It is the first National Council election after the pandemic. In an interview, ÖAW sociologist Alexander Bogner talks about how this could affect the elections and how the FPÖ is using the frustration over the corona measures to its advantage.
Is Austria facing a shift to the right? The FPÖ could emerge as the winner of the National Council elections on September 29th for the first time – just five years after the Ibiza affair. Alexander Bogner, sociologist and senior scientist at the Institute for Technology Assessment of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (ÖAW), examines how the Corona pandemic has changed the political climate in Austria and how the FPÖ managed to present itself as the last bastion of freedom during this time.
ALLEGED “CORONA DICTATORSHIP”
Only five years after the Ibiza scandal, it seems to many to be a foregone conclusion that the FPÖ will become the strongest force for the first time in the upcoming national elections. To what extent has the experience of the pandemic helped the FPÖ make a political comeback?
Alexander Bogner: In the dispute over vaccination and compulsory vaccination, the FPÖ successfully portrayed itself as the last bastion of freedom. However, the government also made it pretty easy for it. The decision to make vaccination compulsory was presented by the government leadership as “unavoidable”. The FPÖ was therefore able to present itself as the only political alternative without any problem – and without even having to make any meaningful proposal to combat the pandemic. The pandemic therefore offered the FPÖ a unique opportunity to repair its rebel image, which had been badly damaged after Ibiza.
The pandemic offered the FPÖ the opportunity to repair its rebel image, which had been damaged after Ibiza.
How could the FPÖ exploit the frustration over the Corona measures?
Bogner: In the course of the pandemic, criticism has become more radical, initially sparked by suspicions of a lack of balance. Important opposing voices were not even given a voice in the media, compliant science was controlled by politics, and politics in turn was controlled by the pharmaceutical lobby. These were the accusations. In any case, these suspicions, combined with a libertarian understanding of freedom, ultimately supported the general accusation of a “corona dictatorship”. The FPÖ ultimately picked up those people who were restlessly searching for “real” alternatives and were moving step by step to the right. This first became clear to me when I invited radical anti-vaccination activists to talks at the Austrian Academy of Sciences as part of the “corona study” initiated by the federal government.
HARDLY ANY DEVELOPMENT OF THE PANDEMIC
In 2023, you published a study on the review of Austria’s Corona policy, in which you also pointed out the need for an intensive social debate about the effects of pandemic policy. What social review of the pandemic has taken place so far?
Bogner: Unfortunately, the social response has been very limited. There have been a few public discussion events, I have received a number of invitations, and at the Vienna Festival there was an attempt at a theatrical response to Corona policy, based on the model of a court case. But of course this is not a coordinated social response. The government has decided on various measures based on the ÖAW Corona study, for example strengthening crisis communication, making health professions more attractive, or better using health data and accessing it for research. But this political reaction also falls short of what one would hope for in terms of response.
Unfortunately, society’s response to the pandemic has been very limited.
AVOID POLARIZATION
The Corona pandemic has led to a polarization of society in Austria. What are the most important lessons for dealing with future crises?
Bogner: For me, there are three key lessons. First, we must understand crises as problems affecting society as a whole. During the pandemic, however, a virological-epidemiological perception of the problem dominated for a long time. This made things very difficult for education policy, for example. Second, we must avoid polarization. A key driver of polarization during the pandemic was the enforcement of a sharp moral tone. The “unvaccinated” almost seemed like an inferior type of people. That is why science should always warn against moralization. Third, clear boundaries between the media, science and politics are absolutely essential. Science should not try to slip into the role of politics; it should not allow itself to be instrumentalized either. The same applies to the media. Distance is important.
Clear boundaries between media, science and politics are absolutely necessary.
What lasting social changes has the pandemic left behind in Austria?
Bogner: That would be a nice question for a social science study. Unfortunately, this is still missing, although we actually have interesting data for such an analysis. As part of the Corona investigation, there was a large citizen participation process. Around 320 people from all federal states met for a day in the fall of 2023 for small group discussions in their state capital. In these discussions, the loss of trust was repeatedly addressed – due to a lack of tolerance towards those who think differently in everyday life or due to the close ties between the media, politics and science. But this mountain of data that these interesting discussions have produced would also have to be systematically processed first.
