Unexpected Twist in Vienna: a New Challenge Faces the EU
Court members announcing their decision to have the elections held again, on the 1st of July.
Shortly after the Brexit, the European Union’s already vacillating stability is challenged by a new threat: that of a victory of the populist right in Austria’s presidential elections. The second round of the presidential elections, on the 22nd of May, saw Alexander Van der Belen, a retired economics professor supported by the Green Alternative Party, win over Norbert Höfer, the Freedom Party’s presidential candidate, by a very narrow margin (0.3% of the votes, or about 31,000 votes). The Freedom Party, the FPÖ, is a populist right-wing party similar to the French National Front and to UKIP in Britain. On the 1st of July, the constitutional court annulled the results due to irregularities in the vote count. New elections are to be held after the summer, on the 2nd of October. A victory of the populist right in the presidential elections would be the first in a member country of the EU, and would pose a dramatic challenge for the democratic principles and institutions the Union stands for.
Following the elections in May, the Freedom Party (FPÖ) challenged the results, claiming there had been flaws in the count of postal votes. The very narrow margin between the two candidates made these 77,000 votes decisive for the outcome of the elections. Auxiliaries apparently opened many of the votes in the absence of electoral officers, “preventing a definitive verification of the postal ballots”, as claimed by the constitutional court. The court further stated that”[i]f infringements of the law are of an extent that they may have had an influence on the election result, it is of no relevance if manipulations have actually occurred or not.” It remains uncertain whether or not manipulation of the votes actually happened, but the mere possibility of cheating taking place renders ineligible the results of the elections. Christian Kern, the Social-Democratic Chancellor, explained that the “result was overturned because of technical errors, not vote manipulation”. In other words, instead of having been strictly applied, electoral laws have been disregarded.
It is imperative for the elections to be held again. Otherwise, Austria could lose credibility on the international stage, and Van der Bellen would not be considered the legitimate representative of the country. Kern pointed out: “in a democracy, there must not be any doubt about the correctness of an election.” Both second-round presidential candidates accepted the constitutional court’s decision and expressed their will to take part in the new elections. Norbert Höfer said he was “pleased the constitutional court took this very important decision”, while Van der Bellen claimed: “confidence in the rule of law is the foundation of a democracy.” He also said that he intended to win the new election. While the mood in the right-wing party seemed rather festive, the ecologically backed candidate seemed rather frightened by a potentially different outcome in the new elections.
Differences between both candidates are sharp. Van der Bellen favors European integration, and can be located in the center-left of the political spectrum. Höfer, however, is a convinced Eurosceptic for whom the solution to the refugee crisis would be to close Austrian borders. While it should be kept in mind that the role of the Austrian president is more ceremonial than anything else, Höfer has promised to use the full powers of the presidency if elected, including the right to dismiss the government and call new elections. The general elections are supposed to be held in 2018. Forcing them to be held earlier could favor the Freedom Party. By riding on the wave of its popularity caused by the polarizing debate of the migrant crisis, the Freedom Party could come to power consequentially. It could also take advantage of the Eurosceptic boost caused by the Brexit poll. If it succeeds in doing so, the Freedom Party would be able to pass its policies, which would be dramatic for an already shaky EU.
A different outcome to the presidential election is certainly possible. The short-term economic chaos in Britain caused by the Brexit could frighten Austrian voters, who would then vote for other candidates than Höfer. On the other hand, the FPÖ could take advantage of a voters’ fatigue caused by many consecutive elections. In France, for instance, only 42% of the people voted in the European elections, and the National Front garnered a quarter of the votes, and 24 seats out of a possible 74. Holding many consecutive elections could have dramatic results for Austria, and could undermine the very democracy the constitutional court was trying to defend by holding new elections. Hopefully, the Brexit will not cause a domino effect. Let’s not forget that each European country alone cannot economically compete on the international stage: a united Europe, however, can. The first round of the new elections, on the 25th of September, will offer us hints on the future of the union. As Van der Bellen puts, “this is no game. For [me] it is about the unity of Austria.” For us, it is about the unity of the European Union.
