Introduction: the Main Traits
This chapter is devoted to the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) and its organizational dimension, which, as this analysis1 will show, played an important role in sustaining the party during a period of fragmentation and significant external challenges. Although the FPÖ is still commonly associated with charismatic leaders such as Jörg Haider or, currently, Heinz-Christian Strache, one cannot ignore the fact that the Freedom Party boasts a large member base as well as a complex vertically integrated organization. The following chapter will first outline the origin, foundation, and early development of the Freedom Party. Subsequently, it will trace organizational change over time by focusing especially on the extent of organization, centralization, and cohesion. The final segment will compare the right-wing populist FPÖ to other Austrian parties to examine whether its organizational characteristics are unique or in fact similar to those of other parties. As throughout this book, the analysis will draw substantially on Kenneth Janda’s conceptualizations and measures of party organization.
Origin and Early Development
As Janda (1980: 19) observes, ‘a party’s history may be clouded by splits, mergers, name changes, and related phenomena. Thus, there is often a problem in establishing party identity for the purpose of determining its origin.’ The Austrian Freedom Party is a case in point: it was formally launched in 1956 and as such represented the successor to a short-lived political party dubbed Federation of Independents (Verband der Unabhängigen/VdU).2 But it was also heir to a long and well-entrenched ideological current in Austrian history, called the Third Force or Third Camp, that dates back to the bourgeois-democratic and nationalist (anti-imperial and anti-Catholic) revolution of 1848 (cf. Luther 1997; Riedlsperger 1998; Höbelt 1999).
Politically, the new party was locked into an ideological corner. By representing far-right and German-nationalist interests including those of the so-called front-generation and ethnic Germans expelled from Eastern Europe, the FPÖ’s agenda held little relevance for most Austrians with their more immediate priorities in the era of postwar reconstruction. Moreover, the two politically dominant parties, Social Democrats (SPÖ) and the Christian-democratic People’s Party (ÖVP), formed successive coalition governments and jointly attracted support from over 90 per cent of the electorate. Using their hegemonic position in Austrian politics, the main parties were able to penetrate every aspect of state and society and built up a clientelistic following while cutting the FPÖ off from the channels of power. Because of the Freedom Party’s political isolation from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s, it resembled a ‘ghetto party’ (Luther 1997: 65).
The 1970s were a period of growing political acceptance when the Freedom Party was considered a potential partner for the main parties, culminating in an SPÖ-FPÖ coalition in 1983. Modernizing the party required a more consistent and intellectually sound programmatic basis. However, the FPÖ’s change toward greater political liberalism pursued by the party leadership was met with considerable internal resistance. The FPÖ consisted of different factions corresponding loosely to the relatively independent provincial branches of the party and ranging from social liberal and market liberal to pan-German right-wing nationalist or Catholic conservative in orientation. To survive politically, party leaders were forced to make concessions to the internal opposition, find ways to manage party fragmentation,3 and continue governing through alliances. By the 1980s, the party was evenly divided between liberals and right-wing nationalists so that the exponent of the liberal faction, Norbert Steger, was elected by only a slim, 55.3 per cent majority. When he embraced a coalition offer by the Social Democrats in 1983 in hopes of positioning his party more like an Austrian version of German Free Democrats (FDP), he did not anticipate that the FPÖ was about to move in the opposite direction.
The organizational looseness and lax party discipline translated into a public perception of discord and incompetence. The situation was aggravated by the inexperience of FPÖ in the public policy arena. This was when the young and charismatic head of the Freedom Party branch in the State of Carinthia, Jörg Haider, emerged as the unofficial leader against the liberal party elite. In 1986, Haider and his supporters marshalled a party convention in which they deposed the unpopular Steger and brought down the government.
Forced into opposition, Haider subsequently transformed the FPÖ from a libertarian-nationalist party into a right-wing populist party. From the start, the ‘new’ FPÖ became known for breaking new ground in campaigning and political communication. Haider was an effective debater on television, imported highly choreographed US-style public appearances, and introduced permanent campaigning in Austria. He was especially successful in appealing to segments of voters that had previously paid little attention to politics.
Electoral Stability and Instability
Polling between 5 and 6 per cent in elections before 1986, the Freedom Party had a small but stable electoral following. Thereafter, the FPÖ increased its electoral support to 9.7 per cent in 1986, 16.6 per cent in 1990, 22.5 per cent in 1994, and 26.9 per cent in 1999 (cf. Table 1.1). Only the elections in 1995 temporarily halted the FPÖ’s advance. Nonetheless, from 1986 to 1999 the FPÖ’s share of seats in parliament grew from 18 to 52 out of 183.
Table 1.1
Percentages of votes by Austrian parties in national elections
Political Partiesa | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year of electionb | Freedom Party (FPÖ) | Greens | Social Democrats (SPÖ) | People’s Party (ÖVP) | Liberals | Alliance (BZÖ) | Team Stronach |
1970 | 5.5 | 48.4 | 44.7 | ||||
1971 | 5.5 | 50.0 | 43.1 | ||||
1975 | 5.4 | 50.4 | 42.9 | ||||
1979 | 6.1 | 51.0 | 41.9 | ||||
1983 | 5.0 | 47.6 | 43.2 | ||||
1986 | 9.7 | 4.8 | 43.1 | 41.3 | |||
1990 | 16.6 | 4.8 | 42.8 | 32.1 | |||
1994 | 22.5 | 7.3 | 34.9 | 27.7 | 6.0 | ||
1995 | 21.9 | 4.8 | 38.1 | 28.3 | 5.5 | ||
1999 | 26.9 | 7.4 | 33.2 | 26.9 | |||
2002 | 10.0 c | 9.5 | 36.5 | 42.3 | |||
2006 | 11.0 | 11.1 | 35.3 | 34.3 | 4.1 | ||
2008 | 17.5 | 10.4 | 29.3 | 26.0 | 10.7 | ||
2013 | 20.5 | 12.4 | 26.8 | 24.0 | 5.0 | 5.7 | |