with regard to h rose's call for a boycott of all
international social science events in austria in the
event of 'the neo-nazi Joerg Haider becoming part of
the Austrian government', i think judith strobl is
right in calling his/her intervention slightly
alarmist. 
there are a number of issues that concern me in this
early monday morning call to arms:

firstly, it seems to me that the 'personalisation' of
the issue, i.e. the focus on 'the neo-nazi Haider' is
the very trick the Austrian Conservatives (VP) are
using to persuade themselves  (and their voters) of
the legitimacy of including the PARTY, but not its
leader, in a governing coalition. while this is an
astounding about-turn from Andreas Khol's (VP chair)
earlier (1994/5) statement that the FP was beyond the
constitutional pale as a party, the VP, faced with the
surge in electoral support for the FP, are not alone
in pondering the possibilities of bringing the FP into
government; there are voices within the SPOe, too,
which find the prospects of a 'non-Haider' SP/FP
coalition palatable or even appealing.

with regards to prof rose's 'call to arms', i am left
to wonder why it is o.k. to attend conferences in a
country run by the party which is prepared to bring
the FP into government, when it is not o.k. to attend
conferences in a country run by an FP/VP coalition?
what is the difference between a 'neo-nazi' and
someone prepared to help him into power?

secondly, if one were to take a more substantive line
by arguing that the problem with the FPOe lies in its
proposed policies (and underlying ideology) - for
example on immigration - one would have to address the
slightly hairy issue as to just what precisely the
differences between the FPOe's proposed policies and,
say, those implemented by the acting interior
minister, Karl Schloegl (a social democrat dubbed 'our
best man in government' by Haider)might be. as social
scientists, we could make life even more complicated
for ouselves by widening those considerations to
include indeed the occasional musings of our very own
home office boot boy, Chris O'Brien, or those of the
rthon Anne Widdecombe on the matter. should we judge
policies by the intent behind their formulation (i.e.
'neo-nazi' in outlook, 'just racist' or simply
pragmatic?), or would we have to also look at their
effect/outcome on those concerned? (other themes to be
explored could be: positions on Europe, Nato, Trade
Unions, taxes, housing, deregulation).

unless prof rose knows something i don't, i believe it
is unlikely that haider will join a possible FP/VP
coalition at this early stage. 
firstly, the post Haider would like for himself is
that of chancellor; since this is also the VP's
(non-negotiable?) asking price for bringing the FP
into government (Wolfgang Schuessl's personal dream),
it is unlikely that any deal would be struck which
featured Haider at the helm of a governing FP/VP
coalition.
secondly, Haider would be unwise (and is far too
experienced in power play) to accept a minor position;
should the VP/FP coalition fail (which is likely) or
the FP not manage to push through any major reforms,
Haider, by staying out of government, could apportion
blame to the VP (or, if need be, to his own
lieutenants Prinzhorn or Riess-Passer) and present
himself as the squeaky clean alternative a la 'if you
want to get things done, you've got to do them
yourself'. should the coalition succeed, however, the
threshold of reservations against FP and Haider
participation in government will be lowered & Haider
will still be able of claiming FP achievements for
himself.
in either case, the VP is going to become the victim
of its own strategy.

so, while i share h rose's concerns, i am afraid that
the world out there is at times more complex that it
would appear from listening to the 'today' programme
on radio four. 

w deicke
lecturer in sociology/politics
university college northampton
park campus
northampton NN2 7AL

[log in to unmask]
--- [log in to unmask] wrote:
> The possibility of the neo-nazi Haider becoming part
> of the Austrian
> government is one that social scientists,
> particularly those of us who live
> and work in Europe, cannot afford to ignore. Of
> course we must work in close
> collaboration with our Austrian colleagues but I
> believe that we should be
> considering very seriously whether we should refuse
> to attend meetings held
> in Austria if Haidar comes to office. In addition
> where  meetings are
> already planned we should consider what we should
> and can do,  can for
> example we relocate them in another country without
> neo-nazi's in the
> government? We know that the European Union is
> extremely concerned about
> this probable development, and it may be they would
> be be willing to assist
> relocation. Letting international social science 
> meetings take place as if
> nothing important had happened offers a silent form
> of legitimation.
> Visiting Research Professor in Sociology, City
> University
> 4 LLOYD SQUARE
> London WC1X 9BA
> Tel +44.(0)171.713.1709
> Fax +44 (0)171.833.2563
> 
> 
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%