Heinz-Christian Strache of the FPÖ waits for the start of his first parliament session as Vice-Chancellor in Vienna on December 20th. Photo: AFP
The new coalition in Austria is not simply a re-enactment of the 2000 coalition between conservatives and the far-right, and that makes it far more dangerous, argues Itay Lotem, a Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Westminster.
As clichés go, one of the most resistant claims of all is that “history repeats itself”. As teenagers, many of us used it to show wisdom beyond our years, or at least to make sure our A-Level history essays got the conclusion they deserved. And yet it is just a cliché. While events follow certain patterns and structures, history does not repeat itself. The same applies to the latest blast from the past in Austria, the European harbinger of far-right politics. A new coalition government between the conservative ÖVP and the far-right FPÖ triggers comparisons with the past, both as a “return of fascism” and a “repeat” of the last such coalition in 2000.
Particularly right now, as 2017 seems to have been all about the rise of the far-right in Europe, the comparison with 2000 seems encouraging. Back then, the EU took steps to boycott the new government, which it perceived as the first far-right coalition in post-war Western Europe. At the same time, the government’s dysfunctionality led to its collapse within two years, the ensuing elections resulted in a big win for the ÖVP and a split of the far-right party.
This time, however, there is every reason to believe the coalition will survive a full term. As another cliché goes, 2017 is not 2000. The last two decades have witnessed changes in the ways far-right parties operate, and Austria is a case in point. Internal party changes, national developments and the transformation of European politics all point out that this coalition will be far more stable than its predecessor.
Internally, the FPÖ has learnt from its own mistakes. Back in the 1999 elections, it was propelled to electoral victory by the new adoption of populism that blurred its Nazi continuities and by the flamboyant personality of Jörg Haider, the then head of party. Haider was a gifted campaigner who harnessed protest votes to support the FPÖ as a pure opposition party. In government, however, the party lacked the most basic parliamentary experience. The FPÖ not only cracked under the strain of internal egos and competitions, it also got easily outmanoeuvred by its more experienced partners.
Ever since, however, the FPÖ has gained experience on state level and learned from its mistakes. This time around, it campaigned as a party of government. Furthermore, the coalition will provide less opportunities for inner-party strife. In 2000, Haider, the face of the party, was left outside the government and became increasingly marginalised and embittered. Today, the party’s two leading men, Heinz Christian Strache and Norbert Hofer, will both participate in the government, thus creating a more “parliamentary” movement and minimising the effect of Strache’s personality cult.
On a national level, the FPÖ performance is no longer a shock victory, but a long expected result. The big winner of these elections was the ÖVP, which gained from Sebastian Kurz’s personal campaigning over the party’s head. The young Chancellor was responsible for an ÖVP victory and an underperformance of the FPÖ. He gained support through a nativist platform, which always included a coalition with the far-right. While the aftermath of the 1999 elections saw a proliferation of anti-FPÖ demonstrations, Austrian civil society greeted this coalition with a shrug. After all, this was what people voted for.
Internationally, there is no reason to expect the EU to initiate any pressure comparable to the 2000 boycott. Despite impassioned calls to do so on some Western European Left-leaning journals, the new coalition with the far-right will not be the exception it was in 2000. Despite the specificities of Austrian continuities to Nazism, the EU will have a hard time singling out an Austrian government in the current climate.
For once, the Austrian coalition is predicted to be far more moderate than the current majorities of the Polish and Hungarian parliaments. Moreover, while the Austrian participation of a far-right party in power is indeed exceptional for the Western-European context, it is doubtful whether its character will be any different to the Danish government’s reliance on the far-right, the Dutch government’s appropriation of the far-right’s nativism or the British government’s Brexiteering touch.
This time around the FPÖ is far better prepared for government than in 2000 and is unlikely to implode under pressure. For outside observers, the FPÖ’s performance matters to see what happens to a far-right party that sets realistic expectations and participates in government as a junior coalition partner. For once, how much influence will the party exert over policy making (beyond its ability to toxify the public discourse)? When the FPÖ caves in to compromise on economic issues, how much understanding will its electorate show? And lastly, will an anti-establishment party be able to sustain its position after a term as junior member of the, well, establishment?
