Austrian politics has witnessed extraordinary turbulence this year. Last September’s watershed national election saw the far right triumph for the first time since the Second World War. What followed was the country’s longest coalition-formation process in history. When negotiations between the conservative People’s Party (ÖVP), the Social Democrats (SPÖ) and the liberal NEOS initially collapsed—prompting Chancellor Karl Nehammer’s resignation—a coalition between the far-right Freedom Party (FPÖ) and the ÖVP seemed inevitable. This would have broken the conservatives’ pre-election pledge never to negotiate with FPÖ hardliner Herbert Kickl. Those talks failed too, however, foundering on disagreements over key ministerial posts.
With options exhausted and suddenly determined to exclude the far right from power, the conservatives, social democrats and liberals returned to negotiations. The result: Austria’s first three-party coalition since 1947. Their programme, “Doing the right thing now. For Austria”, promises to get the country “back on track” and curb the far right’s advance. Neither objective has been achieved.
Mere weeks after the new government took office, Austria’s budget deficit proved worse than anticipated. The response was swift: stringent austerity measures to consolidate the budget, severely limiting investment capacity and forcing spending cuts. Adding insult to injury, these consolidation measures disproportionately burden lower-income households.
As Austria grapples with record inflation and soaring living costs, the far right continues its surge. Since winning nearly 29 per cent in September 2024, the FPÖ has climbed to around 35 per cent in polls. Through sophisticated social media channels and their own media ecosystem, they spotlight every unpopular government measure and exploit each misstep with surgical precision.
The Responsibility Trap
Austria’s governing parties find themselves trapped between competing imperatives: acting “responsibly” by securing state stability and complying with European Union fiscal rules, whilst acting “responsively” by addressing voters’ immediate concerns. This tension between responsibility and responsiveness—articulated by the late political scientist Peter Mair—now defines Austrian governance.
The government’s solution reveals a dangerous asymmetry. On economic matters, it pursues “responsible” austerity, driven by budget deficits and the EU’s excessive-deficit procedure. On identity issues, it attempts “responsive” politics, delivering what it believes voters demand on immigration. The result is a toxic combination that strengthens the very forces it claims to combat.
Consider the government’s recent actions. It has halted family reunification for asylum seekers—despite minimal application numbers—claiming that education, housing and healthcare systems are overburdened. More troublingly, it just introduced a headscarf ban for young girls in schools. This mirrors a 2019 law from Sebastian Kurz’s ÖVP-FPÖ government that Austria’s Constitutional Court struck down as unconstitutional in 2020.
This combination of “responsible” economics and “responsive” identity politics represents a catastrophic miscalculation. The economic measures—whilst ostensibly responsible and aligned with neoliberal orthodoxy—slash climate protection and family benefits that ordinary Austrians depend upon. For social democrats, this approach proves particularly damaging, preventing implementation of core objectives like Vice-Chancellor Andreas Babler’s ambitious plans to eradicate child poverty through a basic child allowance.
The government’s symbolic immigration measures fail to address Austrians’ material concerns. Worse, by adopting the FPÖ’s topics, policies and frames, they legitimise the far right’s stance, further reinforcing its normalisation. This damages social democrats especially. Despite pundits’ regular claims that restrictive immigration policies boost social democratic popularity, empirical research finds little supporting evidence—quite the contrary.
Once normalised, research demonstrates that radical-right parties prove extraordinarily difficult to restigmatise. This underscores why liberal democratic parties must resist the temptation to mainstream these movements and their positions—a temptation that proves as seductive as it is destructive.
The Austrian government’s current approach cannot curb the FPÖ’s popularity. Instead, it performs the far right’s work, making their future victory increasingly probable. Each restrictive immigration measure, each austerity cut affecting working families, each adoption of far-right framing gifts the FPÖ ammunition whilst undermining democratic parties’ credibility.
Beyond the False Choice
To fulfil its promise of “Doing the right thing now for Austria”, the coalition must transcend this false choice between economic responsibility and cultural responsiveness. Investment in Austria’s future requires more than fiscal prudence—it demands strengthening democracy and liberal democratic norms.
This means principled opposition from all democratic parties to the anti-democratic vision the far right represents. It requires offering a positive narrative for Austria’s future—one that promises fairness and opportunity for all citizens, not scapegoating and division. The government must articulate why liberal democracy serves Austrians better than authoritarian nativism, backing this message with policies that tangibly improve citizens’ lives.
If the coalition fails to change course, the next election will deliver a rude awakening. The far right’s victory won’t arrive through revolution but through the mainstream parties’ steady capitulation to its agenda. Austria’s government still has time to reverse this trajectory—but that window is closing rapidly.
Gabriela Greilinger is a PhD student in the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Georgia, where she studies the far right in Europe.
