The Austrians (and Danes, and Dutch) are not Nazis

They're rather angry at entrenched and self-satisfied elites that tell them what to think (remind you of a, sigh, recent Canadian party?). Ian Buruma explains:

Two far-right parties, the Austrian Freedom Party and the Movement for Austria's Future, managed to win 29% of the vote in Sunday's general elections in Austria. This is double what they got in the elections of 2006.

Both parties share the same attitudes toward immigrants, especially Muslims, and the European Union: a mixture of fear and loathing. Because the leaders of the two parties, Heinz-Christian Strache and Jorg Haider, can't stand each other, there is little chance of a far-right coalition actually taking power. Nonetheless, this is Adolf Hitler's native land, where Jews were once forced to scrub the streets of Vienna with toothbrushes before being deported and killed, so the result is disturbing. The question is: How disturbing?

[...]

In Denmark, the hard-right Danish People's Party is the third-largest party in the country, with 25 parliamentary seats. 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.

And this is precisely the point. The biggest resentment among supporters of the right-wing parties in Europe these days is reserved not so much for immigrants as for political elites that, in the opinion of many, have been governing for too long in cozy coalitions, which appear to exist chiefly to protect vested interests. In Austria, even liberals admit that an endless succession of social democrat and Christian democrat governments has clogged the arteries of the political system. It has been 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.

[...]

The rhetoric of xenophobia and chauvinism is unpleasant, to be sure, and, especially in a country with Austria's past, even hateful. But the new populism is not yet undemocratic or even anti-democratic. The phrase most often heard in Austria among those who support the right-wing parties is "fresh air." People say they voted for Haider or Strache to break the stranglehold of the ruling parties.

This is not an illegitimate motivation. And there's certainly a case to be made that if people are anxious about their national identities, the sovereignty of their governments or the demographic and social complexion of their societies, such fears are best heard in the political arena. As long as people express their concerns, however distasteful to liberal ears, by votes rather than violence, democracy will not be seriously harmed.

Running against the political elite is, of course, the essence of populism everywhere. U.S. 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.

Ian Buruma is a contributing editor to The Times' opinion pages and a professor of human rights at Bard College.

Mark C.

Damian adds: more at Harry's Place.

Posted by markc at October 9, 2008 08:00 PM