Indeed, while history never repeats itself, Austria can be counted on to provide insights into the working of the far-right. To find adequate means to counter its latest successes, following developments in this small Alpine country might be just the place to start. As the far-right re-invents itself into parties of government rather than pure protest, it becomes ever more pressing to devise better strategies to fight the roots that help it grow in so many places.
The post ANALYSIS: History repeating in Austria? Not so fast appeared first on News Wire Now.
Saudi women in Sydney: Sisters’ bodies lay undiscovered for a month
Australian police are baffled after the bodies of two Saudi women, believed to have lain undiscovered for a month, were found in a Sydney apartment.
Sisters Asra Abdullah Alsehli, 24, and Amaal Abdullah Alsehli, 23, were found dead on 7 June in separate beds at home in the suburb of Canterbury.
Police, who were called to the property for a welfare check, said the women are believed to have died in early May.
But despite “extensive inquiries”, they still do not know how or why.
The sisters moved to Australia from Saudi Arabia in 2017 and may have sought asylum, The Sydney Morning Herald reported. Police refused to confirm this, saying they do not comment on residential status.
A human rights organisation said it should be established whether the women fled Saudi Arabia because of domestic violence or harsh laws governing women. However, there is no evidence this is the case.
Police said they had been in contact with the women’s family, which is assisting them with inquiries.
Lina al-Hathloul, head of monitoring and communications at Saudi human rights organisation ALQST, said it “would not be the first case” of Saudi women who were killed abroad after fleeing domestic violence.
“There are no protections for women who are victims of domestic violence in Saudi Arabia, so they flee abroad,” she told the BBC.
She added: “I’m not saying that is the case here, just that we need a thorough investigation. It is frustrating not to have any information.”
According to the Sydney Morning Herald, there had been signs that something was wrong.
Last year, the women told their building manager they thought someone was tampering with their food deliveries, the paper reported.
A plumber who visited the apartment also said he believed there was “something mysterious” going on, and that police had been called in the past over concerns for the women.
New South Wales Police issued a renewed plea to the public on Wednesday, saying “any piece of information” could be the key to solving this case.
The local community is close-knit, police said in a statement, asking anyone who may have known or seen the women to come forward.
A report from Australian current affairs programme Four Corners in 2019 found 80 Saudi women had tried to seek asylum in Australia in recent years. Many of them were fleeing male guardianship laws.
Australia election: Why is Australia’s parliament so white?
With this year’s election, political parties did have a window to slightly improve this. But they chose not to in most cases, critics say.
Tu Le grew up the child of Vietnamese refugees in Fowler, a south-west Sydney electorate far from the city’s beaches, and one of the poorest urban areas in the country.
The 30-year-old works as a community lawyer for refugees and migrants newly arrived to the area.
Last year, she was pre-selected by the Labor Party to run in the nation’s most multicultural seat. But then party bosses side-lined her for a white woman.
It would take Kristina Kenneally four hours on public transport – ferry, train, bus, and another bus – to get to Fowler from her home in Sydney’s Northern Beaches, where she lived on an island.
Furious locals questioned what ties she had to the area, but as one of Labor’s most prominent politicians, she was granted the traditionally Labor-voting seat.
Ms Le only learned she’d been replaced on the night newspapers went to print with the story.
“I was conveniently left off the invitation to the party meeting the next day,” she told the BBC.
Despite backlash – including a Facebook group where locals campaigned to stop Ms Kenneally’s appointment – Labor pushed through the deal.
“If this scenario had played out in Britain or the United States, it would not be acceptable,” says Dr Tim Soutphomassane, director of the Sydney Policy Lab and Australia’s former Race Discrimination Commissioner.
“But in Australia, there is a sense that you can still maintain the status quo with very limited social and political consequences.”
