Two weeks ago Austria’s vice-chancellor and chairman of the far-right Freedom Party (FPÖ), Heinz-Christian Strache, resigned from Austria’s “center-right far-rightist” ÖVP-FPÖ coalition government led by Austria’s Chancellor and the People’s Party (ÖVP) leader Sebastian Kurz. Kurz’ caretaker government recently failed to receive the needed confidence vote from the main opposition, Social Democratic Party, far-right FPÖ and green Liste Jetzt party. As has already been addressed on various platforms, the chaos in Austrian politics had been triggered due to a video scandal in which the far-rightist vice-chancellor Strache was filmed while he was proposing to offer government contracts to a Russian oligarch’s niece.

Besides Strache himself, FPÖ ministers such as the foreign minister and ministers for defense, transport, and social affairs resigned from the cabinet as well. Given the current circumstance, Chancellor Kurz, whose cabinet consisted of FPÖ ministers, came together with the country’s President in order to plan snap elections in September of this year.

The general content of the revealed video shows Strache together with his FPÖ’s parliamentary group leader Johann Gudenus relaxing on sofas at a villa on the Spanish island of Ibiza while drinking alcohol and having a conversation with a woman who is allegedly the daughter of a Russian oligarch loyal to Putin. The footage published is just part of a total record of more than a six hours conversation. In the footage, in which the conversation gets translated by Gudenus, who is able to speak Russian, the woman offers to buy a 50% stake in the Austrian “Kronen Zeitung” daily by aiming to switch its current editorial position to support the FPÖ.

With no doubt, an intelligence service has been involved in the Strache case. So, it cannot be reduced to a victory of the free media, as falsely preached nowadays by most of the leftist-liberal media in Europe.

Besides this scandalous content, other questions such as who took the video, what ambitions they had and whether there are also other parts of the video rise to the forefront. Furthermore, it’s questionable why only this particular footage has been published by German media outlets Süddeutsche Zeitung and Der Spiegel although the conversation took more than 6 hours. It’s also unknown who else is involved in this incident and why the footage was not published right before the previous parliamentary elections and has waited for two years.

Besides Strache’s anti-Muslim, anti-refugee and known far-right populist stances, it’s with no doubt obvious that an intelligence service has been involved in the case. Therefore, it’s also not that easy to reduce the incident to a victory of the free media, as it is falsely described nowadays by most of the leftist-liberal media representatives particularly in Europe.

The German BND or the CIA, which see the FPÖ as one of Russia’s strongest partners in Europe, might be behind the Strache footage and its leak.

Even though it is still unknown as to who is behind this “operation,” it can be guessed that it was conducted to target the Austrian government or the so-called pro-Russian factions of the Austrian state. As mentioned, it is not a secret that the FPÖ and leading figures such as Johann Gudenus have close ties to Russia while having the long-term goal to intensify Austrian-Russian relations. Therefore, it is also assessed that Western intelligence services such as the German BND or the CIA, which see the FPÖ as one of Russia’s strongest partners in Europe, might be behind the footage and its leak. Furthermore, this becomes more interesting if one reminds that, for instance, Germany has already limited the exchange of information with the Austrian intelligence service controlled by the FPÖ-led Austrian Ministry of the Interior. It was also weird for some observers that former heads of the BND elaborated on the operation as an intelligence service act while the previous head of the German domestic intelligence criticized the footage by pointing to “far-leftists” behind it – that is to say, likely criticizing certain factions of a certain intelligence service. Similarly, the president of the German parliament elaborated on the incident as weird and as an intelligence operation.

The Strache footage targeted not only Austrian but also European politics. A Western intelligence service is obviously behind this incident. But several questions remain unanswered.

