Some words of wisdom from the Lancaster academic Gerd Nonneman.
InkyText is the Lancaster E-zine of today's date.
Forwarded by A. Jameson, ex Lancaster University.
2. GUEST CONTRIBUTION: THE AUSTRIA DEBATE
----------------------------------------------------------
Seeing the ad in the latest InkyText for the self-styled Austrian
'underground' and request for financial contributions to an
anti-government campaign, reminded me that Lancaster was perhaps not,
after all, immune to the reigning climate of ill-advised reaction to
the Austrian phenomenon.
This 'climate' was exemplified most egregiously recently in in Sue
McGregor's interviewing on Radio 4, of a Freedom Part representative:
the most striking case of the "have you stopped beating your wife --
and I will only take a Yes or a No" variety I have heard in a very long
time. Thus, Ms McGregor's repeated stress on "Haider's warm words about
Hitler", and her stated view that "we all know what his views are,
don't we?".
In fact, "We" don't, and certainly, on the evidence, Radio 4's
journalists don't (least of all Ms McGregor, who repeats the mistake of
going on two misquoted out-of-context lines). Also, her
headline-seeking question: "so, will the programme have immigration at
its heart, then? I assume that is a yes" (the FP man had not even
mentioned it).
A few days later followed an interview with Robin Cook, when James
Naughtie (spelling?) -- one of my favourite journalists --
uncharacteristically failed to question Mr Cook's indignantly stated
assumption that surely he (Mr Naughtie) must agree without demur with
the view that excoriates Mr Haider as a racist and Nazi sympathiser.
By contrast, almost no-one appears interested in what seems to be the
real puzzle in all of this: just what explains the reaction of the
European governments? That it has much to do with domestic fears (on
the part of some of the governing parties) of anti-establishment
challengers, is well illustrated in the case of Belgium, for instance,
where the now vociferously anti-Austria Foreign Minister is notorious
for his political cynicism and his explicitly racist political election
pamphlets of the past.
There are a range of issues to be explored -- for the substance of
these governments' complaints is largely without empirical foundation,
while there is little 'moral' or legal justification for their action.
(Indeed, if you have had any informal contact with Europe's diplomatic
corps over these past weeks, you will be aware that they are, for that
very reason, by and large quite taken aback by the apparent hysteria of
their governments).
There are a number of scholarly debates being conducted at the moment
on the Austrian phenomenon, by people concerned at the rise of
xenophobia and also the lack of depth to the official and media
discussion on the subject. Sadly, these debates do not, it would seem,
find any wider reflection.
Attempts to look for underlying causes other than the all-too-easy
identification with "fascism" and spurious historical parallels with
the Old Right, have often been swept away indignantly - not least by
the rest of the EU governments and much of the media. This new
consensus of condemnation and misleading parallells fails to get us any
closer either to a genuine understanding or to policies that make
sense.
Economic explanations for the share of the vote for the Freedom Party
tend to get short shrift: is Austria not a model of prosperity? In
fact, feelings of insecurity have grown significantly in recent years,
among the section of the population that has been falling further and
further behind the wealthier two-thirds. Of course this is not the
whole explanation for the Haider phenomenon. But it is a key element of
the enabling environment. In this it is little different to a majority
of other cases where ethnic/ sectarian/ or generally xenophobic
sentiment has been boosted. (The contrary "boredom of affluence"
explanation is not founded on any sort of evidence -- whether
historical or contemporary -- from political science, ethnic relations
studies, sociology or indeed any other discipline).
To this must of course be added what is probably THE central factor:
the desire for change from the political sclerosis in the system of
"Proporz" - with all its attendant corruption, the self-perpetuating
political estabishment, and positions in all of public life and
employment being distributed on the basis of affiliation to the
long-ruling political parties. To the question plaintively asked by
many: "but why did political change have to happen this way?", the
answer of nearly 1/3 of Austrians was not far off the mark: the
political establishment did not offer any other way.
This was undoubtedly a protest vote as much as anything else. But the
fact that many felt justified in expressing this vote by giving it to
the Freedom Party also appears to indicate that they do not in fact see
the more extreme rhetoric of some associated with the party as truly
indicative of intentions.
They may not be all that far wrong here either: after all, as some
empirical research would have shown even to EU foreign ministers:
(1) there have been no official anti-semitic statements (even Simon
Wiesenthal, the celebrated Nazi-hunter, has long confirmed that Haider
is neither a Nazi nor an anti-Semite);
(2) many of the oft-repeated quotes by Haider (such as the one about
Hitler's employment policies) are little more than just that: quotes
ripped out of context and taken as the unquestioned givens in an
emotionally charged debate;
(3) the worst of the accusations against Haider rest upon association
with others, with audiences, and with history -- and by that standard
significant numbers of political parties and factions throughout Europe
would be equally tarred;
(4) there was virtually nothing either in the Party's election
manifesto or in Haider's record in Carinthia that would have justified
putting it beyond the pale -- and certainly not beyond EU rules;
(5) populist political movements elsewhere that resemble the Austrian
phenomenon in many of these ways and in its 'enabling context', have
essentially been absorbed into the mainstream -- not just in terms of
their acceptance by others, but most importantly in terms of their own
mellowing and their adoption of the values and rules of the democratic
game.
However much one may dislike aspects of this party's verbiage, and
however good it makes us feel to clobber such an obvious hate target,
the sort of reaction the other EU governments have opted for, while
understandable, is justified neither morally nor, perhaps most
crucially, practically. It inevitably confirms the worst suspicions of
those in Austria who were seduced by Haider's Eurosceptic tone, and can
only fan the flames of unthinking nationalism.
There is a separate, rather disturbing aspect of this new European
consensus (including especially that among the intelligentsia and the
media): if fascism is (rather than simply anything right-wing one
disagrees with) a political mode where a majority expects unquestioning
acceptance from anyone else, and where it is acceptable to ignore the
voice of, say, one third of the population; if it is a mode where,
moreover, any voices raised in questioning the assumptions of the
consensus can be literally outlawed; and one where this consensus does
in fact achieve a hegemony by virtue of people's fear to stick their
necks out and of a wide-spread unwillingness or inability to think
critically even when it is uncomfortable (and it takes energy at the
best of times!); then the quality of the present intellectual-political
debate is cause for concern.
After all, the subject of the consensus might just as well be or
become something else. It would not be the first time. It is worrying
to observe how easily, in different times and different places,
different ideas become the unquestioned and unquestionable 'consensus',
and how, conversely, other issues become untouchable. At the other end
of the political spectrum, look only at the way ill-founded stereotypes
about 'rogue states' and 'terrorism' have for years blighted the US
political 'debate' on Cuba, or Iran, to take just two examples. This
sort of climate should make one shiver whatever the subject.
I trust these comments do not make me a crypto-fascist and xenophobe.
I would, if pressed, probably identify myself as centre-left,
cosmopolitan, and pro-European, working to try and dispel stereotyped
thinking and xenophobia in my teaching and writing. But the likelihood
that some will nevertheless label me as just that, illustrates the
cause for my concern.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