An insiders’ game
At least one in five Australians have a non-European background and speak a language at home other than English, according to the last census in 2016.
Some 49% of the population was born or has a parent who was born overseas. In the past 20 years, migrants from Australia’s Asian neighbours have eclipsed those from the UK.
But the parliament looks almost as white as it did in the days of the “White Australia” policy – when from 1901 to the 1970s, the nation banned non-white immigrants.
“We simply do not see our multicultural character represented in anything remotely close to proportionate form in our political institutions,” says Dr Soutphomassane.
Compared to other Western multicultural democracies, Australia also lags far behind.
The numbers below include Indigenous Australians, who did not gain suffrage until the 1960s, and only saw their first lower house MP elected in 2010. Non-white candidates often acknowledge that any progress was first made by Aboriginal Australians.
Two decades ago, Australia and the UK had comparably low representation. But UK political parties – responding to campaigns from diverse members – pledged to act on the problem.
“The British Conservative Party is currently light years ahead of either of the major Australian political parties when it comes to race and representation,” says Dr Soutphomassane.
So why hasn’t Australia changed?
Observers say Australia’s political system is more closed-door than other democracies. Nearly all candidates chosen by the major parties tend to be members who’ve risen through the ranks. Often they’ve worked as staffers to existing MPs.
Ms Le said she’d have no way into the political class if she hadn’t been sponsored by Fowler’s retiring MP – a white, older male.
Labor has taken small structural steps recently – passing commitments in a state caucus last year, and selecting two Chinese-Australian candidates for winnable seats in Sydney.
But it was “one step forward and two steps back”, says party member and activist Osmond Chiu, when just weeks after the backlash to Ms Le’s case, Labor “parachuted in” another white candidate to a multicultural heartland.
Andrew Charlton, a former adviser to ex-PM Kevin Rudd, lived in a harbour mansion in Sydney’s east where he ran a consultancy.
His selection scuppered the anticipated races of at least three diverse candidates from the area which has large Indian and Chinese diasporas.
Party seniors argued that Ms Kenneally and Mr Charlton – as popular and respected party figures – would be able to promote their electorates’ concerns better than newcomers.
Labor leader Anthony Albanese also hailed Ms Kenneally as a “great Australian success story” as a migrant from the US herself.
But Mr Chiu says: “A lot of the frustration that people expressed wasn’t about these specific individuals.
“It was about the fact that these were two of the most multicultural seats in Australia and these opportunities – which come by so rarely – to select culturally diverse candidates were squandered.”
He adds this has long-term effects because the average MP stays in office for about 10 years.
The frustration on this issue has centred on Labor – because the centre-left party calls itself the “party of multiculturalism”.
But the Liberal-National government doesn’t even have diversity as a platform issue.
One of its MPs up for re-election recently appeared to confuse her Labor rival for Tu Le, sparking accusations that she’d mixed up the two Asian-Australian women – something she later denied. But as one opponent said: “How is this still happening in 2022?”
Some experts like Dr Soutphommasane have concluded that Australia’s complacency on areas like representation stems from how the nation embraced multiculturalism as official policy after its White Australia days.
The government of the 1970s, somewhat embarrassed by the past policy, passed racial discrimination laws and “a seat at the table” was granted to migrants and Indigenous Australians.
But critics say this has led to an Australia where multiculturalism is celebrated but racial inequality is not interrogated.
“Multiculturalism is almost apolitical in how it’s viewed in Australia,” Dr Soutphommasane says, in contrast to the “fight” for rights that other Western countries have seen from minority groups.
What is the impact?
A lack of representation in parliament can also lead to failures in policy.
During Sydney’s Covid outbreak in August 2021, Fowler and Parramatta electorates – where most of the city’s multicultural communities reside – were subject to harsher lockdowns as a result of a higher number of cases.
How will things change?
Liberal MP Dave Sharma, the only lawmaker of Indian heritage, has said all parties – including his own – should better recruit people with different backgrounds. He called it a “pretty laissez-faire attitude” currently.
Mr Albanese has urged Ms Le to “hang in there”, insisting she has a future.
