Austria’s parliamentary elections were a watershed. For the first time in the country’s democratic history, the populist far-right Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) came first in a national election, beating the two parties that founded and long dominated Austria, the Christian conservative People’s Party (ÖVP) and the Social Democrats (SPÖ).
With 28.8% of the vote, the FPÖ achieved its best result in a parliamentary election, winning 64 seats in the 183-member parliament. The ÖVP had gained momentum in the polls in the weeks leading up to the election, but failed to catch up with 26.3%. The SPÖ, internally torn by the ever-present pressures of socio-economic and socio-cultural divisions among its supporters and functionaries, never got beyond the 21% that most polls had predicted.
Rejecting the mainstream
This was a resounding rebuke to both traditional parties. Just five years ago, the ÖVP, under its young political star Sebastian Kurz, had surged to an impressive 38.4% after moving sharply to the right, and seemed poised for solid majorities for years to come. After Kurz was forced out following an indictment and subsequent conviction for perjury, his successor as party leader and chancellor, former interior minister Karl Nehammer, struggled to overcome his dull image compared to the dashing Kurz.
His government also seemed overwhelmed by the various crises affecting the country, ranging from COVID-19, a massive spike in energy prices due to the war in Ukraine and subsequent high inflation. All three predicaments hit Austria disproportionately hard compared to other western countries, leaving the country with a recession-ridden economy and unsustainable deficits that exceeded the Maastricht criteria. Although Nehammer gained stature during the campaign, he still failed to achieve the typical political boost that incumbent chancellors usually receive.
The SPÖ fared even worse, losing votes even from its historically poor showing in 2019. As a result of this earlier setback, it had changed its leadership, repositioning the party much further to the left. The new leader, Andreas Babler, won the leadership through a grassroots campaign, but he clearly lacked the support of other senior figures and important factions in the party.
Some leading members were so alarmed by Babler’s left-wing rhetoric that, even shortly before the election, they expressed concern that he could damage the party in future coalition talks. The SPÖ’s remaining constituencies turned out to be pensioners and urban progressives who wanted to prevent a right-wing government coalition and therefore switched from the Greens to the SPÖ to make the latter large enough to form a coalition with Nehammer’s conservatives. Meanwhile, the bulk of blue-collar voters had long shifted to the Freedom Party.
Kickl’s triumph
The clear winner of the election was Herbert Kickl, the leader of the Freedom Party. His mastery of social media campaigning went beyond all other parties in Austria, with the party’s updates regularly reaching more than a million followers in a country of nine million. This ensured the FPÖ achieved the result that had been predicted in the polls for more than a year. Kickl, arguably Austria’s best communicator among top politicians, had emerged from the shadow of the eternal strategist in the background. He managed to establish himself as the undisputed party leader after the party’s implosion in 2019 following the infamous Ibiza video.
When the FPÖ was forced into opposition, Kickl unified and rebuilt his party by emphasising radical populist and nativist narratives about a supposed corrupt political system that had perverted traditional democracy, betrayed the people and abandoned common sense. Kickl also did not shy away from appealing to conspiratorial sentiments propagated by extremist groups, such as the Great Replacement theory, an alleged government plot to replace the population with immigrants.
Other themes of Kickl’s FPÖ were the so-called “Corona dictatorship”, referring to the government’s anti-COVID-19 measures, or climate conspiracies by supposed left-wing eco-fascists and EU elites. Kickl also rejected sanctions against Russia, blaming the EU and Ukraine for the war and portraying Austrians as victims of high energy prices and runaway inflation. The FPÖ leader is also a strong admirer of the Hungarian model of Viktor Orbán, and parts of his programme can be read as a blueprint for establishing an illiberal type of democracy.
The elections ultimately turned on the topics that favoured the radical right. By far the most important issue, with 24% of the vote, was immigration, asylum and crime, followed by concerns about the pension system and the welfare state. The issues were decisive for the result, with exit poll data showing 65% of FPÖ voters backed the radical right because of the party’s position on immigration, while 43% of SPÖ voters were most concerned about the welfare state and 73% of Green voters about the climate. The conservatives scored on economic competence (35%) and to a lesser degree on immigration (15%).
Forming a government
It is ironic that the Freedom Party’s victory makes its participation in government less likely. Had the Freedom Party done less well, Kickl could have easily stepped aside, and the Freedom Party would have been satisfied with a junior role in a conservative-led government, as in 2000 and 2017. Nehammer has ruled out forming a government with Kickl as chancellor or in the government, repeatedly emphasising that the FPÖ leader is dangerous for democracy and cannot be trusted.
A coalition with the SPÖ, while numerically possible, would only have a one- or two-seat majority and thus be precarious. A third partner, the NEOS party, would increase the parliamentary majority and include an election winner. This small liberal party gained votes and achieved its best result to date with 9.2%. However, the prospect of a coalition between these three parties with such different agendas makes this option, if it comes to pass, politically challenging.
Some are already comparing it to the unpopular coalition in Germany, except that in the Austrian case it would not be the Conservatives but the far right that would be the main opposition and thus the principal beneficiary of an unpopular government. The situation is further complicated by the role of the Austrian Federal President, Alexander Van der Bellen of the Green Party. He has the constitutional power to veto any government and has stressed that he considers Kickl unfit for high public office and would not tolerate a government that is not explicitly pro-EU.
In short, Austria faces politically uncertain times and difficult negotiations. Clearly, from the perspective of a European Union that wishes to be seen as a united global actor and a beacon of liberal democracy and the rule of law, the prospect of the Freedom Party in government would not be a welcome one.
About the author:
Reinhard Heinisch is a Professor of Comparative Austrian Politics at the University of Salzburg.