In addition, one should keep in mind that the “Ibiza scandal” came at a particularly awkward time for the far-right FPÖ because of the fact that EU voters recently went to polls on 26 May – one week subsequent to the leak. Prior to the scandal, it was actually expected that the European Parliament elections will increase the numbers of far-rightists and so-called Eurosceptic MEPs. However, when one compares the results that the FPÖ gained after the elections on Sunday (17%), it seems clear that the party had the potential to receive more than 20% of the votes in the European elections had the video not been leaked.

Thus, what should be concluded from such an incident that caused the collapse of a parliamentary government and what would be the consequences in the short-term? It is clear that the footage targeted not only Austrian but also European politics. It seems rather obvious that a Western intelligence service is behind this incident. But several questions remain unanswered. For instance, why was the video not released two years ago right before the parliamentary elections in Austria? Another result of this scandal has been the collapse of the fragile center-right – far-right coalition government led by Austria’s young chancellor Kurz, who will most likely aim to govern the country on his own. Kurz had also been able to make significant changes in his ÖVP in order to dominate the party alone. Thus, the snap elections in September will show whether the ÖVP will benefit from the situation and increase its votes along with other opposition parties. But it should also not be disregarded that it is not clear and foreseeable how (far rightist and even other) voters –both in Austria and also in other European countries where far right parties exist, will react to such a scandal or ambitions of “political design.”

Departing from the Japanese-American political scientist Francis Fukuyama’s contention in his “The End of History” thesis that liberal democracy is the final form of political regime that humanity has achieved so far, it can be inferred that the latest turbulences confronted in recent years in the West, especially in Austria, signalize a crisis in democracy. If we assume that right and left-wing populists and far-right groups are within the realm of democracy, it would not be correct to mention a democracy crisis in Austria and the Western world. Presently, far-right groups, who are on the rise and enjoying quite an influence, are trying to underline that they are acting within the limits of democracy by arguing that they are against the establishment. The latest developments have indicated that the discussions will center upon the question of who stays within the limits of democracy. At this point, it is crucial to note that the force who will determine the prominent discourses will have the upper hand in politics. 

Democracy crisis in Austria

In this manner, it is required to note that the most important political assault affecting the outbreak of a democracy crisis in the West and Austria has both external and internal sources. The internal political effects comprise radical political movements seen in Western democracies. It can be observed in the case of Austria that the conventional center-right and center-left parties have declined in political influence whereas the forces with far-right or far-left engagement have become more mainstream and appealed to larger masses.

Although the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) has been present in the Austrian political scene as the most prominent far-right actor, a notable organization representing the far-left is not on the horizon yet. This is probably due to the fact that the Communist Party of Austria (KPÖ), the leading political group likely to fill this gap, has not yet recovered from the trauma of the Soviet Union’s dissolution. Nevertheless, since this situation is incidental, it is not a remote possibility that a change might happen in the political composition of the opposite side, as FPÖ develops xenophobic and Islamophobic policies that were promised and expected to be practiced by the party.

As already known, alongside Putin’s Russia that has been aspiring to interfere with European politics, the source of the greatest external threat posed to the system in Europe has been U.S. President Donald Trump for the past two years. In this context, it is important to remember that Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon strived to form an “international right” by trying to gather the far-right groups in Europe under a single roof.

Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon strived to form an “international right” by trying to gather all far-right groups in Europe under a single roof. 

Accordingly, we must note that the United States, who “exports” human rights and democracy to other countries across the world according to experts, is now endeavoring to instill right-wing populism in Europe. Through this “movement” led by Bannon, the U.S. is seeking to strengthen the nation-state notion in the EU and stir an internal chaos within the continent as the country sees the Union as a considerable rival. So, the U.S. is trying to maximize its own interests with its pure power policy it practices by liberating itself from one of the “soft” impediments of the liberal democratic order.

Apparently, the FPÖ representatives were afraid that this direction of the U.S. might show themselves as traitors before the eyes of the Austrian public, so they announced that they would avoid a comprehensive cooperation with Bannon for the European Parliament elections to be held on May 23-26, 2019. Along with that, they displayed pragmatic behavior and welcomed Bannon’s works in virtual platform that are in favor of them.