But more people like Ms Le are choosing to speak out.
“I think I surprised a lot of people by not staying quiet,” she told the BBC.
“People acted like it was the end of my political career that I didn’t toe the party line. But… none of that means anything to me if it means I’m sacrificing my own values.”
She and other second-generation Australians – raised in a country which prides itself on “a fair go” – are agitating for the rights and access their migrant parents may not have felt entitled to.
“Many of those from diverse backgrounds were saying they felt like they didn’t have a voice – and that my case was a clear demonstration of their suppression, and their wider participation in our political system.”
She and others have noted the “growing distrust” in the major parties. Polls are predicting record voter support for independent candidates.
“This issue…. matters for everyone in Australian society that cares about democracy,” says Mr Soutphommasane.
“If democratic institutions are not representative, their legitimacy will suffer.
Scott Morrison effectively ditches his promise to establish a federal anti-corruption commission
Scott Morrison has effectively abandoned his promise to establish a federal anti-corruption watchdog, confirming he would only proceed with legislation in the new parliament if Labor agreed to pass the Coalition’s heavily criticised proposal without amendments.
Morrison pledged before the 2019 election to legislate a federal integrity body in the parliamentary term that has just ended. The prime minister broke that promise, failing to introduce his own proposal before the 46th parliament was prorogued.
On the hustings on Wednesday, Morrison was asked – given his previous undertaking to create the body – whether he would promise to put his proposal to a vote in the next parliament in the event the Coalition won the 21 May election.
Morrison declined to make that promise. “Our position on this hasn’t changed,” the prime minister said. “Our view has been the same – when the Labor party is prepared to support that legislation in that form, then we will proceed with it.”
The prime minister has attempted to inoculate himself from criticism about breaking an election promise by saying he tabled the integrity commission proposal in the parliament.
Tabling an exposure draft, which is what the prime minister did, is not the same as introducing finished legislation to the House of Representatives or the Senate that is then debated and voted on.
As well as repeatedly fudging what happened in parliament, Morrison has also created the impression the proposal can only proceed if Labor agrees to its passage without amendments.
All governments routinely introduce legislation for debate without any undertaking that it will be passed by the opposition. Labor favours a stronger model than the Coalition’s proposal.
Morrison’s lack of urgency on the issue created tensions within government ranks. Late last year, the Tasmanian Liberal MP Bridget Archer crossed the floor to support independent MP Helen Haines’ bill to establish a federal integrity commission. Archer accused the government of “inertia” over the issue.
At that time, Archer said she was “perplexed” at her own government’s failure to release a revised bill almost three years after it was promised before the last election.
While Morrison clearly wants to move on from the issue, he will face renewed pressure from crossbench independents if the coming election is close enough to deliver a hung parliament.
A number of independents running against Liberals in metropolitan seats have made it clear that establishing a credible national integrity commission will be a key demand in the event any new government – Liberal or Labor – is seeking agreements for confidence and supply.
Haines blasted Morrison’s comments on Wednesday. “Mr Morrison broke an election promise to introduce an anti-corruption commission and his pathway to creating one is still as vague as it was in the last parliament,” she said.
The crossbench independent said it was “nonsense” for the prime minister to claim that he could not proceed unless Labor agreed with the Coalition’s proposal without seeking any amendments. “It would appear we are in the same void as we were before,” Haines said.
Australia3 years ago
Button and Diane Powellpark the school bus after three decades
Australia4 years ago
60th Annual Louth Cup 2018 | Photos
Australia4 years ago
A good attendance for planning ahead
Australia4 years ago
Severe, unusual weather likely to cause damage
Australia4 years ago
Ten ways to scrap plastic without breaking the bank
World4 years ago
Сhinese navy jets master daring night maneuvers on aircraft carrier (VIDEO)
World4 years ago
Know-how: Canadian hospital first to сure patients with virtual reality
fun5 years ago
Will Gompertz reviews Lin-Manuel Miranda’s musical Hamilton ★★★★★