Yesterday, Austria’s far-right won the general election, meaning that the FPO became, by and large, the leading party. However, to describe what happened, I often read that a “populist party” won the election. I disagree with this definition.
First, it is necessary to clarify what “extreme” means today. Unlike a few years ago, it is no longer the definition given to the most extreme fringe parties, to the right (or left), with often insignificant shares. Now “extreme” has taken on a meaning that is much more ideological and much less numerical: “extreme” no longer means the periphery of politics, but it means “extreme ideology” (although, of course, there is always someone further to the right or further to the left). This needs to be kept in mind to understand the magnitude of the phenomenon.
The second issue is that labeling these forces as “populist” fails to capture and highlight what, in my opinion, is their dangerous nature. In the Austrian case, for example, we are not talking about a party that promises to feed the poorest citizens with tasty local delicacies, or change an old political class with a new one, or elevate people who have been on the margins to positions of prominence, that “one is worth one,” or that there will be increases in pensions and salaries and privileges will be taken away from those who have them.
There are some of these elements, but the crux of the issue is that the Austrian party, like many others in Europe and beyond, has an ideology with outlined paths and goals. Whether or not these are feasible, or the level of doctrinal elaboration is beside the point, what matters is that the program (which is similar for many, at least until they enter government, then they have to soften many aspects of it) often draws on real and sometimes explicit references to Nazi or fascist ideologies. These agendas often include well-defined and achievable objectives: leaving the EU, closing the doors to immigrants, decreasing freedom of the press, decreasing civil rights, getting politically closer to Trump and/or Putin’s Russia, and many other things.
Understanding and discussing this is crucial because populism often loses momentum, but certain ideologies do not. Maybe you can say they lack a robust theoretical framework or are anti-historical: you can say many things. However, remember that they represent ideas and goals, not just discontent and thirst for revenge.
Calling them “populist” is thus reductive. It does not allow one to grasp the seriousness of the problem and, therefore, does not allow one to deal with it armed with a solid political and theoretical background that can defeat it in voters’ minds first and at the ballot box later.
English version by the Translation Service of Withub
