In some countries the political world is still on holiday, but not in Austria, where a new government is yet to be formed following last year’s election, now more than three months ago. Three parties won most of the seats between them, such that any two together will command a majority: the far-right Freedom Party, the centre-right People’s Party and the centre-left Social Democrats.
But of the three possible combinations – which in effect is only two, since we know that far right and centre-left will not co-operate – that between centre-right and centre-left has only a bare majority with 92 of the 183 seats. So when centre-right leader and current prime minister Karl Nehammer was tasked with forming a government, he included both the centre-left and the smaller liberal party, Neos, with its 18 seats in his negotiations.
Last week, those negotiations broke down. First Neos walked out, then a day later Nehammer announced that agreement with the centre-left had proved impossible and offered his resignation. President Alexander van der Bellen sent for far-right leader Herbert Kickl, and has now given him the opportunity to try to form a government.
Whether or not he succeeds is up to the People’s Party. Nehammer had held firm against co-operating with the far right, at least so long as Kickl remains leader, but new leader Christian Stocker says he is open to talks. If far right and centre-right can’t work together, at least to the extent of one tolerating the other in a minority government, then the only alternative will be a fresh election.
And nobody wants that except for the Freedom Party, because it’s been making up further ground since the election. Recent polls have it in the mid-30s, up from 28.8% in September, with most of that coming at the expense of the centre-right. (It’s possible that the media narrative that keeps presenting the Freedom Party as having “won” the election might have something to do with that.)
The Freedom Party has been in government before, although never with the prime ministership. It was a junior partner to the People’s Party in 2000-05 and again in 2017-19; both times the result was a fall in its support. As I’ve said many times, giving office to extremists can sometimes be a way to draw their sting, but there’s no sure way of telling when it will work and when it might lead to disaster.
The real problem, it seems to me, is not the willingness of mainstream parties to deal with the far right, but rather their willingness – often eagerness – to adopt its policies and rhetoric. That’s the message of a piece published at Christmas by Klaus Neumann at Inside Story, in which he reviews the leadup to the Freedom Party’s electoral success and the way in which the other parties have copied its approach, to no avail:
But attempts to appease an electorate that supposedly expects their government to keep irregularised migrants out and abuse those already in the country have not had the desired result. Those voters yearning for racist migration policies tend to opt for the far-right original rather than the moderate copy.
As Neumann points out, Australia has been one of the earliest and worst offenders, with our increasingly explicit and far-reaching demonisation of immigrants. Our similarities with Austria go further than just the name.
The World is Not Enough 
In Austria parties spent only three months negotiating before deciding they couldn’t reach agreement on forming a government.
In Belgium parties have been at it for seven months and negotiations are still going on, although apparently the most recent extension, until the end of January, is supposed to be the last one.
I don’t think I have any particular point to make, but the contrast strikes me.
LikeLike
Well yes. I think the main difference is that there are a lot more parties in Belgium and a lot more possible permutations in arranging them. Which not only affects the difficulty of the task this time, but also (because it’s been the case for a long time) affects the underlying culture: Belgians expect the process to take longer, so they’re more inclined to persevere and not be deterred by obstacles that elsewhere might be fatal. But of course there may also be deeper reasons.
LikeLike
As far as I can tell, although there are more theoretical possible governing combinations in Belgium, all the negotiations over the past seven months have been towards putting together just one of them, the other theoretical possibilities having been ruled out. If they do eventually reach an agreement, what’s going to be in it that took seven months to think up? If they can’t reach an agreement, how can it take seven months to find that out?
It’s obviously true that Belgians are inured to this kind of thing, but just because they’re inured doesn’t mean they like it. It’s not good that the Austrian parties have decided that they’re not prepared to do what it takes to stymie the FPÖ, but at least they haven’t spent seven months figuring out the answer to that question, although even three months seems too long to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, fair points. I guess the existence of multiple options affects the way you think about things, even if you’re not actually pursuing them. But it does seem excessive.
LikeLike