Austrian Muslims

Unfortunately, the following days do not seem very promising for Austrian Muslims. Re-founded among the ruins of World War II, Austria’s governments have always been based on a political conciliation named “Grand Coalition,” formed by the Social Democratic Party of Austria (SPÖ) and the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP), other than a few exceptions. This situation persisted until the late 1990s. Over the course of that period, Muslims and Turks were not subjected to serious pressure by the political arena, media or public whereas people of color were mostly considered the “others” of Austria.

Through an “international right” movement sought to be established by Steve Bannon, the U.S. endeavors to install right-wing populism in Europe in order to stir internal chaos within the EU – which it sees as a considerable rival. 

A new orientation that began with the discharge of the liberals within the FPÖ during Jörg Haider’s chairmanship of the party in the mid-1980s allowed for more visibility for foreigners and people of color. Both SPÖ and ÖVP tepidly responded to this situation, and even though these parties enjoyed short-term election victories, the FPÖ had the upper hand in terms of discourse since the others inclined towards reflecting far-right ideas. In time, in accordance with the strategy of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP), FPÖ started to assert that it represents the interests of the conventional voter base of the center parties including SPÖ.

And as the aftereffects of the 9/11 incidents started to hit Austria, Muslims were designated as the new “other” among Austrian people, which worsened the course of events. The center parties SPÖ and ÖVP did not draw any lessons from their past mistakes and chose to impose pressures on Muslims and practice socio-political restrictions on foreigners in order to break the effect of FPÖ’s discourse. The epitome of these policies is undoubtedly the “Islam Law” that entered into force on March 31, 2015, which restricted the legal rights of the Muslims compared to other official religions of Austria.

The formation of a coalition government by ÖVP’s Sebastian Kurz and FPÖ’s Heinz-Christian Strache is in itself a phenomenon that characterizes the democracy crisis in Austria. Along with the Islam Law, there are many other practices that gradually deprive Muslims of their rights. Haunted by the specter of the February 28 postmodern coup in Turkey, the current practices in Austria such as the efforts to ban headscarf for Muslim women and restrict Muslim people’s education and working rights show parallelism with Turkey during the 1990s. These practices are also reminiscent of the atrocities against foreigners, especially the Jewish people, prior to World War II. 

The United States, which apparently “exports” human rights and democracy to other countries across the world, is now aiming to install right-wing populism in Europe.

Turkey provides a mental relief for Muslims in Austria

Paradoxically, Turkey benefits from the turbulent situation prevailing in the West. The Western countries, who used to try to control Turkey by acting as a bloc, are now obliged to negotiate with Turkey without any sign of the past collectivism. The old peremptory nature of the West has also changed. Now, the West can no longer impose pressure on Turkey, but rather Turkey points at Western countries for their Islamophobic, xenophobic tendencies and contradictory behaviors. Although this approach of Turkey does not seem to favor the repressed Austrian Muslims at first sight, it must be underlined that the presence of a harbor to shelter in the long term does at least provide a mental relief for Muslims.

Unsurprisingly, Austria’s national parliamentary elections ended up in a strong vote for the right. With a fulminant participation of 80 percent of the electorate, nearly 58 percent of Austrian voters gave their vote to the center-right People’s Party (31 percent) or the right-wing populist Freedom Party (26 percent). Since the Social Democrats were the runners-up with only 26.7 percent of the vote, the two parties on the right will most probably form a coalition.

Despite the official results, the real winner of the election is the Freedom Party. Austria’s Freedom Party, which has its roots in the Austrian political third camp, represents the nationalists that were also the strongest supporters of the Nazis during Hitler’s years. The movement began in 1956, becoming a safe haven for former Nazis and economic liberals. With Jörg Haider becoming new chairman in 1986 and with the help of anti-elitist and racist campaigning, the party gradually transformed from a 5 percent to a 25 percent party. The Freedom Party focused on targeting people of Turkish, Ex-Yugoslavian, and African background, as its scapegoats for the political and cultural decline of Austrian society.

