platform the agenda of "fuzzy-eyed left-leaning
liberals".

[5] If you find this hard to believe listen to statements from the
recently deceased black-American jazz musician, Art Farmer, stating
that he found more freedom and less discrimination living in Vienna
than in America.

[6] True to form, Mr. Haider's and his Freedom Party statements of
late concerning the EU actions and demonstrations by many citizens
bring to mind the fascist tactics of the 1930s. According to the
Freedom Party and Mr. Haider, the "left" in the form of "foreign
agitators" is to blame for coordinating both the actions of the
European Community as well as the spontaneous demonstrations in
Vienna.

[7] Henry Grunwald, _One Man's America_. Anchor Books, 1997, p.602.

[8] If any one questions the influence of the political parties on
the press one need not look any further than a couple years back when
the "Profil" put the Chancellor on the cover. Mr. Vranitzky pictured
naked with the implication of the "Emperor without any clothes". An
excellent political point and the cover was not the least bit
offensive. The naked body in question was a double, only the face was
of Mr. Vranitzky, and 9 out of 10 men would turn in their mothers for
such a body. However, Mr. Vranitzky did not think it so humorous and
the editor responsible lost his job. In most democracies such an
obvious intrusion of a political party into the freedom of the press
would cause the Chancellor to lose his job!

_____________________________________________________________________
Gustav Mayer is a pseudonym for a writer living in Austria.