Following Haider’s departure from the Freedom Party in 2005, the new far-right leadership increasingly embraced Islamophobic discourse throughout their election campaigns. Since then, not only has Austria experienced aggressive slogans directed blatantly against Muslims, the leadership under Heinz-Christian Strache specialized in creating the Muslim enemy as the new target. While this discourse gradually became dominant and left its clout on the other political parties, the nominal centrist-right People’s Party, although less radical in its rhetoric, became inclined to adopt this new strategy.

It was this dynamic that led to moving on from ‘only’ talking-to-walking Islamophobia as the institutionalization of Islamophobia has since slowly taken hold. In 2008, debates about banning the building of mosques and minarets began in two out of nine counties across Austria. The ban was first implemented in Vorarlberg, a county governed by the People’s Party, followed by Carinthia, which was governed by the Freedom Party. During the four coalition governments of Social Democrats and the People’s Party from 2007 to 2017, Islamophobia slowly but surely became a relevant dimension.

The Social Democratic party is facing a programmatic dilemma between showing internationalist solidarity with the marginalized, immigrants, and the working poor, and in protecting Austrian workers as a traditional labor party. Regarding Muslims, the party’s dilemma arises between its anti-racist agenda on one side and its secularist anti-religion agenda on the other. Meanwhile, the People’s Party is also in a dilemma in regards to its treatment against Muslims; while on the one hand they proclaimed that Islam was part of Austria, thus creating a positive outlook, on the other hand, the party positioned itself on a hardline in regards to controlling transgressions of Muslims. This ambivalent – while for many in the People’s Party’s rank and file functionaries quite balanced – strategy lasted until recently when the People’s Party started co-opting the right-wing populist party’s Islamophobic claims.

In 2015, the new Islam Act, which had intended to amend the 1912 Islam Act dating back to the comparably tolerant incorporation of Islam in the Austrian political system, was implemented. It was widely criticized by many legal scholars as creating a two-class system for religious groups as Muslims here were put under general suspicion, their ties to the Muslim world was financially cut, and their institutions were put under tough state control like no other church or religious denomination. It seems that the Austrian Muslim’s honey moon ended here. Forgotten were the times when Austria’s Muslim leaders and government officials were praising the ‘Austrian model’ of incorporating Islam and leveling it on an equal footage with other churches and denominations.

The Islamophobic turn was further solidified by implementing a full-face veil ban Act as part of the new Integration Act in early 2017. The full-face veil was banned in public as part of the Integration Act. At the same time, both governing parties, the Social Democrats and the People’s Party, argued that they would not include a ban of the Hijab for attorneys, court lawyers and police women, since a general dress code for these professions would already allow a ban of the Hijab. Obviously, this seems to have been done in order to circumvent the EU regulation on Anti-Discrimination. Nevertheless, this move showed how much both centrist parties had shifted to the far right and this is why the real winner of the recent elections is the Freedom Party. Although not in power, the Freedom Party had been able to push and implement its agenda while in opposition. During the recent election campaign, the People’s Party was identified to co-opt the law-and-order approach of the Freedom Party. This was especially true regarding issues such as migration and Islam.

However, every cloud has a silver lining. While the social democratic lead government has not proved a recipe against the Islamophobic shift in Austrian politics, this could initially be much easier to achieve for the social democrats in opposition. Although they only became second, their leader Christian Kern seems to not arise as a weak loser from this defeat, but rather as a leader for upcoming opposition years. Hence, he was reconfirmed this Monday by the national party’s board as party leader. Some observers had predicted for the social democrats to even only become third.  While it is highly unlikely that Austrian Muslims will form any alliance or affiliation with the People’s Party or the Freedom Party, if the Social Democrats strengthen their anti-racist camp, not only will they gain a new alliance but will earn the Muslim vote in the next general election.